EMDTMS/MAC WK1 Reading: Copyright Issues, P1-3: Fair Use and De-evolution

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/
01292/shepard_fairey_1292215c.jpg

When I start a lesson on copyright issues (issues mind you, not law) I usually show a segment from CBS Sunday Morning, an outstanding issues/news program that, in my book, ranks at the top of useful news productions - right behind PBS Newshour.  It is the story of Shepard Fairey, a street artist, conscientious objector and, in the eyes of the law, criminal.  This due to the nature of his artistic display of "public art" by defacing public areas upon his own authority.  Fairey's method's land him in court frequently but it is his motivations that may deserve the most attention and, depending on your point of view, the most effort on the part of law enforcement.  His artwork, like Andy Warhol's before him, and hubdreds of other artists, draws from popular culture and the work of other artists and professionals.  Whether during his long running "Obey" campaign where he manipulated images of Andre The Giant or his much celebrated Obama Hope posters, much of Fairey's work is arguably original or theft.  Part of the reason I use this video is to generate a student led discussion of the acceptability of Fairey's methods.  There is a quote in the story that I will paraphrase: What Shepard Fairey does to create his art, regardless of the original inspiration or source, is uniquely Shepard Fairey.  This suggests that "fair use", a term that Fairey himself uses in the story, is based on the creative application of editing an original owned by another.  The results of an Associated Press (the corporate owner of the image used in the Obama Hope poster) lawsuit are irrelevant to my discussion starter, so I don't cover that and I'm not sure if I could cover it objectively.  Which brings me to my point.  We, as teachers, can read, verbatim, the copyright law.  And we, as teachers, can pretend to be as knowledgable as hundreds of university professors, lawyers and big picture think tanks and present our interpretation of the these laws as a black and white or gray (see this week's video prompts) situation.  To put a philosophical spin on this issue, I have to admit that I'm a little perplexed on how to adequately teach the issues that will keep media creators, federal (global?) prosecutors, corporations and end-users (can we call them consumers if they are not paying to license?) in courthouses around the world for years to come.  Where is the line in the sand and does there really need to be one?  Here is the quagmire.  Young people especially, with their native use and inextinguishable access to online content have already decided as a societal movement or a collective agreement that free access to copyrighted intellectual and entertainment property is necessary and desirable. While the majority of teachers (I'm guessing here) over the thirty years of Internet evolution taught a black and white version of copyright law, the young end-users have decided that black and white doesn't make a correct, enforceable argument for them not to try to get away with using copyrighted material in new creative ways.  In my opinion, teaching copyright law as black and white is like teaching that the earth is flat.  On the other hand, if I start saying, out-loud, that this concept is not always enforceable and that the rules fluctuate depending on jury and Supreme (US) Court decisions, aren't I teaching tomorrows young adults that they could and should challenge the system? Aren't I speeding the decline or dismantling of the copyright protection laws?