<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><link>http://tags.library.upenn.edu/tag/the_nation</link>
<title>PennTags Feed for /tag/the_nation</title>
<description>PennTags Feed</description>
<item><guid isPermaLink="true">http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/36929</guid>
<link>http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/36929</link>
<title>Agee, James. "Films." The Nation. 5 Jul. 1947. 23-25.</title>
<description>&lt;p&gt;In this article, James Agee writes a review in high praise for Jean Vigo&amp;rsquo;s daring experimentation and messages of &amp;ldquo;Z&amp;eacute;ro de Conduite.&amp;rdquo; He begins by warning the reader to not watch Vigo&amp;rsquo;s film if he or she is affronted by experimentation in film and other mediums. He then mentions that the role of Vigo as artist is to simply open the spectator&amp;rsquo;s eyes a little bit wider.&amp;nbsp; After a quick summary of the plot, Agee decides that full enjoyment of the film depends on the subjective perception of each viewer, and admits that he too shares many of Vigo&amp;rsquo;s &amp;ldquo;obsessions for liberty and against authority.&amp;rdquo; He then relates the ways in which Vigo&amp;rsquo;s film is a revolutionary expression, namely the lack of any sort of constructed &amp;ldquo;diagnosis and prescription,&amp;rdquo; which can be taken to mean linear plot line, as well as the &amp;ldquo;liberating force&amp;rdquo; of its whimsical, mischievous, childish humor and trickery.&amp;nbsp; Agee eventually describes what he sees as Vigo&amp;rsquo;s &amp;ldquo;trick,&amp;rdquo; that being the ability to blur the distinctions between objective and subjective, reality and the fantastic, with technical style and innovation. He decides that all the &amp;ldquo;levels of reality&amp;rdquo; presented are equal in value, but interconnected, an aesthetic point of poetic perception. He makes a point of stating that he does not take Vigo&amp;rsquo;s tactics to be unconventional, but rather simply expanding the audience&amp;rsquo;s concept of film with different strategies. He reinforces the role of the audience as sympathetic to the rebellious boys, who are portrayed sentimentally as creative, wild, beautiful children, while the teachers are portrayed as grotesque caricatures of authority. The article ends as Agee mentions a few of his favorite scenes from the film, particularly the sacrilegious &amp;ldquo;slurred&amp;rdquo; motion parade of the boys out of the dormitories, which he likens to the newsreel shots of the liberation of Paris.&lt;br /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Although Agee may have been a biased reviewer, as he shared many of the same political instincts as Jean Vigo, his analysis of the film is nevertheless an excellent description of its subversive, anti-authoritarian tendencies. By pointing out the lack of a cohesively constructed plotline, with a problem and solution, Agee references Vigo&amp;rsquo;s truest subversive and anti-authoritarian act as not solely the content of the film, which is obviously anti-authority, but structure of the film itself. By producing a film that makes the audience feel uncomfortable about the differences between fantasy, the dreams of children, and the reality of the daily life of the school, Vigo takes an anarchist step towards questioning the basic nature of how we perceive our reality outside of the theater. Additionally, Agee deliberately mentions some of the film&amp;rsquo;s subversive content, particularly the whimsy of the students, as avowedly anti-establishment, since it is their childish humor and fancy that in fact does disrupt the alumni gathering at the end of the film, leaving the children victorious. Another specific example would be the boys&amp;rsquo; parade out of their dormitories, a very anti-Catholic/anti-organized religion parody that subverted social and cultural norms, not just political ones. In general, Vigo's liberating portrayal of childhood instincts directly confronts the rigid, dummy establishment of teachers and adulthood.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Citation: Agee, James. "Films." The Nation. 5 Jul. 1947. 23-25.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;unfortunately, I do not have the URL for where I accessed the article, but I do have a pdf copy if you would like me to send it.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item>
<item><guid isPermaLink="true">http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/35044</guid>
<link>http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/35044</link>
<title>Facing The Nation: The Standards for Copyright, Infringement, and Fair Use of Factual Works</title>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Francione's article in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review discusses infringment and fair use of copyrightable or noncopyrightable factual information and uses "&lt;em&gt;The Nation&lt;/em&gt;" case, which went through multiple appeals and reversed decisions, as evidence. &lt;em&gt;The Nation&lt;/em&gt; case (&lt;a href="makerecord/url/35113" target="_new"&gt;Harper &amp;amp; Row, Publishers, Inc., Et Al. v. Nation Enterprises Et Al&lt;/a&gt;) involves &lt;em&gt;The Nation&lt;/em&gt;'s publication of Gerald Ford's then unpublished manuscripts, the rights of which were owned by Time. Originally,&lt;em&gt; The Nation'&lt;/em&gt;s publication of the material was ruled as copyright infringement, but in an appeal, the decision was reversed. The use was seen as fair because it disseminated factual information of a political figure to the public. The Supreme Court, however, then reversed that decision. Until this case, fair use was seen as a "cure all" when it came to factual information and copyright infringement claims, but the Supreme Court "[truncated] substantially the fair use defense." Francione examines the approaches taken to reach the different decisions in this case. He denounces the "totality approach," which acknowledges that ideas and facts cannot be copyrighted but, when integrated with copyrightable forms of expression, the sum of the work is transformed into protectable material. He believes that the Supreme Court's final decision limits the fair use doctrine, which is a component of the law necessary to protect the First Amendment in order to "ensure the continued broad dissemination of factual works."&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Nation&lt;/em&gt; case and its analysis relates to the topic of copyright and the public interest because it sheds light on different opinions of how much consideration should be given to a work that includes information of note to the public. The original decision rejected the defense that the publication was was protected by the First Amendment. Rather, since the heart of the work was taken for commercial use and thus hurt the copyright owner's market, this was not fair use. When looked at in totality with the rest of the work, copyright laws did apply, despite the presence of factual information. The court of appeals, however, focused on the distinction between facts/ideas and expression, only the latter of which is protected by copyright. The court saw First Amendment values as crucial because &lt;em&gt;The Nation&lt;/em&gt;'s article included information on "political events of major significance, involving a former President of the United States. The paraphrasings concern the very essence of news and history." The court also rejected the original "totality approach." Although the court acknowledged that the work was for profit, it "noted that profit was 'legally irrellevant' when public benefit was involved." Clearly, this decision implies that when works benefit the public interest, the need to distribute such information trumps the owners' copyright benefits. The court in this case, in addition to the article's author, believes that serving the public interest is of utmost importance and in order for copyright law to do so, the fair use doctrine must be interpreted widely. The Supreme Court, however, reversed this decision and focused on the unpublished nature of the work. Copyright owners cannot suppress facts, but the First Amendment also protects the right &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to speak publically, and thus fair use of unpublished works should be strictly defined. The Court rejects that information of public interest should widen the scope of fair use because doing so would "destroy any expectation of copyright protection in the work of a public figure." The dissenting opinion notes that such a constricted interpretation of fair use hurts the goals to promote science and the arts and to protect the First Amendment. Examination and analysis of this case highlights two sides of the argument concerning copyright's role in serving the public interest.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
