Essay 2

Convergence Culture
  

In todays world we are exposed to media whether we want it or not, it is the norm in our society to constantly be around televisions, cell phones and music players. Not only are we around media that was created for our consumption, but also we are creating our own. We mix, match, and mash different media forms together to make something new and exciting. With these new creations, often come legal disputes over Copyright because no one knows who owns the content.

Convergence culture is a term, which can be traced back to the origin of this new media form. It has just recently been brought to the attention of society because of its huge dominance in our lives. We see it from cell phones, to television ads, to music. Convergence culture is defined as mixing old media with new media and is a huge part of our society. No longer is it true that cell phones can only be used to talk; now they are cameras, mp3 players, and Internet devices. You also see convergence culture in television shows. A perfect example of this is SpongeBob SquarePants. What started out as a simple cartoon is now on video games, napkins, movies, the examples are limitless. Henry Jenkins stated “Convergence culture is shaped by media conglomerates to expand their empires across multiple platforms.” In other words, big companies like Disney want their product to be available in multiple ways to make a larger profit.

Up until this point I have only spoken on how big companies utilize convergent culture, but what is more important is how this new form of media affects the everyday person. With programs like Photoshop and Audacity available to anyone with a little cash and a computer it is no surprise the rate at which pictures and songs are being created. With a click of a mouse we can take two pictures off the Internet, mix them together, and create an entirely new image. Now that is great, but the question arises of who is the owner of that picture? Is it the photographer? And if so then which photographer, picture one or picture two? Or does the person who decided to mix them in the first place own it? These are the types of questions that are being brought to the table and the answers are extremely convoluted.

You may remember when Oklahoma City resident Kimberly Wilkins video went viral and the phrase “ain’t nobody got time for that” became a household slogan. Well, in 2012 she sued Apple for selling songs, which were based off of her famous lines in the video. She sued them for 15 million dollars but unfortunately, due to the Digital Millennium CopyrightAct, Apple will likely come out clean.  This act provides protection for companies if they remove material whose copyright is disputed in a timely matter. Since they removed the songs from iTunes immediately after the lawsuit, they will be protected under the Copyright Act. 

This lawsuit brings up the question of once a song, video, or picture gets changed into a new form of media, who owns it? In the case of Kimberly Wilkins does she truly have right to claim a song, which was derived from a news broadcast, as her own? She thinks the answer to this is yes. Although one may argue that true owner of this material is the news station itself. On the other hand it could be the property of ITunes, after all, they did remix it and make it into a song. It was their mind which created something Kimberly Wilkins may never of even imagined. In situations like this people want a straight answer as to who owns the material when in actuality that may never exist. With media changing more and more every day and the ways to create media changing as well, a common law is likely to never be defined. Henry Jenkins says, “Convergence does not mean ultimate stability or unity. It operates as a constant force for unification but is always in dynamic tension with change. There is no law of convergence; the process of change is more complicated than that.”

Lessig defines the Internet as the facilitator to the wide spread of media that is seen in the current day and age. He says the old Copyright laws were not made during a time when the wide spread of media was even possible. The laws were made to stop people from directly publishing others works, they said nothing about what was to be done if it was changed or content was added to it. Because of this, it makes it difficult to govern the spread of media today with laws that were not designed to handle it.  He states, “The distinction between republishing someone’s work is on one hand and building upon or transforming that work is on the other. Copyright law at its birth had only publishing as its concern” But today we not only publish, we transform and create. We add on to old works to make them into new ideas that never before have been created.

It is hard to make one blanket law to govern and protect all consumers as well as large media conglomerates. Copyright law will forever be changing and molding to fit the needs of everyone involved in the sharing, production, and reproduction of online content. In some cases, the little guys will prevail and in others, the larger companies will come out on top. It differs from situation to situation but one thing is constant, media sharing is forever transforming and so are the laws which govern it.

Works Cited

'Ain't Nobody Got Time For That' Viral-Video Star Does Have Time To Sue Apple. Business Insider. N.p. March 12, 2013. Web. December 3, 2013.

Jenkins, Henry. “Welcome to Convergence Culture.” Confessions of an Aca-Fan the Official Web Blog of Henry Jenkins. Blog. June 19, 2006. Web. December 2, 2013.

Jenkins, Henry. Worship at the Alter of Convergence: A New Paradigm For Understanding Media Change. New York: New York University Press, 2006. Print

Lessig, Lawerence. Free Culture: how big media uses technology and the law to   lock down culture and control creativity. New York: Penguin, 2004. PDF