5.+My+Report

= My Report =


 * The Question:** **The use of digital data covered by Copyright in a multimedia production reflects a lack of creativity and is against the law in all circumstances. Discuss**.

=
Digital data used in multimedia productions can be incorporated in many ways. Whether or not it is ethical to do so is a matter of how much copyrighted work is being used and what it is being used for. The concept 'creativity' may vary from person to person, but when we perceive something as 'creative' do we take into account any copyright infringements? Or should creativity be a matter of free expression regardless of any breach of law?======

=
When a person uses a copyrighted work with or without the copyright owner’s permission to be included in a multimedia production as a reproduction, there are many factors to take into consideration before we observe the question and provide an answer.======

=
In regards to breach of law, the reproducer of the digital data may want to use the creator’s work as part of collaboration, but may only decide to use a snippet. The data they use may be mixed in with their own intellectual property to create something entirely different, or it may be used as an exact copy. An exact reproduction is a copyright infringement. Only if they had the permission of the copyright owner (which may not always be the creator) then it is not a breach of law. If they have used 10% of the original work in collaboration, technically it still is not a breach of law. Depending on which 10% of the work is used may change the fate of the verdict; that 10% may be a trademark or signature piece of the creator and may arouse conflict. For example; when music artists create a song and 10% of the melody of the song is used in a remix, then it may not be a copyright infringement, however, if 10% of song is used as exact phrases, then this may be illegal as copyright protects phrases and expressions (Commonwealth of Australia, 2005). Using copyrighted work in the appropriate way with or without the copyright holders permission is called 'fair dealing'.======

=
In regards to creativity, the creator has certainly incorporated some level of creativity, as it is their work. An exact reproduction of their work in my opinion does reflect a lack of creativity, as they have not altered the original piece. If however the reproducer has gone against the law but has created a relatively decent piece of work, then I believe they are still classified as ‘creative’ as the original creator had not thought of the same idea. I believe that copyright has no affiliation with declaring something creative or not. For example; if two music artists work together by mixing their works, such as Lady Gaga and Beyonce, or The Beatles and Michael Jackson, then they are being creative and still working within the law. If a person works outside the law but produces the same quality music, then it should still be considered a creative work, as this collaboration then becomes their intellectual property.======

=
When creators put in unimaginable amounts of effort to create a piece of digital data as part of their career, they are entitled to the right to control who has access to their work and may charge a fee to do this. Depending on their contract, in most cases they also own the revenue from distribution of their intellectual property (Commonwealth of Australia, 2005).======

=
When digital data is copied and redistributed, a number of different issues may arise such as who receives the profit that the data brings in? When producers of digital data work together they are both entitled to any revenue. Between the two of them, they may agree that whoever puts in the most effort gets a higher percentage of profit, or both may receive 50%. For example; when two actors star in a movie, they are both legally entitled to any profit the film makes. One actor may play a more significant role than the other, but does this mean they get more money?======

=
Or do both actors get the same for being part of the same film? The same applies for music and other digital data. In my opinion, a person who reproduces an exact copy of a copyrighted work doesn’t deserve any profit because they have not earned the right to any money. In rare cases, they may have the permission of the copyright owner to use their work and profit from it, as this can work as advertisement for their work. If however a person creatively combines material illegally, should they receive all of the profit, half, or a small percentage? Is it fair to the original producer that their reproduced work has more monetary value then their original? Should they be entitled to any profit even though it was the intellectual property of another individual that has more economic value?====== Generally in court, the establishment of the copyright owner of digital data or any piece of work helps to settle disputes over profit. Below is video on issues with the rightful owners of the revenue of non copyrighted works, and how copyright ownership plays a major role in these problems.

=
I think that the question I am being asked is a broad one, and may not necessarily have a right or wrong answer. In regards to breach of law, I believe that an exact reproduction of a copyright protected work without the permission of the copyright owner and is more than 10% of the work not only reflects a lack of creativity, but is a breach of law in all circumstances, especially if it is earning them illegal income. They have not altered the work in any way, they do not have authorisation to include it in a multimedia production, and they certainly don’t have the right to receive profit. If they have sought the permission of the creator, then it is not a breach of law, but is still reflects a lack of creativity. If a person reproduces an original work with the permission of the copyright owner and is under 10% of the original piece, then it is not a breach of law and may be deemed creative. I believe that they should still be entitled to profit from their reproduction, as copyright does not allocate the income of a creation. If a person illegally reproduces an original work, but as produced decent material, it is copyright infringement, but they may still be classified as creative, and whether or not they should be allowed to benefit from it may be settled with the original creator and the court.======

=
All in all, I believe that any recreation of an original piece in a multimedia production can still be called creative, but may or may not be a copyright infringement. However any recreation of an original work in a multimedia production that is unaltered may or may not be legal, but will always prove to be unoriginal.======