One of my classes, Writing for Publication, has caused me to become a lot more paranoid. We've read about all sorts of things that journalists have to avoid - invasion of privacy, revealing a source's name when we've promised not to, messing up certain details, lying. But the scariest thing was the most recent one I've learned about: copyright law.

These days, as soon as you create something, whether it be a photo or story or some revolutionary discovery, it's pretty much automatically copyrighted to you, the creator. And so that means just about everything out there belongs to someone. When I put up something that isn't mine (in my case, it would probably be pictures), even if I say it wasn't mine, I could still get in trouble if I was ever brought to court for it. My teacher puts it like this: "I could steal your jacket and write on the tag that this jacket belongs to you, not me, but it's still stealing."

At first, it occurred to me as very odd, because then wouldn't that mean that there are a ton of people out there breaking the copyright law? They talk quite casually about downloading stuff on the Internet that wasn't supposed to be distributed on the Internet. And I've never really seen someone get in much trouble for taking something that isn't his/hers. I figure it must be because of just how hard it is to crack down on these things what with the Internet... It'd be nearly impossible to catch and punish everyone, and I think it'd be unfair to target some individuals and let the rest of us get off free, except for in some rare instances where big trouble was caused. Though I do wonder if someday there'd actually be a huge police force just for the Internet.

Anyways, I'd just been wondering if I ought to keep doing as I've done for quite a while now. I used to make graphics that had part of images drawn by other artists in them, and although I hadn't claimed to have made the original image, I hadn't asked for permission either... (In some cases it wouldn't have been possible to ask permission since some artists might've only been reachable on Pixiv or only spoke Japanese or had no contact information at all or I might not have even known who'd illustrated a particular picture. But still, maybe I could've taken more care in some instances to get permission to use works.) At the same time, it is a huge hassle to have to ask EVERY SINGLE PERSON EVERY SINGLE TIME when you want to just share a nice image that you saw. (I've also been wondering, wouldn't it be a good strategy for people who want their works to be known if they let people spread it around - as long as it says who made the original work? If it's too much hassle to use something, people might just lose interest and you would actually lose the opportunity for profit or at least recognition. But I don't know, it's probably more complicated than I think it is.)

I do realize I am babbling on and on, and I'd better stop (and go to bed, for that matter, so that I can actually get a decent night's sleep). I'd just like to ask...If everyone is doing it, does it make it okay? Or is it simply too late to stop an evil from spreading?

Labels: artist, copyright, creation, credit, crime, fame, internet, japan, journalism, pixiv, question, stealing, strategy, violation, writing

The Call of the Wild is a book by Jack London that features a dog called Buck. I can't remember clearly whether I've read the book or not, but I think I might have. It was mentioned in the book Nothing But the Truth by Avi.

I haven't read much of Nothing But the Truth yet. What I do know is that the main character is a boy named Philip Malloy who is not very interested in language arts, and is rather disdainful towards The Call of the Wild. Indeed, he wrote something rather interesting as an answer to a test question. Here's a part from the book.

Question four: What is the significance of Jack London's choice in making Buck, the dog in The Call of the Wild, the focus of his novel? Is the dog meant to be symbolic? Explain your answer. Can people learn from this portrayal of a dog? Expand on these ideas.

Philip's answer: The significance of Buck in Jack London's novel The Call of the Wild is that Buck is symbolic of a cat. You might think that cats have nothing to do with the book, but that is the point. Dogs are willing to sit around and have writers write about them, which, in my personal opinion, makes them dumb. I think cats are smart. Cats don't like cold. A book that takes up so much time about a dog is pretty dumb. The book itself is a dog. That is what people can learn from Jack London's novel The Call of the Wild.

Although I find his response to the question amusing, it does show that he wasn't so serious about the book, and his teacher didn't find it funny at all. If I were to become a teacher, I suppose I might end up having to deal with students like him. I wonder, how would I grade students, if I were a teacher? Would I grade them strictly by set standards, or would I give them points for making me laugh?

Well, speaking of "What if", my teacher asked us an interesting question today. Here is the scenario.

- You are stranded in the desert with a total stranger. (You have never met them, you know nothing about them.)
- You have only enough water to keep one person alive (never mind how long for).
Your choice: Do you drink the water and save yourself, give it to the stranger and save him/her, or do you share the water and BOTH of you die?

Perhaps a person's answer to this question reflects their own values and personality.

