所以稱以現有的版權法(both HK and USA and the WTO brand)是一種狹義的理解版權的方法。(某程度上狹義這個字用的不太好；應該說大家對版權的問題，根本是站在不同的出發點去看吧。)
舉個例，就是說現在的版權法，是容許迪士尼去控告一些用它的卡通人物或樂園外觀作封面的批評它的書(而它也實在曾這樣做)，我就會認為版權法不應賦予迪士尼這麼大的權力。
Cantong, what you said is still subject to many exceptions and defences provided in the Ordinance. Copyright is not an absolute right, just like freedom of speech is subject to certain limitations like defamation!
看過了sidekick的文章，他提到了：「從創意上，我還有一點很個人的意見（你說我是偏見也罷）：遊行海報及吉蒂海報在創意上很低，是一種很懶惰、很手到拿來的設計。Recreation都有分good taste, bad taste，上述二者都沒有太多創意可言，吉蒂那張簡直就是嘩眾取寵！如果，這就是創意，香港的創作界可以同聲一哭！」及「再問兩句：點解要咁做？（非要用某一個原創作品再創作不可？為何不自行創作？）做得好唔好？（那個recreation 的概念是甚麼？跟原作品的概念有何關係嗎？）」
1. Cantong，我想你留意一點，香港的版權法不單有名嚴，而且死板兼過時。請你想清楚一個法哲學的問題，if law is unjust, what can you do?如果你商業剽竊他人意念，當然抵丙。但如果是非商業的，亦不是為了借人地個朵來宣傳自己，好多公司企業都會無所謂，甚至被認為是fair use的一種。像好戲量借吉蒂貓來玩，以至網上的Kuso惡搞，在西方國家，你睇下有無人告你？
That is exactly the point, if your 're-creation' or 'play' with the 'original' is easily recognised, and you deliberately mean to use the 'original' to indicate something, it is the correct purpose. I agree that this poster this time is really not good, as I can't see anything related to I-Pod can be implied in this situation or just the poster. However, like Hello Kitty, you can have a Hello Kitty product whenever you like, as long as you can pay. Then, if you want to use it in a play (or say a drama), maybe to show that the character is a Kidult, and (s)he likes Hello Kitty a lot (whether or not it means anything further), even this is not exactly a very typical 're-creation', this type of interpretation is more than reasonable and logical '''Lor'''!!!
If you copy somebody's idea, and hide it, then that is more likely to be 'stealing'. Think about it, if you steal something, would you show it around?
But -- I want to say, maybe we shall save our energy from debating this topic until after 124? Right now, the most important issue is to fight for democracy on 124, not whether this is copyright infringement or not. We can put more energy here and discuss about copyright later whenever we want!!!!!!!
sorry, have to write in english. since i write a lot slower in chinese. and i am very very busy and i can't afford to write in chinese. yet, really want to share something to the idea of appropriation.
there are many deflated arguments (especially those personal attacks on sidekick) that i don't want to go into. i have left message in sidekick's blog and express my view on that.
i just want to concentrate to discuss on the idea of copying or appropriation.
there are always a lot of appropriations going on, especially on the art activism.
i want to raise a couple of things here:
1) the poster of course infringes the rights of the ipod adv. but some people may intentionally do so.
2) whether it is effective is another issue (little west discussed about it already)
3) again, as we talked a lot before in inmedia already, the existing copy rights law are unfair and problematic. they privatize and capitalize creative works to a crazy standard (see disney). and they don't concern the idea of fair use and non-commerical realm. this is why and what creative commons have been working on.
3) back in the 60's, the situationist international raised the idea of Detournement (in english they translate it as diversion) means appropriation. check out what is SI here:http://www.nothingness.org/
this is something i want to share with you all here.
i almost forgot i did give a lecture on detournement and i think it is good to share the notes that i have written. it is VERY rough as it is my own notes. but i think it is good to share. sorry, i have no time to work that all in chinese.
it is not to directly make a comment to the ipod case but as reference of what appropriation (and also art for political actions and activism) can be discussed and (re)-considered.
Lecture on Detournement (diversion) (##it is just part of the original notes i think is related, as there are other parts on letterism and sound poetry and a video work i showed in class for discussions but i took them out)
General explanation:
A method that you can use in making art, or in activism, or doing any kind of activities to involve in everyday life.
how?
In detournement, we can use ready-made objects, footage, press clippings, advs, to re-manipulate, to re-appropriate so to make new meanings.
Why is this method important?
it changes the meanings of the original source, and the ways of making meanings in a culture so it also changes culture in which these meanings are derived.
** i will start the discussion about detournement that related to Dada.
** It’s a method that the Dadaists used in the first place.
“rather than create entirely new forms, the lettrists wanted to take already existing elements and rearrange them. To this appropriative technique, derived in part from Dadaist collage, in part form a kind of distorted quotation…”
Anti-art, they aimed to destroy culture and therefore war. Anti-institutions, and rules.
They made art so to destroy art, destroy culture, wars and even the identities of artists.
Essentially, they aimed at Devaluing (on art especially on “high” art, on rules and on everything).
But Debord and the situationists did not agree with the ways that the dadaists used.
They thought that it was not meaningful just to devalue, to destroy but to revalue and rebuild in the re-manipulation and the re-appropriation.
Debord, Wolman sought to go beyond the pure negativity of Dada.
SI's comments on Duhamp’s painting:
“Duchamp’s drawing of a mustache on the Mona Lisa is no more interesting than the original version of that painting. We must now push this process to the point of negating the negation… we have to go beyond them.” Just like the dadists, they were anti everything, negated everything, but for Debord and the siuationists, they thought that they had to go beyond them by negating the total negative negation of this kind of art.
