Skip to content

Appropriated Art ↴

May 6, 2010 at 2:16 pm

This is fascinating. Roy Litchenstein is known for re-interpreting pop art, which translates to copying images from old comic books and stylizing them slightly, with different color or highlights. Here’s an exampled:

litchenstein_kiss.gif

The image on the left is the original, and the image on the right is Litchenstein’s work.

Another artist, Brittany Pyle, did exactly the same thing, and has now been sent a letter by a lawyer by Litchenstein’s estate claiming their copyright has been infringed upon.

Brittany’s new work looks like this:

brittany_kiss.jpeg

The best part is that the new work is obviously based off of the original:

the_kiss_comparison.png

As you can see the lines of the new work (in red) deviate from both the original comic artwork (on left in black) and Litchenstein’s version (on right in black), but over all are much closer to the original.

Specifically, look at the shape of the eyes and tears, the shape of the hands and the shadowing there, and the lines on the man’s face.

I guess the though process is that theft is OK, if you’re the first person to do it, but not the second?

Pyle, and Elsinore now have a choice. While to the average person, it might be easy to recognize the source, this won’t protect them in court. Litchenstein’s estate can still sue, and even if they don’t win, it will be a costly process to protect their rights.

This is one of many huge problems with our current intellectual property systems, and will become only more rampant as remix culture becomes more popular.

Comments (0)

Tea Party Egocentrism ⇨

April 15, 2010 at 3:25 pm

Very interesting cognitive bias: 84% of Tea Party respondents think they share their views with most Americans, but only 25% of the general population agrees. No slight intended here; I suspect the highly politically active on the left have the same bias.

Comments (0) | permalink

NYTimes.com: Ebook piracy sometimes OK. ⇨

April 10, 2010 at 5:45 pm

The comparison to the right to rip a CD’s is interesting, given how new that ‘right’ is, and that such actions have been contested in the past. Also, there’s a difference between privately duplicating and unsanctioned distribution channels.

Comments (0) | permalink

Codebreakers ↴

at 12:15 am

Codebreakers #1

Back in February Bruce Schneier linked to a press release for an upcoming comic book about cryptographers, called Codebreakers, that was coming out soon. Details at the time were scant and the comments were doubtful, but this is at the intersection of a few things that interest me, so it stuck in my mind. This week issue #1 came out and I had $3.99 burning a hole in my pocket, so I decided to see how it turned out.

One quick note, for those of you who don’t read comic books: They make comics about people without superpowers, capes, or spandex costumes. Yes, I know, weird but true. There are comics in just about any genre you can think of, and many you wouldn’t expect. (For example, Logicomix is a detailed biography of Bertrand Russel.)

OK, let’s get to what Schneier’s crowd will be most interested in: Codebreakers seems to be a techno-thriller, with the core cast working for the F.B.I. in a cryptanalyst unit, rather than focusing on any aspect of cryptography.

References are made to cryptography, but they have same pseudo-magical quality that all technology has in popular media. The characters say they’re going to decrypt something, then they do, the details are left out. This is clearly intended to be popular entertainment; no need to weigh the story or readers down with details.

To borrow a phrase, the ‘wince-to-word ratio’ isn’t too bad, and not just because half of the storytelling is pictorial. Cryptography jargon is used sparingly. Maybe a two dozen words in the first issue, and most of it plays fairly well. In a few cases, Codebreakers does a better job showing security related topics than naming them. Look for stenography, social engineering, and biometric identify theft, etc. One or two sentences irked me, but the because the treatment is so light weight, it’s hard to draw fault.

There is one panel showing a character’s head surrounded by glowing numbers and characters as he focuses on a computer screen while working. I’m not sure if this was a sly allusion to every TV show and movie with a hacker in it ever, or if they just thought it would look cool, just like the makers of every TV show and movie with a hacker in it.

So how’s the actual comic book? Better than I expected. I like that it throws you some curve balls, and there’s a level of subtlety with what’s left unsaid. The story involves a trojan of sorts, but I don’t want to spoil it. The writing’s good, and the characters interact well. Even the big exposition scene is woven into the narrative in a fairly clever manner.

Art-wise, it goes for a comic book realism with clean lines. There an interesting visual conceit: As mentioned before, there’s a scene with glowing numbers and a swirly background. This happens when Stanley Grouse, the young, slovenly cryptographer is working. Contrasting this are the images formed when Donald Foster, his older, more orderly mentor, thinks. Here we see windows showing Foster’s inferences and predictions, through a filter of concentric circles, the panels sometimes linked to Foster himself.

My biggest complaint is that at one point the visual narrative completely fails. Specifically, on page 10, the last two panels seem to be showing something, but even after re-reading the whole book twice, I can’t figure out what. Everything else in the comic fits together fairly tightly, so these panels seem out of place.

Overall value? Well, it’s not for the hardcore cryptographer, but it’s a decent piece of pop culture entertainment. I’ll read the next issue.

Comments (0)

Making of Pictoral Websters ⇨

April 4, 2010 at 3:11 pm

Both an amazing attention to detail and process, and a reminder of why information technology is so important. The cheap version available here.