I said that I would give all the water to the stranger. I have already seen many beautiful things, for I have traveled far and wide - I was even able to see the city of Sydney, my namesake. And I have seen small but beautiful things in my own hometown. I have also gotten to make friends (even if many of them have moved away, and it is hard to keep in contact, I still have memories, and I will cherish them). I have been able to learn to play instruments and learn to read and write and learn to laugh. I have already made some of my dreams reality. I still have goals I have not achieved, but I have already had so much. And I believe it is more than some people will ever get. If I give them the chance to live, perhaps then they can go on to do those things, to have some happiness.

One of my classmates said, "Well, what if the stranger is a criminal? Then would you want to save them?" I may be flattering myself by saying this, but I think perhaps if I gave them the water, then he/she would be touched by noble sacrifice, and would want to be a better person. He/she could go on to make changes in the world. I want to be able to inspire someone. (Though dying isn't the most ideal way of doing so, it is still a way.) And I can die knowing that I saved someone's life, protected the miracle that is the beating of our hearts.

Labels: avi, book, cat, choice, death, dog, dreams, hypothetical, inspire, laugh, life, memories, nothing but the truth, opinion, question, sacrifice, scenario, teacher, the call of the wild, water

When I was on my school trip to Yosemite National Park, I spent quite a bit of time with a classmate from 7th grade. We had been friendly then, but not particularly close - we don't eat lunch together or have any of the same classes, so the most we really did during this school year was wave when we saw each other. However, on the Yosemite trip, I was in the same hiking group as her, and since that made her in the same rotation as me, I stuck with her whenever I could. (After all, I couldn't really stay with my cabinmates what with them being in a different rotation.)

Well, one day, she asked me a question out of the blue, which she had thought up spontaneously, "Do you know what the difference between a main friend and a best friend is?" It was one of the oddest questions I'd ever been asked. I'd never heard the term "main friend" before.

The girl considered main friends to be people who you spend time with on a regular basis - your usual group of friends - while she thought of best friends to be people who you were with practically all the time. She said that she hadn't really ever had a best friend. She asked another girl the same question that she'd asked me and got pretty much the same interpretation.

I, however, had a different opinion. I agreed with what "main friends" are, but I thought "best friends" were not necessarily the people always by your side. I thought best friends were people who you could really trust, who you really felt in tune with. People who you feel you can always be yourself around and they'll still like you for it. (Which begs the question: If you put on a mask when you're around your friends, are they really your friends at all?) The girl who asked me the question says she thinks that the two people who were my cabinmates were my best friends. Are they? I hold them in high esteem and I am with them every day (well, besides the weekend). In her definition of a best friend, they are my best friends. I would like to call them my best friends in my definition too, but I'm still considering which of the friends I have had are really, really best friends.

Anyhow, something interesting went on at school the other day. There were assemblies during the day because the son of one of the teachers was visiting California for a performance. He is part of a group of musicians called the 5th House Ensemble. There are a total of 10 musicians, but we only saw 3 of them since 7 were not available to come to our school. The teacher's son plays the piano, while the two other people who came played the cello and flute. They talked about how music is connected to imagery, and they played us some pieces. Then they asked us to pick the picture that we thought best suited the music out of four options.

The options were:
- A picture of nighttime and two people dancing
- A picture of a dog wearing a little costume
- A picture of a cafe at nighttime (it was a painting by Vincent Van Gogh)
- A picture of...Well...It was rather abstract.

Unfortunately, many students thought it would be funny to pick the picture of the dog, even though it really had little relation to the music (the music was dark and brooding and intense, and perhaps the fourth option would have suited it best). But I suppose the kids should have their fun while they're young and have more chances to.

The last piece played by the 5th House Ensemble was a song that is supposed to make you feel like you're underwater. (Sadly, I don't remember the name of the composer, though I believe the part of the music we heard was called The Sea Nocturne or something along those lines) Performers of this set of music put on black masks, shine blue light on themselves (today's performers just showed an animated image of the ocean), and use their instruments in odd ways. The cello can produce a sound that is somewhat like the sound seagulls make. Glass can be placed inside of a piano and a chisel can be used to hit it, but we didn't get to see the fancy stuff with the piano because it only works with a grand piano and the school only has a stand-up kind. I'd like to try it at home, but the piano player said it wasn't a good idea, and you'd have to do it a special way anyhow to avoid damaging your piano.

Their profession is great. They can do what they love and make money off it. While I was at Yosemite, the chaperone and hiking group leader encouraged us to follow our dreams, and not take on a job that we feel like we have to, such as for money's sake. And they said that if you can get a job that you love and that pays you a lot, then that's great. (But of course there's a lot of cases in which you can't have both.)

Labels: 5th house ensemble, best friend, career, dog, dreams, friends, friendship, imagery, instrument, job, main friend, money, music, ocean, people, picture, question, school, van gogh, yosemite

Top ↑