Two main points in my lecture:
1) why the SI thinks that it is a good method? 2) how to use this method
(all the quotes and most of the following arguments come from this essay)
-- re-use and “adapt” the original elements in a “new context."
-- any element, no matter where they are taken from, can serve in making new combinations. in other words, it is about how the used materials and the ready made objects are being organized and being put together. the discoveries of modern poetry regarding the analogical structure of images demonstrate that when two objects are brought together, no matter how far apart their original contexts may be, a relationship is (that is how the used materials and the ready made objects are put together so to make new meanings within a certain relationship) always formed.
-- challenge “the bourgeois cult of originality of art and private ownership of art and thought.” when we talk about the commercial art, it must involve originality of art. It turns art into a community and it is a private owned thing. and it must involve a system of knowledge to decide the originality of art and the values, what is good art or what is bad art. they also wanted to challenge this system.
-- materials are cheap, or even free of charge, and accessible, democratization of art. everyone can do art. Everyone can get hold of materials, it is no longer a professional practice, it is not something that only the experts can do, no need to use much money…
-- “not only leads to discovery of new aspects of talent, but also clashing with all social and legal conventions, it cannot fail to be a powerful cultural weapon in the service of ‘a real class struggle.’ The cheapness of its products is the heavy artillery means of proletarian education, the first step towards a literary communism.” It works with their notion of free time and request for less work and making art in which art as a process of creativity and an experiment that change everyday live.
**It also explains the point on their ideas of creativity and making art, as a tool for change in the society.
two main categories of detoured elements:
1) minor detournement
the detournement of an element which has no importance in itself and which thus draws all its meaning from the new context in which it has been placed. e.g. a common place photographs, a neutral phrase, or a coat, a tree…
(the material being used do not have inbuilt meanings.)
2) deceptive detournement
the detournement with an intrinsically significant element, which derives a different scope from the new context. e.g. a tv commerical, a popular slogan, a sequence from Eisenstein's films, image of Hitler, Babie Doll and GI Joe doll in BLO Nightly News...
You don’t have to use either one. For an extended detourned works, they can be usually composed of one or more sequences of deceptive and minor detournement
Ways of doing detournement (Debord and Wolman’s views and you don't have to agree):
-- do not deform completely the original materials, it must be recognizable, as it depends on our “memory” of the original source so to “produce” the detoured effects.
-- The importance of collective memory e.g. Japanese cartoons to us, a theme song from a TV series. The contexts of the original materials sometimes are vital in building the new meanings. For instance the song: under the lion rock, it does not merely remind us of our personal memory but also a collective memory of a generation and serve as a ground to make critical comment o hk identity. So it involves different layers of meanings here.
-- The more distance the diversion, the more effective -- the simple reversal is always the most direct but the least effective, for instance, simply switch the roles of a beggar and a rich person. It is easy but for the siuationists, it is the least effective
(ahsun adds today: maybe it is related to the ipod case and why it is not effective. and i also think of why siu o's blogpoly is so sucessful. check it out here: http://www.littleoslo.com/cnt/home/index.php?cat=6
in fact, if anyone here is interested in DJ culture, s/he may know dj sampling is a method of apporpriation as well. DJ Spooky did write a lot about this in his new book and i wrote a post about it 2 months ago named DJ Spooky and sampled culture. check it out if you are interesed http://aahsun.com/wpblog/?p=679)
-- New meanings made by the new combinations should not be so obvious… leave rooms for multi-interpretations. Not too straight forward. It may be a distortion, an irony, a mix, a critique of the original context but it has to give multi-layers meanings.
-- Titles are a basic element of detournement. This follows from two general observations: (1) that all titles are interchangeable and that they have a determinant importance in several genres. All the detective stories in the “Serie Noir’ are extremely similar. (2) title contributes strongly to a work, but here is an inevitable counteraction of the work on the title. This once can make extensive use of specific titles taken from scientific publications, or even many phrase found in illustrated children’s books.
Exactly the point. When I learnt 'graphic design', I was also very concerned and even afraid that my 'graphics' were not intense and attractive enough.
If the design (diagram, etc.) itself is not strong enough, people tend to need a lot of words to explain it, and that's the problem, whether if it is 'copied' or not (well, not the focus here, haha.).
回應
flickr 的 poster 無咗
唔知點解呢?
無所謂啦
反正並不影響 ipod nano 的銷量，有必要拘泥這個嗎？
視覺傳達的問題
對我來說，是否抄襲或應否抄襲，都不是重點;我覺得重點是:這是否好的挪用，在視覺傳達上，這是否有效有力。平心而論，12.4的海讀報跟不少社運宣傳品相似，文字主導，畫面很擠，不夠簡潔有力。
最近在理工見小團體擺wto攤位展版，就資訊設計(informatioｎ design)而言，簡直是"惨不忍睹"。
咦? 不如你都設計返個啦~~
不要得個講字嘛~~~
其實你有否想過, 他們可能時間上或物資上有限制, 往往不可能每次都請你這些專業設計師去設計呢?
做街板又好, 海報又好, 如果是一大班人一齊出, 好多時候由於意見不同, 出來的效果是一個妥協出來的效果, 再家上種種限制 (如法例要求街板清楚列明議員名字等), 所以本人認為是可以原諒的 (不單止值得原諒, 而且創意可嘉)!
資源問題
我認識這海報設計者，他只是一個學生。支持民主的社運資源很少，我們沒有專業設計師，也不像親中派般有財有勢。
如果你有更好的才能，希望日後參與幫忙吧
也很好啊！
如果將籠中「民主」變成「消費者」更有反諷意味：很多人已經成為消費奴隸了。
也很好啊！
如果將籠中「民主」變成「消費者」更有反諷意味：很多人已經成為消費奴隸了。
香港人的知識版權意識...
