Pickens 7/10

In The fair use doctrine; History, application, and implications for (new media) writing teachers Martine Rife says “Perhaps it is not so much a question of who owns writing but a question of own owns the right to regulate writing, to construct the standards and frameworks that shape practice” (174). In doing so she is locating the power of copywrite not in those who produce writing but in those who control, create, and enforce those laws. As such a large part of what we do in our classroom and in our work remains at the discretion of those who define and enforce fair use doctrines. As we work within these systems how can we use our positions as educators and writers to push back against these power limits? Can we take back some of the power by teaching a greater understanding of the law and its limits? Do we risk getting our classes bogged down in legal technicalities so much that we begin to constrict our student’s own authorial power? What might a lesson focused around fair use look like? Could it take a critical voice of fair use by pushing against fair use’s boundaries?

            Throughout Plagiarism, Originality, and Assemblage Selber and Johnson-Eilola come back to the idea that “The common practice of remixing visual elements common in design thus asks that teachers consider raising the status of remixed elements in verbal texts so that we no longer automatically subordinate quotation the original text” (387). Central to their thesis is this idea that we currently rank original text higher than quoted text in importance. I wonder how they note the original text as different than the whole text presented to the instructor. How might we consider a text, and its use of quotes and references, to be original not only in its individual argument but also through its use of referenced material? Do we grade a paper partially on its use of quotes and citation beyond just its ability to meet community standards? Does a text’s skillful use of its referenced material not also constitute part of the originality of the text itself? If we do already grade text this way then how might we make this clearer in our grading criteria? Could we both re-emphasize our priorities as well as address some of Selber and Johnson-Eilola’s concerns by re articulating our goals for students or would considering reference use part of a text originality not address the concept of the remix directly enough to solve problems presented in their article?