All research sources are to be cited at end of each response.
There are to be at least three research sources for each response.
- The design work I am doing handles sourcing of images by using the logo that the company already used. The original GoodBuzz logo was a black colored bee with the letters GB as its “wings.” I took that logo and enhanced it to give better visibility.
From the Aiga reading, “You would be better served to spend your money on something else if you don’t place a high value on what it can achieve.” This can still be applied to the time spent on every design. If I did not see value in updating the company’s logo then I would have to include a very blurry photo in my design work that would honestly hinder any process. “Inconsistency raises doubt, and doubt makes people wary.” Do not make your clients doubt the work, encourage consistently good design. Although the logo does not make the brand, it helps create a memorable one.
- I did not have to sign any non-disclosure agreement for this internship site. I had a recent experience signing one for a study but that was not the case at Giving Forward. According to the Aiga reading, “A professional designer treats all work and knowledge of a client’s business as confidential.” No matter if you signed an NDA or not, keeping company information to yourself protects all parties from compromising exposure.
- In the past, I have used another’s creative work by using a drawing as a base to my own. They had the perspective and proportions that I had wanted. I had it for personal use so there was less of a need to provide a credit. Yet, it is important that if I were to post it say on my portfolio that I would “clearly outline all intellectual property ownership and usage rights.” Creatives work hard for their work to simply be stolen, give credit where credit is due. “An artist’s copyright is owned by the artist and is protected from the moment it is created by the 1976 Copyright Act” Licensing exists for this reason, to protect these artist’s rights. I sadly did not ask for permission to alter original work, this day in age it is very easy for people to post work that they had way less of a hand in. If I do want to feel legitimate in my reference photos, I would use copyright free stock websites such as unsplash.com or even pexels.com for video stock.
- My opinion of the arguments and outcome of the Fairey Copyright case is that having a case-by-case basis is important to judge where the line of rights to work is drawn. Remixing is required and is transformative or creatively inspired. Avoid exploitative profit to purchase things unnecessarily. Bootleg rip offs versus celebrated inspiration is an important distinctive. This debate seems to have people between those against profits from stolen art and those who did not want artist to earn a single cent. As a creative, your career should pay for your hard work to flourish and grow. But as creatives we must open ourselves to the possibility that remixing art can in fact being attention back to you when properly credited. There are many pieces of work that do much better in the hands of someone else’s hands and can potentially lead to much more of a boost than ever before.
Fairey showed a huge form of creative freedom and free speech