這不是甚麼拘泥甚麼或有沒有資源的問題. 人家不計較不代表你可以抄. 抄襲就是抄襲, 不尊重別人還要大言不慚的說因為自己資源不足, 實在太失禮人了罷? 資源不足便不要抄好了, 除了藉口還是藉口.
這是一般人對知識版權的認知嗎? 怪不得大家都毫不在意的download mp3, 在香港做創作人真是沒有前途.
香港人的知識版權意識...
> 這不是甚麼拘泥甚麼或有沒有資源的問題. 人家不計較不
> 代表你可以抄. 抄襲就是抄襲, 不尊重別人還要大言不慚
> 的說因為自己資源不足, 實在太失禮人了罷? 資源不足便
> 不要抄好了, 除了藉口還是藉口.
>
> 這是一般人對知識版權的認知嗎? 怪不得大家都毫不在意
> 的download mp3, 在香港做創作人真是沒有前途.
>
> -- Cantong 於 November 29, 2005 11:45 AM
香港人的知識版權意識果然不夠，只知道無限保護版權擁有者，完全忽略所謂「合理應用」的權利……都是政府片面宣傳惹的禍。
在我看來，這個遊行海報︰
為甚麼不可以借用 ipod nano 的海報上的設計？
------
不妨聽聽歐美有關版權的討論︰http://lessig.org/freeculture/free.html
請 Cantong 不要人身攻擊
我說【資源不足】是回應「小西」對於設計的評論，並非為抄襲找藉口。
唔好隨便用人生攻擊呢個詞
雖然我不同意 cantong 對知識產權的狹隘理解, 但我不覺得他是人生攻擊, 只是說別人缺乏創意吧.
你可以說他對法律過於上綱上線. 過多用 "誹謗" 和 "人生攻擊" 的字眼, 與過多地使用 "知識產權" 在批評人一般, 都是以狹隘的法律去理解世界和人與人的關係.
請貼出原文permalink
你說到了MacGrass 瀏覽，看到一則文章「指出12.4遊行的海報抄襲ipod nano的海報。」
假若你不貼出該文的permalink，其他人是無法看到原文的：http://www.macgrass.com/permalink/815
另，我將該文章全文引用：
看到了一些12.4大遊行的海報設計，借用了iPod nano廣告設計，甚至相信是由那張相片改造的。手持的由iPod nano轉為民主倒退鳥籠。
人家說海報的設計是「借用」，不是指「抄襲」，希望你能搞清楚，因為在設計海報中是可以看到iPod nano 的退地痕跡，是借用了iPod nano 的宣傳相片。
人生攻擊﹖Should be ‘人身攻擊’
It only means ‘罵人不罵事’(或正常一點稱‘對人不對事’).
這詞沒有大家想像中嚴重﹐可是總不是一個最好的討論方法或態度。
謝謝
nikita: 謝謝更正！
有無人真係認識版權法?
1. 我無意人身攻擊, 也許語氣有點重, 請見諒.
2. 這完全跟狹義或廣義無關, 版權法話:
"直 接 侵 權 ： 指 抄 襲 ； 複 製 ， 如 將 版 權 作 品 的 表 達 語 言 複 製 為 另 一 種 語 言 ， 或 作 任 何 改 編 ， 包 括 將 傳 統 媒 體 複 製 為 非 形 體 媒 體 ， 於 互 聯 網 上 載 或 下 載 ； 出 版 抄 襲 品 ， 如 出 版 由 二 維 版 權 作 品 複 製 而 成 的 三 維 作 品 。"
" 以 直 接 侵 權 的 情 況 而 論 ， 所 謂 抄 襲 ， 並 不 一 定 是 跟 原 作 完 全 相 同 的 ， 只 要 某 項 作 品 的 實 質 部 分 被 採 用 ， 便 算 侵 犯 版 權 。 這 是 關 乎 質 而 非 量 的 問 題 。 "...
摘錄自"認識版權法"
http://www.gaahk.org.hk/articles/219/cbf44901.htm
海報已經是侵犯了版權, 這是沒有可以反駁的餘地的, 也不是甚麼"狹隘理解". 還有, 也許'借用'不等於抄襲, 但借用肯定是侵權行為.
再看看Sidekick的理性討論:
http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2005/12/01/696/
(對不起sidekick, 我唔識講道理, 忍唔住要 link 閣下的大作出來, 請見諒)
多餘話不說了, 有沒有侵權, 對錯與否大家自己決定.
抄襲與重創
其實分別可能只在是否高明。
例如這個普選廣告 ( http://www.rebuildhk.com/upload/rpt5_adv.wmv ), 基本上大部份是挪用了 HP printer 的廣告，但我相信大家都會認為它是重創，而非抄襲，因為改得高明，改得有趣。
又或是網上常流傳的許多惡搞 (kuso)漫畫和文章，例如 friendshop 最喜歡改的電影廣告，大家又會覺得那是重創而非抄襲。中間定義，我想，不易拿捏。
應該說，很多人根本就不認同現在的版權法
所以稱以現有的版權法(both HK and USA and the WTO brand)是一種狹義的理解版權的方法。(某程度上狹義這個字用的不太好；應該說大家對版權的問題，根本是站在不同的出發點去看吧。)
舉個例，就是說現在的版權法，是容許迪士尼去控告一些用它的卡通人物或樂園外觀作封面的批評它的書(而它也實在曾這樣做)，我就會認為版權法不應賦予迪士尼這麼大的權力。
Please don't make conclusions that easily
Cantong, what you said is still subject to many exceptions and defences provided in the Ordinance. Copyright is not an absolute right, just like freedom of speech is subject to certain limitations like defamation!
