Copyright From a Computer Perspective :: Copyright Art Protection Papers

Copyright From a Computer Perspective Copyright, is one of nine Muses that inspires authors in modern society during the creative process. Copyright is a category of intellectual property, and the main idea behind intellectual property is to encourage creation, by ensuring authors with recognition of original works as their own. Copyright protects original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression by giving authors exclusive right to copy, distribute, and to create derivative works. Copyright and art usually go hand to hand, almost anything that we can be copyrighted can be fit into an art category. For example, songs and novel figure into the art of writing, dances can be classified under performing arts, and paintings and sculptures are art works. So, how does software fit into copyright? Or does it fit at all? Software are computer programs, and society does not think of computer programs as art, or creative. So what does the law say about copyright and software? In addition to copyright rights specified, by statutes and constitution, common-law is also a source of copyright protection. Common-law is the body of law derived from judicial decisions and opinions1. So what does common-law copyright say about software? In order to answer these questions we are going to divide software into smaller elements and discuss how each of them is protected by copyright. For the purpose of this analysis, software will be divided into software, code and algorithms. Software refers to the product itself, code refers to the computer instructions, or program the software was created from, and algorithms refer to the algorithms used in the program. The process will address issues such as where copyright comes from, what the law is, some of the most important cases dealing with these laws, as well as th e issues surrounding them and the courts' decisions. Finally from this analysis, we will be able to derive to what extent does copyright actually protects software. The states where the first to provide copyright laws, until in 1790 the first Copyright Act became law. "An author may gain sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending a map, chart, book, or books for fourteen years, ..." Wheaton V. Peters, involving two reporters of the Supreme Court, was the first landmark decision in 18342.

Fame in Cinema and Television Essay

The â€Å"star phenomenon† began in theatrical advertising of certain actors’ names in the 1820s. It was not immediately transferred to Hollywood, nor to the many other film industries developing in parallel across the glove. Hollywood studios at first, from about 1909 to 1914, ignored â€Å"stars† – actors in whose offscreen lifestyle and personalities audiences demonstrated a particular interest. This was partly because of the costs involved in â€Å"manufacturing stardom† on a scale which the studies could translate into measureable box-office revenue, and for fear of the power which stars might then wield. Stars need all kinds of resources lavished on their construction such as privileged access to screen and narrative space, to lighting, to the care of costumers, make-up workers, voice coaches, personal trainers, etc. , as well as to audience interest through previews, supply of publicity materials, etc. Skillful casting is also important, though rarely discussed in work on stars, perhaps because it is seen to detract from the star’s own intentions in a performance. Key career decisions involve a star’s choice of casting agency or the choices made by a particular film’s casting director. Once established, the star system worked lucratively for the studios. Stars were used as part of the studio’s â€Å"branding† or promise of certain kinds of narrative and production values. They were useful in â€Å"differentiating† studios’ films. Stars were literally part of the studio’s capital, like plant and equipment, and could be traded as such. James Stewart, making an interesting comparison with sports celebrities, said once â€Å"Your studio could trade you around like ball player like when I was traded once to Universal for the use of their back lot for three weeks. † Stars’ large salaries, said to be due to nebulous qualities such as â€Å"talent† or â€Å"charisma†, worked to negate the powers of acting unions, who might otherwise have been able to calculate acting labor and ask for more equal distribution of profits (Branston and Stafford 2003). And stars have always functioned as a key part of Hollywood’s relationship to broader capitalist structures. In the 1930s, for example, over-production of manufactured goods had reached crisis point in North America, and the large banks funding Hollywood sought its help in shifting goods from warehouses to consumers. In addition to this, the celebrity is part of the public sphere, essentially an actor or, to use Robert Altman’s 1992 film characterization of Hollywood denizens, a â€Å"player. † In the contemporary public sphere, divisions exist between different types of players: politicians are made to seem distinctly different from entertainment figures; businesspeople are distinguished from sports stars. And yet in the mediated representation of this panoply of players, they begin to blend together. Film stars like Arnold Schwarzenegger share the stage with politicians like George Bush; Gorbachev appears in a film by Wenders; Michael Jackson hangs out on the White House lawn with Ronald Reagan; Nelson Mandela fills an entire issue of Vogue. The celebrity is a category that identifies these slippages in identification and differentiation. Leadership, a concept that is often used to provide a definitional distance from vulgarity of celebrity status, provides the last discursive location for understanding the public individual. The argument I want to advance here is that in contemporary culture, there is a convergence in the source of power between the political leader and other forms of celebrity. Both are forms of subjectivity that are sanctioned by the culture and enter the symbolic realm of providing meaning and significance for the culture. The categorical distinction of forms of power is dissolving in favor of a unified system of celebrity status, in which the sanctioning of power is based on similar emotive and irrational, yet culturally deeply embedded, sentiments (Marshall 1997). Of course, depending on the type of media where actors and actresses appear, their power and charisma varies. In addition to this, depending on the type of media used, individual’s star quality or qualities of being a celebrity varies. On television, an individual can become a star without ceasing to be his or her anonymous self, because the medium celebrates innocuous, domestic normality. Once on the â€Å"The Tonight Show† Jack Paar maddened the studio audience by attentively quizzing one of its number and ignoring Cary Grant, who’d been planted in the adjoining seats. As well as a practical joke, this was a boast of television’s license to bestow celebrity on those it promiscuously or fortuitously favors. But the medium can just as easily rescind that celebrity. Obsolescence is built into the television star, as it is into the sets themselves: hence those mournful commercials for American Express in which the celebrities of yesteryear- the man who lent his croaky voice to Bugs Bunny or a candidate for the Vice-Presidency in 1964- laud the company’s card, which restores to them an identity and a televisibility they’d forfeited. The game show contestants experience this brief tenure of television celebrity- Warhol’s fifteen minutes- at its most accelerated. But in order to quality for it, they have to surrender themselves to the medium. Their only way of winning games is to abase themselves, feigning hysteria on â€Å"The Price is Right,† exchanging sordid confidences on â€Å"The Newlywed Game,† incompetently acting out inane charades on Bruce Forsyth’s â€Å"Generation Game. † The cruelest of the games is â€Å"The Gong Show,† where one’s span of celebrity may not even extend to fifteen seconds. More or less, untalented contestants sing, dance, juggle or fiddle until the inevitable gong sends them back to nonentity. For some, the gong supervenes immediately. They’ve been warned this will happen, and coached to disappear with dignity, but are expected to go through with their act all the same and suffer their condemnation. Even a few seconds of television fame is worth the price of one’s self-esteem. The show pretends to be a talent quest, but is a smirking parody of that. The hosts on the game shows are, for similar reasons, parodies of geniality. A host soothes his guests and smoothes obstacles out of their way. But in homage to Groucho, the comperes subject their victims to a ritual humiliation, and their patter keeps the game-players throughout flinching and ill-at-ease (Conrad 1982). Television is good but may not be ideal for preserving important works. On the other hand, a good film can be shown anywhere in the world where there is an audience. Furthermore, the cinema will turn actors and actresses into stars. There are many well-known television actors and actresses, but they have no international fame like their big-screen counterparts. Films together with film magazines contribute directly to the formation of a star system and its attendant mythology. The stars perceived themselves to be, and were in turn also used as, icons for a modern lifestyle, especially fashion (Zhang 2005). They are given greater chances to achieve or receive international awards and become known not only in a particular state but to the whole world, unlike in the case of television stars. Those famous actors who appeared on television ten years ago have now vanished due either to lot or disintegrated videotape or a lack of interest by the contemporary audience. In Africa, there was a necessity to build more cinema theaters, instead of enforcing further use of television, because it was helping them to maintain a viable film industry. In Iran, they have more than 150 cinema houses. Their industry if progressing because they have a loyal audience who make it possible to recuperate money invested in production, which in turn is invested in the making of new films (Ukadike 2002). As a whole, it can be said that fame in cinema is more lasting than fame in television. In addition to this, the stars or celebrities appearing on cinemas rather than on televisions are the ones who are more favored by producers and stockholders. Moreover, they are preferred than the television stars to be used in magazines, especially if it is an international magazine. As such, the lifestyle of actors and actresses in cinemas are greater than those who only appear in television shows. The cinema industry as well as its actors and actresses are greatly favored and nowadays, more specifically preferred by a good number of the countries. Bibliography BRANSTON, GILL and STAFFORD, ROY, The Media Student’s Book (USA: Routledge, 2003). CONRAD, PETER, Television (USA: Routledge, 1983). MARSHALL, P. DAVID, Celebrity and Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture (Minneapolis: Regents of the University of Minnesota, 1997). UKADIKE, NWACHUKWU FRANK, Questioning African Cinema (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002). ZHANG, ZHEN, An Amorous History of the Silver Screen (London: University of Chicago Press, 2005).

