CopyLaw.com has an article on New Rules for Using Pubic Domain Materials, written by Attorney Lloyd J. Jassin. Copyright laws, and public domain usage is confusing and ever changing.

Public Domain are works that are free to use. Nasa has a website where you can use their photographs of stars, planets, nebulas, and the sort. Judicial opinions, legislative enactments, official documents, and so on, are free to use. It is difficult to tell what is in the public domain without doing extensive research. Any work created before 1922 is in the public domain. Anything created in 1923 or after will not be in the public domain until 2019. There are however several works that were released into public domain because the creator of the work did not seek to renew their copyright license, or in certain years, did not place the copyright symbol in the exact spot that it was required too. 

Copy right laws have changed over the years, but the one change that is currently in place is works created on or after January 1, 1978. This copyright law covers the work for the life of the author, plus 70 years. If there are one or more creators, the copyright will last 70 years beyond the last creator’s death.

With that said, with technology came a new enlightenment for the public domain content. There are now apps to download onto a smartphone so anyone can download a book that is in the public domain, there are thousands of old classic books for free usage. There are numerous paintings that the likeness can be played with because of it’s creation date being before 1923. 

TV’s with HDMI cables can block you from copying movies and selling them on the corner, or the internet. I understand BlueRay movies are not copy-able either. Film production company’s enjoy that feature. Some BlueRay movies will offer a free digital copy to download onto a computer, iPad, or smartphone, once you have purchased the movie and open the box.

Finally, I do not know if the copyright laws are sufficiently up-to-date, but I can say it is awfully confusing. I would think there must be a better way to protect the copyright holder’s works, without confusing the public on whether they can use a creation or not.

The New York Times ran an article in February of this year, titled, Gauging the Power of the Print, an art review written by Ken Johnson. He reviews an art show called “Print/Out” at the Museum of Modern Art. He did not like this show, and called it overbearing, and felt as though he was being yelled at by the art work. He continues to say the show presents printed works by 40 artists and artist groups, prints from the past 20 years. He states the majority of works involve technology and public modes of address borrowed from the worlds of advertising and design, and they express critical suspicion of mainstream media, culture and society. He states this show is a mix of Pop and propaganda. Johnson clarifies by saying, Daniel Joseph Martinez, used declaiming thoughts like “Probes your head like a prolonged accusation” in one particular piece. He adds, “which is apt under the circumstances.” He also highlights an artist by the name of Damien Hirst, who’s art represented an “evil confluence of food and pharmaceutical industries.” Another piece of work, “by the Slavs and Tatars collective proclaiming: What’s the plan, Uzbekistan? I’m your man Azerbaijan!” Johnson’s critique covered the words, “hideously louche posters”, and “mixed-up”, and “corrosive.” He states there was an artist who took the propaganda theme to another level; the artist, Aleksandra Mir, used 100 mundane tourist postcards, superimposed cheerful lettering advertising Venice over them, and distributed a million of them at a 2009 Venice Biennale. Johnson concludes this article by saying an artist by the name of Felix Gonzalez Torres will be highlighted on billboards around the city as part of the show, using a photograph of an unmade bed with two recently slept-on pillows, he says is a “visual elegy about love and  death.” He adds, "Whether the masses will grasp it's import, is hard to say."

I enjoyed reading Johnson’s critique on this show. He was very opinionated, and did not like the show at all. He compared it to another show, “Printin”, which he liked. He suggests this show copied the other. He makes it clear, he does not like the Pop and propaganda. All propaganda is, is the deliberate spreading of information or rumors. And by Johnson’s article, this show did that. It was unfortunate that he did not like it. I think he supported his opinion with many examples as to why he didn’t. However, I do think, that the show made him think a little harder.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/arts/design/print-out-and-printin-at-the-museum-of-modern-art.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=propaganda>

An article written by Rheana Muray, for the NYDailyNews.com, and dated January 16, 2012, discusses a lengthy list of banned books in an Arizona school district. She states the school district is made up of mostly Mexican-Americans. The school district has slashed its ethnic studies program, and adds, “now the books are going too.”

Muray states that the Tucson Unified School District released a lengthy list that removes every book dealing with Mexican-American history, and even Shakespeare. She reports the school district’s intention is to change the school’s curriculum to avoid, “biased, political and emotionally charged” teaching. Adding, the teachers were urged to stay away from any books where “race, ethnicity and oppression are central themes.”

The article continues to say that schools will face multimillion-dollar fines if they do not comply with the ban. Muray implies that this ban has caused a backlash, citing opinions of bloggists’, text book writers, and university professors.

She states the opinion of Bill Bigelow, a text book author and editor of Rethinking Schools magazine, who says, “The only other time a book of mine was banned was in 1968, when the apartheid government in South Africa banned ‘Strangers in Their Own Country,’ a curriculum I’d written that included a speech by then-imprisoned Nelson Mandela.” He continued to report, “We know what the South African regime was afraid of.  What is the Tucson school district afraid of?”

This article was rich on the subject of banning ethnic studies and the text books that went with them. Muray gave excellent, professional opinions, and statistics, on why the ethnic studies and the corresponding text books should remain. It gave pertinent information to question why the Tucson School District would do such a thing, given the fact that more than 60% of the students in the district were of Mexican-American descent. The author answered the question she raised by noting the state superintendent John Huppenthal pushed for the changes, and the ban. The only other question it did not answer is why the superintendent pushed for those changes. In my opinion, that is where the next story should focus.


http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-01-16/news/30633590_1_book-ban-mexican-american-studies-ethnic-studies