再談再創作
看過了sidekick的文章，他提到了：「從創意上，我還有一點很個人的意見（你說我是偏見也罷）：遊行海報及吉蒂海報在創意上很低，是一種很懶惰、很手到拿來的設計。Recreation都有分good taste, bad taste，上述二者都沒有太多創意可言，吉蒂那張簡直就是嘩眾取寵！如果，這就是創意，香港的創作界可以同聲一哭！」及「再問兩句：點解要咁做？（非要用某一個原創作品再創作不可？為何不自行創作？）做得好唔好？（那個recreation 的概念是甚麼？跟原作品的概念有何關係嗎？）」
審美角度難免有一定主觀性，但也可以提出來與各位討論。這張遊行海報，個人覺得確實沒什麼創意，雖然可以解釋作有「手握鳥籠」的意思，但現在的手有似是show一件物件出來的感覺，表現不到「握」。立體的手與平面的鳥籠也很不夾。這樣的recreation，應該不會比自己由頭設計好。這recreation是沒需要的。如果是沒需要，我覺得就不必去用。
但吉蒂與死人頭那張海報，是否真的沒需要？雖然話劇主題不在吉蒂，但既以「吉蒂藏頭」案作出發，吉蒂無嘴(聲)又是話劇中的一個重要符號和象徵，把這符號從海報上帶出來，就有它的需要性。如果不能用吉蒂這符號，即使可以從其他迂迴方法帶出類似含義，但已有離話劇的意蘊。那張海報的設計是否可以再改善，確實可談；但說那海報用了吉蒂符號，因此是錯的、要受批判的，這點我不能接受。因為若要接受這一點，那麼當今這個後現代世界的作品絕大部份要消失。
還有sidekick的兩個段落想回應。他說：「我想說，我最大的感慨，不在於犯法與否。其實不論是遊行海報或Hello Kitty海報事件，我的看法只是“將心比己”。易地而處，你創作了一個 logo、拍了一張圖片、設計了一張海報，忽然一天，人家“唔該都冇聲”，問也不問就拿了去用，或略有增刪，甚至醜化（這個是較個人感受），這公平嗎？是否基於你說你的是創作，並不是商業用途，我就要毫無條件地接受你用我的創作“再創作”，就算我的作品是商業作品？」，「香港特別行政區政府知識產權署副署長張錦輝在“新媒體與版權的不解緣 (2000)”有此一段（雖然我們在討論的事並不是新媒體）：如果版權人真的不介意其作品被人取用，祇要你肯問，他應會毫不保留地給你授權。透過新媒體提問，絕不困難。但如你覺得對方並不一定會同意的話，就更不要不問自取了！」
如果別人做的是企圖把你的創作，聲稱作全是自己原創的，那是剽竊，當然不可以。例如「曹版《棋魂》 http://tc.cabeat.com/cab/0501/050105.htm 」是一例。但如果別人是光明正大的利用你的作品再創作，那麼只是增加了你的作品的意義或內涵，增加了你的作品的解讀可能性。因為當一件作品創作出來，儘管作者有他的意思，但在不同讀者眼中，都會看到不同的東西，有讀者自己的意義。文學上所謂「作者已死」就是指這樣。那麼，讀者為何不可以根據他的解讀，以再創作來表達其感想？設例說，Sanrio可能認為吉蒂貓代表善良，但為何有人解讀到吉蒂貓代表溝通問題，再想要達出來，就要舉起「善良」作解讀的霸權，指責別人是醜化？
我固然同意尊重原作者，但方法不應是用「版權」來限制其他人的創作。為何不學習日本作家田中芳樹，說明不希望把他的作品變成怎麼樣(如色情的)？當作者本身亦對讀者（包括再創作者）尊重，讀者（包括再創作者）也自然地把尊重作者意願視為合理的事。日本的同人誌文化，饒富內涵，就是在這種原創作者和讀者、再創作者互相尊重的情況下誕生出來的。再創作者不會像「曹版《棋魂》」般剽竊，而是光明正大的拿什麼原作去再創作，原作者亦會說明歡迎所有的或什麼限度的再創作。
至於張錦輝的話，據我自己的創作（包括再創作，再創作是創作的一部份）經驗來說，並不如實。就繼續拿同人誌為例，即使一套動漫畫的原作者，公佈了歡迎任何的再創作，但我拿着原作者的公佈，甚至是與原作者的通信，在香港是沒有保障的。在香港過份鳥籠的現行法例下，地域竟成為是受擁有創作權利的區分條件，我只可以眼巴巴看着日本的讀者再創作Leaf作品的改編漫畫、音樂，不用擔心有法律後果，在香港若要與他們一起交流這顆心，就隨時可能會被什麼漫畫出版公司、什麼電視台、什麼CASH等控告。
攪清楚問題先
根據各位的論點, 我又有以下回應:
1. 在討論我是否"狹義的理解版權的方法", 可否先說明何謂"狹義的理解版權的方法"? 我是直接從文字上, 以一個法津上稱為reasonalbe man 的角度去理解的. 如果這是"狹義的理解版權的方法", 那麼有沒有"廣義的理解版權的方法"? 那是甚麼? 如何理解"廣義的理解版權的方法"?
2. 至於迪士尼或版權法是否權力過大則不在此討論之列.
3. sikfarnla, 在這個情況下究竟有甚麼"exceptions and defences" 是可以用來反駁的? 要認真討論的話, 請提出論點, 不是一句"總有例外"便算了罷? 根據知識產權署的網站所述: "在若干條件的規限下，法例容許公眾人士合理使用版權作品，以便進行研究、私人研習、批評、評論和新聞報導，也准許圖書館及學校合理使用版權作品。" 很明顯今次這個情況並非上述的任何一項. 至於Fair Use是美國版權法的意念, 不要把問題複雜化了.