The Life of Powhatan Indian Pocahontas

The Life of Powhatan Indian Pocahontas Birth: c.1594, Virginia Region Death: March 21, 1617, Gravesend, England Names: Pocahontas was a nickname meaning playful or naughty one. Here real name was MatoakaAfter her conversion to Christianity and baptism, Pocahontas was given the name Rebecca and became Lady Rebecca when she married John Rolfe. Pocohontas and John Smith: When Pocahontas was approximately 13 years old in 1607, she met John Smith of Jamestown, Virginia. They met in her fathers village which was called Werowocomoco on the north shore of what is now the York River. A tale often associated with Smith and Pocahontas is that she saved him from death by appealing to her father. However, this cannot be proven. In fact, the incident was not recorded until Pocahontas was traveling in London many years later. However, she did help the starving inhabitants of Jamestown during the winter of 1607-1608. First Marriage: Pocahontas was married between 1609 and 1612 to a Powhatan named Kocoum. It is believed that she might have had a baby girl who later died from this marriage. However, little more is known about this relationship. The Capture of Pocahontas: In 1612, the Powhatan Indians and the English settlers were becoming more hostile with each other. Eight Englishmen had been captured. In retaliation, Captain Samuel Argall captured Pocahontas. It was during this time that Pocahontas met and married John Rolfe who is credited with planting and selling the first tobacco crop in America. Lady Rebecca Rolfe: It is not known whether Pocahontas actually fell in love with Rolfe before they married. Some conjecture that their marriage was one condition of her release from captivity. Pocahontas converted to Christianity and was baptized Rebecca. She then married Rolfe on April 5, 1614. Powhatan gave his consent and presented Rolfe with a large piece of land. This marriage brought peace between the Powhatans and English until Chief Powhatans death in 1618. Thomas Rolfe Born: Pocahontas gave birth to Thomas Rolfe on January 30, 1615. Soon after, she along with her family and her sister Matchanna and her husband traveled to London. She was well received by the English. While in England she met back up with John Smith. Illness and Death: Rolfe and Pocahontas had decided to return to America in March 1616. However, Pocahontas got sick and soon thereafter died on March 21, 1616. She was only 22 years old. There is not real evidence to the cause of her death. She died in Gravesend, England, but the site of her death was destroyed years later when the church where she was buried was being rebuilt. Her son, Thomas, remained in England even though John Rolfe did return to America after her death. Many claim to be descendants of Pocahontas through Thomas including Nancy Reagan, Edith Wilson, and Thomas Jefferson Randolph, grandson to Thomas Jefferson. References: Ciment, James. Colonial America. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2006.