Explanation of Topic: The topic I have chosen is Know Your Rights.

This topic focuses on subjects of intellectual property and the idea of ownership and rights in a digital world, such as copyrights, licenses and plagiarism, etc. Some of the research questions involve perspectives of ownership and the advantages and disadvantages of having a license and a copyright. Prioritize Research Questions Whats the difference between being inspired by something, borrowing something, copying something, using something and stealing? What does plagiarism look like? What is Copyright? What is Creative Commons? Why is it important to give credit to other peoples work when you have used it in your research or creating? What do the different licenses of Creative Commons mean? What are the instances in which it is legally and morally acceptable to copy and use someone elses work? In the real world, when something is stolen, a physical item goes from one persons possession into another persons possession. When you copy an image online, the original creator still has their copy. Is this still considered theft? When a work/ media is created, excluding photographs, is created, who owns it? When a photograph is taken, who owns it?

Whats the difference between being inspired by something, borrowing something, copying something, using something and stealing? In my opinion, inspiration is okay, because the person is being mentally stimulated to do or feel something. This is not stealing, as it is not taking something belonging to another party or individual without acknowledging it. This is also not copying or borrowing because it is not an imitation or reproduction of something else, and it is not taking something from a party or individual with their permission and the promise to return the same or an equivalent. However, borrowing means to take or obtain with the promise to return the same or an equivalent. Copying means and imitation or reproduction of an original. Stealing means to take something, such as ideas and credit or property of a party or individual without permission and acknowledgement. In my opinion, these are all different. Inspiration is not taking anything from anyone, while copying can be good or bad because object can be allowed to be copied, and some are not, so there are legal and illegal copies. Borrowing is using something belonging to a group of party with their permission and acknowledgement and permission, with the promise to return the same thing

when the borrower is finished using the object borrowed. Stealing, however, is copying or taking without permission. As previously said, bad copies can also be stealing, because they are illegal as the original creator did not allow the creation to be copied. What does plagiarism look like? Plagiarism is stealing- copying ideas and/or words, creations etc. of a party or individual without acknowledging that it was created by the original creators, and passing it off as ones own. That is stealing, because the general meaning of stealing is to take the ideas or property of a party or individual without permission and acknowledgement. Examples of plagiarism include taking and copying an entire article or piece of writing, word for word, and passing it off as ones own. In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward. What is Copyright? Copyright is a form of protection given to the authors or creators of "original works of authorship," including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic and other intellectual works. That means that the author or creators alone have the right to do any of the following or to let others do any of the following: Make copies of the piece (s) of work; Distribute copies of the piece(s) of work; Perform the piece(s) of work publicly (such as for plays, film, dances or music); Display the pieces(s) of work publicly (such as for artwork, or stills from audiovisual works, or any material used on the Internet or television); and make derivative works (including making modifications, adaptations or other new uses of a work, or translating the work to another media) In some cases, the copyright belongs to the company that the artist or creator was working for. The artist or creator usually does have some rights, though. One of the advantages of licensing work to Copyright is that the Copyright rules and regulations are very strict, so if a party or individual commits plagiarism, it is a crime. Sometimes the creator of the work that was plagiarized receives compensation for that, such as money. What is Creative Commons? Creative Commons is a nonprofit organization that enables the sharing and use of creativity and knowledge through free legal tools. In other words, Creative Commons is a nonprofit organization that provides free licenses that work alongside copyrights for creators of media. It allows others to use part of the created works, not copy the entire thing. It helps change the copyright term from all rights reserved to some rights reserved. One of the disadvantages to Creative Commons is that the rules and regulations concerning the publishing of the works are not as strict as copyright, therefore others can edit the work and republish it again, as long as the

editor credits the original creator. This is a disadvantage as the viewers of the work usually only pay attention to the piece of work itself, not the credits. Why is it important to give credit to other peoples work when you have used it in your research or creating?

If you do not give credit to and acknowledge other parties or individuals when you have used their ideas and words etc., it is known as plagiarism, a form of theft and an act of fraud, as explained above. What do the different licenses of Creative Commons mean? Every Creative Commons license helps creators retain copyright while allowing others to copy, distribute, and make some uses of their work at least non-commercially. (See page below)

Creative Commons License Attribution

Explanation This license lets others distribute, edit, and build upon the creators work, even commercially, as long as they credit the creator for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. E.g. A photo is redistributed and edited, even being put on sale, but the original creator is credited. This license lets others remix, edit, and build upon the creators work even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit the creator and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to copyleft free and open source software licenses. All new works based on the creators will carry the same license, so any derivative will also allow commercial use. This is the license used by Wikipedia, and is recommended for materials that would benefit from incorporating content from Wikipedia and similarly licensed projects.