4. fred, 重創與抄襲是有分別的. 做設計的, 很多時會'參考'別人的意念, 再重新包裝成為新設計. 但在這個情況, 根本就是隨手把人家的廣告拿來改, 並沒有'重新創造'甚麼, 最衰係要重要比人認出, 你話幾老土呢? 老實講, 而家數碼相機咁普及, 影張相幾咁容易? 點解要用人地個廣告?
有朋友說, 侵權是犯法, 但又如何呢? 紅人燈過馬路也犯法呀. 我明白, 但我想話: 錯就要認, 打就要企定. 唔係咩?
本來我唔想出聲，依家都要出聲
我本來不想出聲，因為個廣告的原創作者是小弟的朋友，我出聲肯定被批有欠公允。但講到這兒，有些人根本只是一時意氣講說話，甚至不惜連好戲量都打埋一份先，我認為要出聲。
1. Cantong，我想你留意一點，香港的版權法不單有名嚴，而且死板兼過時。請你想清楚一個法哲學的問題，if law is unjust, what can you do?如果你商業剽竊他人意念，當然抵丙。但如果是非商業的，亦不是為了借人地個朵來宣傳自己，好多公司企業都會無所謂，甚至被認為是fair use的一種。像好戲量借吉蒂貓來玩，以至網上的Kuso惡搞，在西方國家，你睇下有無人告你？
2. 對不起，我看不到Sidekick有啥理性討論。原因我不想在這兒明言，我亦不會在這裡回應。想問的，請電郵我。
3. Cantong生，如果那個廣告不是重創，那是什麼？iPod與政治，絕對是風馬牛不相及。
4. 我的文章，被人侵權紀錄不少，我在新加坡發表的文章，差不多篇篇被大陸網站問也不問的轉載，甚至有人在網政廿一進行惡意轉載。但我對大陸網站的轉載，我一向是任之放之。不是能否告得了的問題，而是作者其實在轉載中，亦得到了尊重，意念亦得到更廣泛傳播。那個普選廣告，如果令你諗起iPod，兼且激起討論，對iPod無負面印象，我相信Apple同廣告創作人，會掩住半邊嘴笑。
但我覺得Cantong對版權的狹隘認識，不會輸給香港那班電影人。我對香港電影人的劣評，亦不按下表。
沒料到演化為有關版權的爭論
指出12.4遊行的海報與ipod nano的海報的相似，原本只想引申有關一些有關視覺傳達的問題，本意是希望本地社運界在這一方面來日做得好一些，注意多一些，沒料到竟演化為有關版權的爭論。
歷史為鑑，在政治運動中，視覺影像從來都是有力的武器，民主女神像令我們對64難以忘懷，納粹宣傳片"意志的勝利"讓萬千德國靑年為一個虛無的國族夢想赴死。視覺影像從來不只是專業分工裡設計師與藝術家的專利，無傷大雅的修飾，引君消費的騙術，它是原本屬於眾人的利器。
近日終於想通，政府為什麼從來沒有真正重視過藝術教育：沒有批判的藝術教育的陶冶，藝術/設計只等同創意工業、設計師與藝術家的生財工具，視覺影像作為最强而有力的政治運動利器，眾人只得白白放手。
講下道理啦
黃世澤先生, 我唔係好識你, 不過既然你'出聲'點我名, 我點都要講兩句:
1. 香港版權法過時或死板是你的個人意見, 亦不代表你可以隨意違反; 而商業機構是否認為這樣侵權是fair use 亦不是由閣下代為決定. 香港是法治社會, 我所說的均以法律為依據, 並不是以閣下的思想為依據. 別天真地認為人家不追究便是正確的做法.
2. sidekick的文章與閣下的言論, 何者為'理性討論', 我不在此細表. 各位有識之士自己下定論吧.
3. 重創是加入自己的意念重新創作, 並不是指把人家的東西直接改為黑白,然後把產品刪除放上自己的東西. 這跟創作毫無關係.
4. "作者其實在轉載中，亦得到了尊重，意念亦得到更廣泛傳播。" 真是絕,那麼我們在download免費mp3和電影時, 其實是在尊重歌手/演員,製作隊伍和唱片/電影公司嗎? 照你這麼說, 倒不如把香港海關解散算了.
黃生, 有偏見的似乎是閣下哩.
要講道理係Cantong
Sidekick何來理性討論，你欠我一個回應。仲有，抱殘守缺就叫講道理？你指我是偏見，你的不只是偏見，我只能用愚見來形容。
其實Mac的廣告，被人拿來重創作，很多Mac不單不會因版權法來指責這些人，我身為Mac友都未發火，Cantong還發什麼？你不懂Mac友的文化，可以問問MacGrass原blog的作者。相反，Mac友所關心是，你玩得夠唔夠先。正如小西講，本來呢條thread應該講係創意不足的問題。結果有人用黎抽水，有人未見過什麼叫重創，就指人犯法，Cantong肯定欠我一個道歉。
Cantong不是有人身攻擊的問題，而是死雞撐飯蓋還裝著大義凜然。
要比人認出!!! (比 is a wrong word here, please note your Chinese also,
That is exactly the point, if your 're-creation' or 'play' with the 'original' is easily recognised, and you deliberately mean to use the 'original' to indicate something, it is the correct purpose. I agree that this poster this time is really not good, as I can't see anything related to I-Pod can be implied in this situation or just the poster. However, like Hello Kitty, you can have a Hello Kitty product whenever you like, as long as you can pay. Then, if you want to use it in a play (or say a drama), maybe to show that the character is a Kidult, and (s)he likes Hello Kitty a lot (whether or not it means anything further), even this is not exactly a very typical 're-creation', this type of interpretation is more than reasonable and logical '''Lor'''!!!
If you copy somebody's idea, and hide it, then that is more likely to be 'stealing'. Think about it, if you steal something, would you show it around?
Save our energy for 124!!!!!
Agree with frostig.
