Group Presentation 3: Intellectual Property
Group:The Creation of Gothic Architecture
Members:
Dorothy Lam, Ricky Xiao, David Lee, Stefan Koteski, Alan Kim, Maki Nagaya
Presentation Analysis:
The opening video was a great way of introducing the class to the dangers of not protecting your intellectual property. It was also a good method of engaging the audience.
In terms of the Power Point the group went through a great amount of detail relating to intellectual property yet filled the slides with small amounts of information making the presentation seem not too content heavy, allowing for the audience top keep focused. They outlined effectively the types of IP such as Copyright, Designs, Patents and Trademarks. They provided examples of companies who had specific IP protection with the use of pictures, allowing the class to understand the differing protection types and how they affect companies.
In terms of relation to their project they outlined what types of infringement are possible in completing their project. It seems as though there are many aspects that can be infringed upon. Items include coding used as well as pictures and models that there are using as part of the database and gaming.
As part of the feedback from Russell he outlined a great point, that luckily the group had referenced correctly all of their sources of information, outlining that they had understood their group collaboration exercise.
He also raised a great point that got me thinking about intellectual property. The question being 'If I took a photo of the Opera House can I sell that photo, is it my property or that of Utzon?'
Group:
The Last Suprematist Sculpture
Members:
The opening video was a great way of introducing the class to the dangers of not protecting your intellectual property. It was also a good method of engaging the audience.
In terms of the Power Point the group went through a great amount of detail relating to intellectual property yet filled the slides with small amounts of information making the presentation seem not too content heavy, allowing for the audience top keep focused. They outlined effectively the types of IP such as Copyright, Designs, Patents and Trademarks. They provided examples of companies who had specific IP protection with the use of pictures, allowing the class to understand the differing protection types and how they affect companies.
In terms of relation to their project they outlined what types of infringement are possible in completing their project. It seems as though there are many aspects that can be infringed upon. Items include coding used as well as pictures and models that there are using as part of the database and gaming.
As part of the feedback from Russell he outlined a great point, that luckily the group had referenced correctly all of their sources of information, outlining that they had understood their group collaboration exercise.
He also raised a great point that got me thinking about intellectual property. The question being 'If I took a photo of the Opera House can I sell that photo, is it my property or that of Utzon?'
Group:
The Last Suprematist Sculpture
Members:
Vedran Kuljcic, Alyssa Raymundo
Presentation Analysis:
The power point Presentation was quite content dense, lots of information per slide with very little spacing or images to break up the text. Along with the fact they tended to move quickly through the slides it did not allow us to read the slides effectively. Of the slides i could read they did have useful information about IP.
The video was better than the power point in that it provided great detail and information whilst also keeping the audience interested.
In terms of feedback they were instructed that more feedback on the process of IP such as Patents, Trademarks and Designs. Another interesting fact brought out was in relation to ownership percentages as well as in terms of payment in relation to designs.
Relation to earlier question
In terms of the earlier question posed by Russell i have done some in depth research. In seems as if this is a common issue in relation to the Sydney Opera House (SOH) and as a result they have dedicated a section to it - http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/about_Image_and_FilmingFAQ.aspx.
It provides many answers to questions such as:
Relation to our Group:
Intellectual Property is a very hot topic during this technological age. No longer are things safe and protected from other individuals. For instance any image put on the Internet can be plagiarised and copied by another.
The main type of intellectual property is Copyright. As stated on the IP Australia Website - Copyright protection is free and automatic in Australia and protects the original expression of ideas, and not the ideas themselves.Common works protected by copyright are:
The power point Presentation was quite content dense, lots of information per slide with very little spacing or images to break up the text. Along with the fact they tended to move quickly through the slides it did not allow us to read the slides effectively. Of the slides i could read they did have useful information about IP.
The video was better than the power point in that it provided great detail and information whilst also keeping the audience interested.
In terms of feedback they were instructed that more feedback on the process of IP such as Patents, Trademarks and Designs. Another interesting fact brought out was in relation to ownership percentages as well as in terms of payment in relation to designs.
Relation to earlier question
In terms of the earlier question posed by Russell i have done some in depth research. In seems as if this is a common issue in relation to the Sydney Opera House (SOH) and as a result they have dedicated a section to it - http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/about_Image_and_FilmingFAQ.aspx.
It provides many answers to questions such as:
- I am a professional photographer and I would like to sell postcards, picture books and other merchandise based on pictures I took of Sydney Opera House – will that be a problem?
- What “commercial use” of SOH images does SOH not approve of?
Other websites that touch on these issues are:
- http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freedom_to_differ/2007/06/photographing_t.html
- http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/262736/Data+Protection+Privacy/When+photos+break+the+law+breach+of+privacy+or+breach+of+contract
Relation to our Group:
Intellectual Property is a very hot topic during this technological age. No longer are things safe and protected from other individuals. For instance any image put on the Internet can be plagiarised and copied by another.
The main type of intellectual property is Copyright. As stated on the IP Australia Website - Copyright protection is free and automatic in Australia and protects the original expression of ideas, and not the ideas themselves.Common works protected by copyright are:
- books
- films
- music
- sound recordings
- newspapers
- magazines
- artwork
There are also other forms of copyright outlined by IP Australia such as Trademarks, Designs, Patents and others.
As a result in relation to our project the only form of intellectual property that is relevant is copyright. This protects the inventor of the original expression. From what I can gather from the website is that, when I redraw a detail that my client has drawn the new drawing is mine but I must receive consent from the client to use it as it is a copy of his original work.
Therefore this project will involve a lot of questions and consent over what can be drawn, by who and who will claim the final copyrights.
No comments:
Post a Comment