Attribution-ShareAlike

Attribution-NoDerivs

This license allows for redistribution, commercial and noncommercial, of a piece of media, as long as it is redistributed unchanged and in whole, with credit to the creator, e.g. A photograph that is redistributed without having a part of it be removed. This license lets others remix, edit, and build upon the creators work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge the creator and be noncommercial, they dont have to license their derivative works on the same terms. This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon the creators work non-commercially, as long as they credit the creator and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is the most restrictive of Creative Commonss six main licenses, only allowing others to download the creators works and share them with others as long as they credit the creator, but they cant change them in any way or use them commercially.

Attribution-NonCommercial

Attribution-NonCommercialShareAlike

Attribution-NonCommercialNoDerivs

What are the instances in which it is legally and morally acceptable to copy and use someone elses work? It is legally acceptable to copy and use another party or individuals creations as along as the creator(s) are properly acknowledged and credited. Examples of this are Wikipedia articles. At the bottom of the page, they always have a notes and/or reference section. When one uses anothers works, one must cite ones sources. However, this is not allowed is the work is copyrighted as all rights reserved.

In the real world, when something is stolen, a physical item goes from one persons possession into another persons possession. When you copy an image online, the original creator still has their copy. Is this still considered theft? It depends on the copyrights and licenses of the image and also what the copier does with the image. If the copyright and/or license of the image is some rights reserved or something similar, you can use some of the work, but you have to acknowledge and credit the original creator. If the copier doesnt do that, that is theft, as the image does not belong to the copiers so that is to take the property or ideas of another without permission and rights. Also, if the image is all rights reserved, it means the images is not for use, only for viewing, so no one can copy that image. If the all rights reserved image is copied, that action also fits the definition of stealing.

When a work/ media is created, excluding photographs, is created, who owns it? It depends on how the song is created. If a single person created it, the creator owns all the rights. However, there must be an organization to distribute the song, so that organization can also own some of the rights. If the song is created while the artist is under contract for a company, the artist might have to relinquish certain rights as part of that agreement, so the artist partly owns it and the company partly owns it, or the company could totally own it. However, when the song or studio is sold, the buyer or the original creator can own the rights. Like the ownership of a song, the artist automatically owns the rights when a piece of art is created. However, if the artist is creating a work-for-hire or is working under a contract for a company, the company can also own the rights. When the art is sold, same as the song, the ownership could belong to the buyer or the original creator. When a photograph is taken, who owns it? When a photograph is taken, the photographer automatically owns all the rights to the photograph, though the individual or the party that had their photograph taken

can own some rights if the picture is going to be sold or made public. If an agreement or contract is not made before the photograph is taken, the party or individual that had their photograph taken of can take the photographer to court for damages or part of the money made off the selling of the image. If you the photographer is going to sell the photographs or use them for advertising the photographer will need to have some kind of contract with the individual or party that the photograph was taken of. If the family (ies) of the individual or the party that had their photograph taken and the photographer wish to sell the images they would need to sort out the particulars such as the rights to the photograph after it is sold, who can do what with it, etc. However, if the photographer who took the photo was working for a company, party or individual, the company, party, or individual who requested the photographs (who the photographer is working for), may own all the rights to the photograph, though in some cases the photographer can own some (usually the photographer is credited). If the photographer is not credited, it is sometimes okay, as the photographer is working for that company, party, or individual. Other times the photographer can take the company, party, or individual the photographer was working for to court. Child photography is particularly protected, as the child usually has no power over the usage of the photo, as children do not know the workings of a court or laws. Child photographs are usually taken and/or uploaded against the will of the child. The children are usually too young to take action against the photographer, but the parents or legal guardians of the child can sometime do so. In some cases, the parents or legal guardians cannot take any action, as they were not in the photograph. Usually the parents or legal guardians are allowed to take action because they represent the child until the child is 18 years old in most countries.

Bibliography: http://plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/what-is-plagiarism http://dictionary.reference.com/ http://www.copyrightkids.org/cbasicsframes.htm http://creativecommons.org/about http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ http://www.wisegeek.com/who-owns-the-rights-to-a-song.htm