But -- I want to say, maybe we shall save our energy from debating this topic until after 124? Right now, the most important issue is to fight for democracy on 124, not whether this is copyright infringement or not. We can put more energy here and discuss about copyright later whenever we want!!!!!!!
我都贊成依家慳番啖氣宣傳124
一個不知由那個水泡泡出來的人，要來扮人格高尚，再加一個自以為乜乜界代表的，乘機政治抽水的回應，這樣的討論不可能有共識，亦不會有結果，只會得個嘈字。
這次我可以講，我對某些香港人的愚昧反智，缺乏反思，以為守法係一定要死守法律的看法大開眼界。極權社會，簡直是這些人的天堂。
於 sidekick 的留言
想不到這裡的討論結果會變成針對 sidekick 的攻擊, 其實 sidekick 曾對 inmedia 作出善意的批評, 尤其是我們於博客精選中引用其他博客文章的做法, 其後編輯部接受她的批評, 於標題加了作者的名字, 又加link, 對不相熟的bloggers會以留言或 e-mail知會. 這些做法都是一些由互動發展出來的 ethics, 而不是律法. 而大家都在學習如何更有建議性地互動和討論.
以下是對 sidekick 的攻擊 (轉貼自http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2005/12/02/700/):
黃世澤先生，於2005年12月2日，發表了“Sidekick，不要扮懵”一文：
先看這條link
http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2005/12/02/699/
Sidekick小姐，你與網政廿一關係良好，眾所周知。不要扮讀書不多，就可以乘機抽水不負責任。我未想過要在blog公開對罵，但這次要。要抽水，請手段高明一點。
我再畫公仔畫出腸，呢個Sidekick幫ep21幫友公報私仇，夠未？你在blog界扮野的行為，難道你當別人是盲？
以下是我於sidekick中的回應:
兩人我均認識, 這次深感黃的做法很過份, 為什麼非要把個人的討論變成團體派別的仇殺? 即使 sidekick 真的與網政的人相識, 不等於她的言論不公允. 其實 sidekick 在過去幾個月, 對版權的思考一直有在變化, 正如她所說, 大家都在學習. 而一直以來她所給的意見都很有建設性, inmedia 的編輯實受益不少. 希望 sidekick你能保持自己的作風.
又一個iPod nano 廣告的parody
http://www.macgrass.com/permalink/846
不談抄襲，談萌
嘻嘻！又一個iPod nano 廣告的parody，萌單nano set 又十分明顯地借用iPod nano 廣告【圖】 ，萌單nano set 的開本是正常漫畫書的三分之一，攜帶方便不過抱歉未能保證文字是否易於閱讀。萌～
算把啦...
黃生,事實証明閣下所想的並非是絕對真理, 我也不想再跟你討論這個問題.
ps. 本人的確是無名無姓無地位, 只是對於人們以政治之名義隨意挪用別人的東西深感不滿罷了. 對於事件竟然造成sidekick的困擾, 本人深感遺憾及歉意.
如何去證明Sidekick公允？
1. 這件事，我講明除非證明Sidekick是公允，否則我不會道歉，如果這兒的編輯要趕走我，自便。
2. 到底派別仇殺誰挑出來？我只感覺社運界的互相護短程度，比想像中嚴重得多。我只是一個有心人，並不懂去扮中立然後暗箭傷人，或扮blog界領袖。那最初我被人不公地插得滿身是箭，誰幫口？不要怪不少人不願投身社運，志願之士的通宵心血，就被人這樣抽水。
3. 如果Sidekick要證明她是公允。請她講明兩點：
a. 在124前，為何寧幫一個不知來歷的Cantong？
b. 她對網政廿一中人運用誹謗手法對付異己的看法。
還有，Cantong不要用「事實」這兩字就以為可以溜掉，死雞撐飯蓋是不能久撐。
sidekick 並不是社運界中人
亦沒有任何人說要趕誰走.
黃世澤﹐你的評論已流于人身攻擊
不要再這樣吧﹗畢竟大家各有不同見解﹐不同考慮。
你也想想吧﹐路人如在下跟兩人都不認識﹐只在這旁觀。你這次給人的感覺是太重私怨﹐貴為公眾人物﹐影響自己的形像﹐那又何苦﹖我只能說﹐就算他真的是公報私仇﹐又有何證據﹖為何要主動招惹批評﹖
你說有些人的理論不合理﹐發表時機不好(或不對)﹐都是對事件和文字的意見﹐大家能否同意和接受也好﹐均未離開‘討論’的範圍。可是﹐你對他人品跟作風的評論﹐恕‘不諳世事’的大家不知底蘊﹐無法理解。人身攻擊有用沒有﹐有意義沒有﹐有作用沒有﹐還要看大家對被攻擊者的人格有多認識﹐有多討厭。
我明白你受人到處攻擊﹐真的很難受﹐可是﹐你攻擊別人﹐算是報復還是甚麼呢﹖坦白說﹐對一個27歲的文化人或是專欄作者﹐本人的期望還是有的﹐希望你不要讓大家失望。
我不滿的是
1. 社運界充斥著對自己友的雙重標準，當初網政廿一，以至王岸然這些人，公然作出有違事實的誹謗時，社運界中人有制止他們嗎？沒有，反而很樂於與人民廣播電台合作。Sidekick出陰招，我當眾篤爆，就來了一票這樣的言論，這樣誰會服氣。我透過我的blog揭破，而不是這裡的回應，已是很尊重這裡。阿藹要帶來這兒，我沒法阻止。
2. 這樣圈內圈外兩個標準，你不要指望有更多人會投身社運或民主運動。在七一後，好不容易才在一些本來不參與民主運動的人當中，找到一堆有為有心年青人幫手。結果不少都被這些「社運人」嚇跑了，如果不是一二四重要，我肯定有機會公開更多應被點名的所謂社運人，甚至政界攝石人。我做過學生會，算是半個圈內人，但現時我真不想與「社運界」有什麼關係。
3. 我一向不理形象，我寫東西也好，做什麼都好，我計算的是到底我還可以貢獻香港有多少。形象不值五毫子，因為我無意從政，亦不想出鋒頭。這次筆戰本來我可以置身事外，有些人觀點上自以為是尚可有辯論，政治抽水就很難容忍。
我要回應就是這樣多，到底大家要只得自己人的社運，因此繼續維護Sidekick這類人，還是大家會思考社運界雙標準的問題，不要趕跑好不辛苦才找到的群眾，自己判斷下。如果大家不是只打我搞人身攻擊，而不正視Sidekick扮中立的政治抽水行為，我很樂意讓這件事和平結束。但我看不出當中的可能性。
眾人皆醉? 誰獨醒?
