Media Tracking

1.Which one form of media did you use the most? How much time did you use it?

The form of media that I used the most was definitely on my iPhone. I have my cell phone connected to me at the hip, just like most college students. In fact, most of the time I am on my phone, there is no talking involved. I constantly check my email, send text messages to my friends and family, and play the occasional game. While I use my phone as a media source for mostly everything, I would have to say that I go on the internet primarily. In a two day period, I would have to say that I was on the internet for at least twenty hours. As previously stated, I am constantly on my iPhone, thus it is hard to approximate exactly how many hours I spent on the internet.

2.Which one form of media did you use the least (but still use)? How much time did you use it?

Over a forty-eight hour period, I did not watch television nearly as much as I expected. Every night, however, I do set time aside to watch Jeopardy. In two days, I had only watched one hour of television, two episodes of Jeopardy.

3.How much time was spent communicating with another person over media (phone, e-mail, etc.)?

As I previously admitted, I spend a great deal of time on my cell phone. What I have recorded as communication over the phone is probably not even a good estimate of how much I actually use it. According to my log, I spent about six hours in two days, texting, emailing, and talking on the phone. (Yes, I still do like talking on the phone. My dad called me a few times to tell me about my little brother’s audition for a Robert Downey Jr. movie. This information is better sent by voice rather than through text message.) Whether in work, on my phone or on my computer, I consistently check my email and receive much of my information through email. Six hours is definitely an underestimate of how much time I spend emailing, texting and talking on my phone. It has become so second nature to just pick up my cell phone that it is completely slips through the cracks. I do not even realize I am on my phone sometimes.

4.How much time was spent using media that was monologic (one-sided, such as TV or radio)?

As I previously remarked, during this time period at least, I had not watched that much television aside from Jeopardy. I did, however, listen to a great deal of music, whether on my iPhone or on the computer. Every morning I put my headphones on as I walk to class or work; I am actually listening to music as we speak. If PowerPoint counts as a form of media, I had also listened to various presentations throughout these two days. Although we could ask questions at the end of each presentation, I feel that PowerPoint presentations are primarily monologic; without the presenter, it can serve somewhat like a television program.

5.What surprised you about the amount of time you spent engaged in the use of media? Why?

I actually was not very surprised at the amount of time spent engaging in the use of media. I know that I have my cell phone basically attached at the hip. I guess I was a little surprised that I did not watch as much television as I had expected. As I previously noted as well, I was also a bit surprised that I had only used communication media for about six hours in two days. I feel that through involuntary use of my phone I had not recorded all the uses of my cell phone.

6.Based on this exercise, will you do anything differently (increase or decrease) in using media? Why?

Based on this exercise, I feel that I would want to change my media consumption but that I would not actually change my habits. I have gotten myself into this routine of using my phone as an alarm, waking up with its music, and walking to work with my headphones, listening to music and checking text messages along the way. I feel that this routine has fixed me into this daily pattern that will be hard to adjust.

7.If the answer to question 6 was no, why will you maintain the current amount of time you spend using media?

I want to start to lose my somewhat dependency on my cell phone, but as previously stated, habits are hard to quit. For instance, while there are so many clocks around the campus (especially the large one at the library) to inform me of the time, I still constantly check the time on my iPhone. It is not that I want to stop using my phone altogether; I just need to get some willpower to put the phone down sometimes.

3D Movie Audience

3D Movie Audience

1. 3D Movie Audience

2. JR Eyerman

3. February 1953

4. The Paramount Theater, New York City

5. This photograph captures an audience at the premiere of the first feature-length 3D film.

6. The specific camera is unknown at this point, but much of Eyerman’s work was with a man by the name of Otis Barton, involving the development of a camera suitable for photographing depth.

Creative Commons

The Creative Commons site offers artists to protect their ideas in several ways. This site offers free copyright licenses to those wishing to publicly share their works without the risk of someone else benefitting commercially from their idea. Furthermore, the concept of copyright is slightly altered than the popular notion; instead of the traditional “all rights reserved,” an artist may choose to only have “some rights reserved,” applying only those best suited to their needs.[1]  Ownership, in this case as well, has transformed into a notion of idea rather than actual object. Just as stated in Practices of Looking (2009), Sturken and Cartwright use the example of a painting. The ownership of the painting belongs to the artist. If she decided to sell her painting, the ownership transfers to the new owner but only in the sense of the physical object; however, the right to reproduce the object remains with the artist.[2]  

This project allows for the subjects of works to be easily shared and reproducible to a certain extent. To my understanding, the subjects of the works can be manipulated and altered in a way that creates a new piece of art. The original artist retains her initial idea. Furthermore, the site allows users to use these subjects without the risk of copyright infringement. Creative Commons provides a forum for authors and artists to freely publish and share their works, thus creating a balance between lawful distribution and copyright laws.

In the case of Gone with the Wind, the estate of Margaret Mitchell wanted to retain their copyright on the material to prevent it from falling into public domain. Cleverly, the owners of the estate sought authors to write sequels of the novel, copyrighting the characters. Since these writers were hired by the original estate, the “ideas” or the characters still belonged to the estate. Thus, by default, the same characters in the original novel were protected as well. In this case, had the estate chosen a Creative Commons license allowing for commercial reproduction, the ideas could have disseminated more quickly. For instance, other artists or authors could adapt the work, creating more opportunities for the original author’s creative idea to continue beyond the initial story. One could argue that the estate did not want to tarnish the “classic” reputation of the novel.

According to the site, Creative Commons does not seem to support the publicity or privacy rights of people. In the case of Bela Lugosi, his portrayal of Count Dracula caused much anguish for his family. Universal Film Studios contracted with Lugosi to photograph, reproduce and sell pictures of him in various poses. However, once Lugosi died, Universal continued to reproduce and profit from these photos. Although no one “owned” the Count Dracula character, Lugosi’s family found this continued reproduction unlawful. They lost this case, however, due to the fact that Lugosi had not “[converted] his personal image into a property right.[3]” His family could not do so retroactively. Having stated his case, I do not believe that Creative Commons could have helped the Lugosi case. Their private policy states “In no way are the patent or trademark rights of any person affected by CC0, nor are the rights that other persons may have in the work or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.[4]” This project makes a very clear distinction between copyrights on ideas and publicity and privacy rights of people.

[2] Practices of Looking (2009)

[3] Practices of Looking (2009)