Comments (0) | permalink

Doctorow on iPad Downsides ↴

April 3, 2010 at 5:37 pm

Cory Doctorow has written a piece on why you shouldn’t buy an iPad. The article covers a lot of ground, but much of it is about Intellectual Property and user rights. We’re going to skip that part, for now. I’d like to focus on his introduction and summary, in which he posits that the iPad is just another fad, as CD-ROM content once was, and that as a gadget, iPads will be thrown away within a couple of years.

iPad, the CD-ROM analog

The iPad is being positioned as a new medium, in the McLuhan “the Medium is the Message” way. People are going to have to figure out what to do with it. The CD-ROM was also, at one point, a new medium. People had to figure out what to do with it. While they share this single trait, to tying the fate of the iPad to that of the CD-ROM doesn’t make sense.

The CD-ROM had extremely limited utility. It was designed only to store a set amount of static content, and was replaced by better methods to convey the same or improved content. Larger hard drives, thumb drives and the internet all provide better methods for storing the information, and the content itself was replaced better solutions based on newer software and internet standards.

The iPad does have the ability to store data like a CD-ROM did, but it’s functionality, and indeed its primary utility, extends far beyond that. It’s a device for viewing media and communicating. A closer analog to the iPad would be any of Apple’s MacBook, iPhone, or iPod products, all of which have been successful, but these too shouldn’t be used for comparison.

The MacBook and iPhone are both technically Turing complete machines with audio, visual, and network interfaces. Yet while their potential uses overlap, the utility found in each device isn’t duplicated between them. Their forms, or rather their medium, differ. The iPad represents a new ‘third type of mobile device” as Steve Jobs said during the product release media event, and will have to be judge not on past precedents, but rather the utility people find in it and it’s impact on the world.

iPad, the obsolete

Technically, Doctorow is right about the gadget’s life span, but this is true of any gadget or new electronic device, and thus is irrelevant. The pace of technology is incredibly quick to make obsolete any electronics these days. This obsolescence is also largely in relations to newer, competing gadgets, but older gadgets can still retain great value when compared to no having a gadget at all. If obsolescence were a reason not to buy a specific gadget, by the same logic, no one would buy anything electronic.

Ironically, in the end the obsolescence will actually work in favor of Doctorow’s open rights and IP ideals. The iPad is being positioned as a new type of device, beating a new path to a new market. This new market is based on Apple’s design requirements and current technology constraints. As technology progresses the technology constraints will change and Apple’s competitors will step up. The competitors will inevitably be introducing competing devices (many already have) with different capabilities, and different levels of openness. But for this to happen, Apple had to innovate, showing them how to do it, and giving them a target to hit.

Ultimately, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and a tool in the hand of a user is worth more than the hope of an ideal tool at a later time.

To conclude, buy it if you want, but don’t let those two arguments stop you.

Comments (0)

Apple, iBook, and Antitrust ↴

April 2, 2010 at 10:58 pm

Apple decision to exclude the new iBook application from the software bundled with the iPad illuminates the murky water Apple is navigating in it’s attempts to both maintain control of its platforms and compete in the media market. Apple is being forced to make hard choices because of three factors: Apple’s desire to dominate the ebook market, its existing app store policies, and its fear of antitrust allegations.

For a variety of reasons, Apple’s App Store submission processes have drawn a lot of flack. Amongst them is that applications can be refused for duplicating the functionality of the applications Apple bundles with iPhones and iPod Touch’s. In the past, this hasn’t been a problem for Apple. The iPhone and iPod Touch were released with their core application set long before 3rd party application were allowed, so there was a clear line in the sand.

Now new problems are cropping up for Apple: By adding new features, Apple runs the risk of colliding with existing 3rd party features their user base have and expect. Amazon’s Kindle application was released over a year ago for the iPhone and iPod Touch, and the iBook application duplicates it.

Apple could have bundled iBook with the iPad, and denied other ebook readers on it’s system, but this would have caused numerous problems. Developers would be sent the message that could arbitrarily destroy their businesses at any time. The existing Kindle application users would be angered that they were losing features. Claims of antitrust behavior would gain more credence as an existing competitor was shut out.

Apple could have bundled iBook with the iPad, and allowed other ebook readers on it’s platform, but this would cause problems too. It would show further inconsistencies in their application submission policies, drawing more flack and could lead to antitrust allegations based on the fact it iBook would be bundled, similar to those that plagued Microsoft regarding Internet Explorer.

Apple chose not to bundle iBook with the iPad.

This is telling because Apple is well known for it’s design process. It’s an often repeated story how the smallest details of a product are obsessed over until they are perfected. The functionality, look, and feel have to be just so, so that most users never notice the effort, but still, instinctively, recognize the quality. Everything has to work, and and work seamlessly with other Apple products. And yet, here we see Apple making it harder for their customers to use their software and buy books from them.

The recent announcements of agreements with publishers show that Apple wants it’s iBook Store to be just as successful as its iTunes Store; an easy to use go-to place media for the common consumer. And yet, unlike the iTunes Store, it won’t be bundled, making it harder for the average user to get and use.

What we’re shown by this decision is that Apple’s keen attention to detail is being applied to their business and that this sometimes conflicts with and overrides product design, the thing Apple is known best for.

The question that arises is how will these new business limitations impact Apple’s ability to innovate and provide new core features for its products?

Comments (0)

Hello world! ↴

April 1, 2010 at 6:38 pm

A dangerous game:

drop table wp_comments;
drop table wp_commentmeta;
drop table wp_links;
drop table wp_options;
drop table wp_postmeta;
drop table wp_posts;
drop table wp_term_relationships;
drop table wp_term_taxonomy;
drop table wp_terms;
drop table wp_usermeta;
drop table wp_users;
Comments (0)