嘿, 或許是眾人皆醒, 唯斯獨醉。
幫你的就是幫理, 不幫你的就是雙重標準, 應該『制止』? 我相信, 如果你做的是有道理的話, 總會有人站在你一邊的; 但當全世界都站在另一邊時, 或許也是時候放下*你的*『雙重標準』和陰謀論, 想想到底*自己*有甚麼問題。
視覺傳達
er…小西提出的是視覺傳達的問題，但在整個討論中卻沒甚麼人關心。
小西，我覺得有些事情是不能太怪政府和教育的，大概是每個人都有責任吧。你的帖子一出，即有回應來保護設計者，說他/她只是學生；又有回應指攪社運的沒資源沒時間沒$，所以不能請 “專業設計師”，所以包容一下吧；亦有指出因為有好多人好多意見要妥協，所以現在這些設計已經好有創意。
問題正正就在這裡吧！首先，宣傳品所涉及的是整個宣傳策略，所以問題不只是設計者的責任。宣傳策略和傳遞手法不是兩個獨立的東西，而是二而一的。當大家說要包容設計者，實質上就是把責任歸到設計者身上，這對設計者甚不公平。如果“集體的意見”已定出所有的字、標題和圖象概念，我想就算交到“專業設計師”的手裡，一樣會做不好。
另一方面，這亦是自動放棄：我唔係“專業人士”，d水準係咁架啦。那麼是不是說，以後如果要把宣傳做得好，就一定要請pr公司？在我的印象中，社運人並不是這樣子的，而是“團結就是力量”地度slogan、做banner……但是為什麼到了“設計”就舉手投降？
小西所說的社運宣傳品特徵：“文字主導，畫面很擠，不夠簡潔有力”其實正是設計大忌。因為(街上的)宣傳品多數只有很短的時間在讀者眼前“飄過”，只有很少很少人會停下來“閱讀”，所以宣傳品要求的是一種即時的刺激、單一而有力的訊息，讓讀者可以立即接收。
間或會幫忙做少少這些宣傳品的設計，個人的觀察是：不少人根本在害怕簡潔！在設計的討論中不斷會有人善意的提議這樣那樣的畫蛇添足，不是為圖畫加上不必要的小節來打亂意義，就是要出一段又一段的文字，再不然就是同一個組織同一個event同時出兩款或以上完全不同意念的宣傳品放在一起互相搶鏡。整個討論就是在不斷解釋簡潔的重要和堅持簡潔。然而有時結果都是被回一句：但係我都係想咁咁咁呀，或者都係要尊重返“大家”的意見。重文字而輕圖象，畫公仔要畫出腸，寫字要寫到出晒面--這些心理包袱應該早早就已經放下了的吧。觀從前的政治運動，不是已經有很多很多很厲害、人所共知的好設計吧！就是中國的文革政治海報就夠照了吧(只就視覺傳達技巧而言)。看看這些設計，放心讓宣傳品帶出最重要的訊息，要詳談要解釋就用其他更有效的方法吧！
中!!
小鬼：都係你明我想提一個乜問題。
about appropriation (is it mere copying???)
sorry, have to write in english. since i write a lot slower in chinese. and i am very very busy and i can't afford to write in chinese. yet, really want to share something to the idea of appropriation.
there are many deflated arguments (especially those personal attacks on sidekick) that i don't want to go into. i have left message in sidekick's blog and express my view on that.
i just want to concentrate to discuss on the idea of copying or appropriation.
there are always a lot of appropriations going on, especially on the art activism.
i want to raise a couple of things here:
1) the poster of course infringes the rights of the ipod adv. but some people may intentionally do so.
2) whether it is effective is another issue (little west discussed about it already)
3) again, as we talked a lot before in inmedia already, the existing copy rights law are unfair and problematic. they privatize and capitalize creative works to a crazy standard (see disney). and they don't concern the idea of fair use and non-commerical realm. this is why and what creative commons have been working on.
3) back in the 60's, the situationist international raised the idea of Detournement (in english they translate it as diversion) means appropriation. check out what is SI here:http://www.nothingness.org/
this is something i want to share with you all here.
i almost forgot i did give a lecture on detournement and i think it is good to share the notes that i have written. it is VERY rough as it is my own notes. but i think it is good to share. sorry, i have no time to work that all in chinese.
it is not to directly make a comment to the ipod case but as reference of what appropriation (and also art for political actions and activism) can be discussed and (re)-considered.
thanks.
take good care,
ahsun
--
麥海珊 anson mak
生活在生活本身。
徘徊於單行道 BI-The-Way, Tarrying...
web site/blog: http://www.aahsun.com
sound blog: http://www.soundmarking.net
-----------------------------------------
Lecture on Detournement (diversion) (##it is just part of the original notes i think is related, as there are other parts on letterism and sound poetry and a video work i showed in class for discussions but i took them out)
General explanation:
A method that you can use in making art, or in activism, or doing any kind of activities to involve in everyday life.
how?
