REMIX + COPYRIGHT + PLAGIARISM -> (RE)REMIX
 Explanation of the Work
Originally, this piece was produced in Nicole Ferentzâs Visual Communication I course during the spring of 2010. The purpose of the assignment was to teach students to the Adobe InDesign program as well as recognize and pair many different artistic, photographic elements. Students were instructed to select a single photographer and create a book of the artistâs photographs that demonstrated the studentâs understanding of various design principles. The constraints of the assignment did not the focus on issues of authorship, copyright, reproduction, or other concerns associated with the act of remixing. Notably, it was not the aim of the assignment to conceptualize and apply these ideas. Yet, in the context of this course, this work serves as a strong illustration of remix and the issues associated with the practice of remixing.
To begin, the remixed work raises the issue of authorship. On the front cover, Leonard Freedâs name (the photographer) is featured prominently in the left corner. The body of the book is devoid of text. When the reader reaches the back cover, Â âK---- H---â (my name) is featured above the title of the remixed work, âPhotobookâ. Despite the fact that I had not been exposed to the ideas presented in this course, I can tell you that prior to submitting the design assignment, I contemplated, at great length, putting the word âbyâ before by name. After all, these photos were not my own but Freedâs. As discussed in lecture, by Jean Baudriillardâs standards, the photos are faithful copies. Individually, I have not manipulated with the work or experimented with a perversion of reality (Read-Only to Read-Write, 27 Jan 2011). Yet, there is something about the construction that works in a very different manner than other publications of Freedâs photos that I came across when searching for source material. Still, very intentionally, I opted to not use the word âbyâ. The absence of the word is to ensure that I do not suggest that I am taking possession of the photos. In turn, I placed by name above the title, to suggest that the narrative created throughout the photo book is my own.
Undeniably, this work challenges the idea that it is simply a narrative or photo book. It is both. Flipping through the pages, there is a linear story that is created from these photos that were originally taken at different places and points in time. Arranging them in this fashion gives the text a narrative function, one that was conceived in my own mind. As a result, when referring to this piece it is difficult to distinguish who is in fact the real author. It is as though the work begins with and is inspired by the initial author (Leonard Freed), whose name appears prominently on the cover, and ends on the back cover with an entirely different author â myself.
Lastly, it is important to recognize the medium. In the broadest sense of the work, it is a remix because it challenges the readerâs ideas about the appearance of a book. Most often, narrative texts are featured with a photograph or piece of art on the front cover and a blurb about the work (accompanied by a photo of the author) on the back. This arrangement challenges that understanding. To begin, the story, told through photographs, truly begins on the front cover and does not conclude until the back cover. The narrative is produced entirely without text or a repeated subject (or character). Additionally, most books present the title of the work on the front of the piece. It is not until the end of the work, on the outside cover, that it appears.
In truth, I cannot tell you exactly where these photographs came from. I do know that all but one was downloaded from the Internet. This is a prime illustration of how media (specifically the ability to mass produce print material by means of the printing press and digital material by means of computer and Internet) impacts copyright, which Lawrence Lessig explores at great length in his work (Remix and Free Culture). In most scenarios this would qualify as an infringement of copyright. Yet, in the contexts of the classroom and the remix culture (which in this case overlap), the lines are blurred (doubly).
Most importantly, it must be acknowledged that these considerations were never part of the original assignment. (I will argue later that in submitting this work for this course in fact changes the context and thus the nature of the remix.) Â Attribution cannot âproperlyâ be given to Freed for the photos or names the sources from which they were gathered. Again, this was not required in the original assignment. This raises multiple questions about the very nature of the exercise, or original remix. Is it acceptable to use anotherâs work in the interest of learning without proper attribution? Does the fact that it was reproduced in print change this consideration? Had it been reproduced digitally, would this have been a bigger issue?
The reason I have opted against publishing this remixed work digitally is largely due to legal concerns. Initially, I had considered posting this work on my blog but decided against it. Similar to the website that served as the source for many of these photos, I cannot ensure that the work will not later be taken and separated from this writing. Furthermore, had I chosen to publish it digitally (in the format of a PDF) and this occurred, my name is inextricably linked to the material that was reproduced without permission. Â Freed nor the publishers of his work have consented to this use. Rightfully, I may be able to argue that the purpose and character of the reproduction justifies this. Yet, it is a very grey area.
Challenging âPlagiarismâ
From the outset, it is clear that this work was not initially produced for this class. In the course policies it very clearly states that this submission classifies as plagiarism (Policies). The description of plagiarism warns,
âAvoid turning in work that could be interpreted as plagiarism or academically dishonest (e.g., failing to properly credit a source or using someone elseâs ideas without clarifying that they are not yours).Â
This is an academic community; being uninformed or naĂŻve is not an acceptable excuse for not properly referencing your sources.Â
turn in the same work for two classes;
turn in a paper you have not written yourself; or
copy from another student or use a âcheat sheetâ during an exam.â
Individually, each photograph is Freedâs original creation, a manifestation of his idea. Yet, the arrangement of his work, undoubtedly tells a story, a story that has been created, or âwrittenâ by myself. Furthermore, Freedâs name is integrated into the piece, thus undermining the argument that the reproduction of his work is plagiarism.
The real issue at hand is whether or not this double submission of my own work is plagiarism. Despite the fact that it was originally produced for a different course, the remixed work is not plagiarism because the act of plagiarizing my own work, ultimately supports the issues raised by remix and further remixes the work. Though am not changing the format, or media (e.g. mass printing the image of an oil painting), I am manipulating the context by challenging the original design assignment in course about remix culture. My ability to reframe the work, in an entirely different setting and deliver it to an entirely new audience represents an internalization of the course lectures and readings, which is arguably the true purpose of this assignment.
Doughterty, Meghan. Policies. Accessed 15 Mar 2011. Online. <http://cmun296.tumblr.com/#2639622815>
Doughtery. Meghan. Lecture. Read-Only to Read-Write. Loyola University Chicago. School of Communication 015. Â 27 Jan 2011.
Doughtery. Meghan. Copyright and Intellectual Property. Loyola University Chicago. Corboy Law Center 015. 25 Feb 2011.
Lawrence Lessig. Free Culture. 23 Feb 2011. Online.
<http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/>
Lawrence Lessig. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in a Hybrid Economy. (Digital Reproduction as viewed in iBooks)
Freed, Leonard. (Various photographs).