In detournement, we can use ready-made objects, footage, press clippings, advs, to re-manipulate, to re-appropriate so to make new meanings.
Why is this method important?
it changes the meanings of the original source, and the ways of making meanings in a culture so it also changes culture in which these meanings are derived.
** i will start the discussion about detournement that related to Dada.
** It’s a method that the Dadaists used in the first place.
“rather than create entirely new forms, the lettrists wanted to take already existing elements and rearrange them. To this appropriative technique, derived in part from Dadaist collage, in part form a kind of distorted quotation…”
Anti-art, they aimed to destroy culture and therefore war. Anti-institutions, and rules.
They made art so to destroy art, destroy culture, wars and even the identities of artists.
Essentially, they aimed at Devaluing (on art especially on “high” art, on rules and on everything).
But Debord and the situationists did not agree with the ways that the dadaists used.
They thought that it was not meaningful just to devalue, to destroy but to revalue and rebuild in the re-manipulation and the re-appropriation.
Debord, Wolman sought to go beyond the pure negativity of Dada.
SI's comments on Duhamp’s painting:
“Duchamp’s drawing of a mustache on the Mona Lisa is no more interesting than the original version of that painting. We must now push this process to the point of negating the negation… we have to go beyond them.” Just like the dadists, they were anti everything, negated everything, but for Debord and the siuationists, they thought that they had to go beyond them by negating the total negative negation of this kind of art.
Two main points in my lecture:
1) why the SI thinks that it is a good method? 2) how to use this method
read Debord, Wolman wrote “methods of detournement” http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/3
(all the quotes and most of the following arguments come from this essay)
-- re-use and “adapt” the original elements in a “new context."
-- any element, no matter where they are taken from, can serve in making new combinations. in other words, it is about how the used materials and the ready made objects are being organized and being put together. the discoveries of modern poetry regarding the analogical structure of images demonstrate that when two objects are brought together, no matter how far apart their original contexts may be, a relationship is (that is how the used materials and the ready made objects are put together so to make new meanings within a certain relationship) always formed.
-- challenge “the bourgeois cult of originality of art and private ownership of art and thought.” when we talk about the commercial art, it must involve originality of art. It turns art into a community and it is a private owned thing. and it must involve a system of knowledge to decide the originality of art and the values, what is good art or what is bad art. they also wanted to challenge this system.
-- materials are cheap, or even free of charge, and accessible, democratization of art. everyone can do art. Everyone can get hold of materials, it is no longer a professional practice, it is not something that only the experts can do, no need to use much money…
-- “not only leads to discovery of new aspects of talent, but also clashing with all social and legal conventions, it cannot fail to be a powerful cultural weapon in the service of ‘a real class struggle.’ The cheapness of its products is the heavy artillery means of proletarian education, the first step towards a literary communism.” It works with their notion of free time and request for less work and making art in which art as a process of creativity and an experiment that change everyday live.
**It also explains the point on their ideas of creativity and making art, as a tool for change in the society.
two main categories of detoured elements:
1) minor detournement
the detournement of an element which has no importance in itself and which thus draws all its meaning from the new context in which it has been placed. e.g. a common place photographs, a neutral phrase, or a coat, a tree…
(the material being used do not have inbuilt meanings.)
2) deceptive detournement
the detournement with an intrinsically significant element, which derives a different scope from the new context. e.g. a tv commerical, a popular slogan, a sequence from Eisenstein's films, image of Hitler, Babie Doll and GI Joe doll in BLO Nightly News...
You don’t have to use either one. For an extended detourned works, they can be usually composed of one or more sequences of deceptive and minor detournement
Ways of doing detournement (Debord and Wolman’s views and you don't have to agree):
-- do not deform completely the original materials, it must be recognizable, as it depends on our “memory” of the original source so to “produce” the detoured effects.
-- The importance of collective memory e.g. Japanese cartoons to us, a theme song from a TV series. The contexts of the original materials sometimes are vital in building the new meanings. For instance the song: under the lion rock, it does not merely remind us of our personal memory but also a collective memory of a generation and serve as a ground to make critical comment o hk identity. So it involves different layers of meanings here.
-- The more distance the diversion, the more effective -- the simple reversal is always the most direct but the least effective, for instance, simply switch the roles of a beggar and a rich person. It is easy but for the siuationists, it is the least effective
(ahsun adds today: maybe it is related to the ipod case and why it is not effective. and i also think of why siu o's blogpoly is so sucessful. check it out here: http://www.littleoslo.com/cnt/home/index.php?cat=6
in fact, if anyone here is interested in DJ culture, s/he may know dj sampling is a method of apporpriation as well. DJ Spooky did write a lot about this in his new book and i wrote a post about it 2 months ago named DJ Spooky and sampled culture. check it out if you are interesed
http://aahsun.com/wpblog/?p=679)
-- New meanings made by the new combinations should not be so obvious… leave rooms for multi-interpretations. Not too straight forward. It may be a distortion, an irony, a mix, a critique of the original context but it has to give multi-layers meanings.
-- Titles are a basic element of detournement. This follows from two general observations: (1) that all titles are interchangeable and that they have a determinant importance in several genres. All the detective stories in the “Serie Noir’ are extremely similar. (2) title contributes strongly to a work, but here is an inevitable counteraction of the work on the title. This once can make extensive use of specific titles taken from scientific publications, or even many phrase found in illustrated children’s books.
'不少人根本害怕簡潔'
Exactly the point. When I learnt 'graphic design', I was also very concerned and even afraid that my 'graphics' were not intense and attractive enough.
If the design (diagram, etc.) itself is not strong enough, people tend to need a lot of words to explain it, and that's the problem, whether if it is 'copied' or not (well, not the focus here, haha.).