Corey Cooper Stevens' Exploratory Research Blog
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
comments for blog
great job corey, you have excellent sources and a specific purpose and audience in mind.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Entertainment Production, Distribution, and Performance Company
Entertainment Production, Distribution, and Performance Company
Business Plan Handbook.
Summary from Gale Virtual Reference:
source citation:
Business Plan Handbook.
Summary from Gale Virtual Reference:
This probably needs a bit of an introduction—it is not your run-of-the-mill business plan. It is somewhat unconventional, a bit more 'flashy' than most, you say … but, you know what? I bet you will read it. It's slightly different, a bit innovative and certainly creative. You see, we had a difficult time conforming to the formal approach, and every so often, we slightly break the rules of business plan etiquette.
We wanted our business plan to convey that, and we wanted you to know our intentions … Someone or something comes along that makes us sit up and pay attention. Something that touches us at a level much deeper than routine … something that whispers to the soul because it holds value, honesty and integrity. Pay attention. This may be that something.
Rekve, Gerald. "Entertainment Production, Distribution, and Performance Company." Business Plans Handbook.
Ed. Lynn M. Pearce. Vol. 12. Detroit: Gale, 2007. 71-82. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 28 Oct. 2012.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Opposing Viewpoints: Free Speech Should Not Be Regulated
Opposing Viewpoints:Freedom of Speech Should Not Be Regulated
Article: Free Speech Should Not Be Regulated
summary of article (provided by Gale Opposing Viewpoints):
In the following viewpoint, Oliver Kamm contends that free speech must be protected because people's feelings cannot be legislated. The author alleges that speech at its most extreme draws attention to social problems and stimulates debate, and moderating speech undermines this process. In fact, Kamm argues that if the state has the power to legislate its citizens' sensibilities, its power is, in effect, limitless. Furthermore, he claims that ideas alone do not merit respect—ideas earn respect through their intellectual resilience. Kamm is an author and columnist for the Times (UK).
citation of source:
Article: Free Speech Should Not Be Regulated
summary of article (provided by Gale Opposing Viewpoints):
In the following viewpoint, Oliver Kamm contends that free speech must be protected because people's feelings cannot be legislated. The author alleges that speech at its most extreme draws attention to social problems and stimulates debate, and moderating speech undermines this process. In fact, Kamm argues that if the state has the power to legislate its citizens' sensibilities, its power is, in effect, limitless. Furthermore, he claims that ideas alone do not merit respect—ideas earn respect through their intellectual resilience. Kamm is an author and columnist for the Times (UK).
citation of source:
Kamm, Oliver. "Free Speech Should Not Be Regulated." Civil Liberties. Ed. Auriana
Ojeda. San Diego:Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "The
Tyranny of Moderation." Index on Censorship (Feb. 2007): 82-86. Gale Opposing
Viewpoints In Context. Web. 27 Oct. 2012.
Opposing Viewpoints: Freedom of Speech Has Limits
Opposing Viewpoints: Freedom of Speech
Supporting a viewpoint on regulating a persons right to free speech
summary of article from Gale Opposing Viewpoints:
In the following viewpoint, Steven J. Heyman proposes that free speech is an alienable right and is limited by other civil rights. He supports a humanist view of the First Amendment, suggesting that it was originally intended to promote autonomy and democratic self-government while protecting human dignity and equality. According to Heyman, the regulation of free speech is needed to defend individual privacy, security, and reputation. Additionally, the author maintains that some forms of hate speech and pornography are debasing and must be regulated. Heyman is a professor of law at Chicago-Kent College of Law and author of Free Speech and Human Dignity, from which this viewpoint is excerpted.
Supporting a viewpoint on regulating a persons right to free speech
Article: Free Speech Has Limits
In the following viewpoint, Steven J. Heyman proposes that free speech is an alienable right and is limited by other civil rights. He supports a humanist view of the First Amendment, suggesting that it was originally intended to promote autonomy and democratic self-government while protecting human dignity and equality. According to Heyman, the regulation of free speech is needed to defend individual privacy, security, and reputation. Additionally, the author maintains that some forms of hate speech and pornography are debasing and must be regulated. Heyman is a professor of law at Chicago-Kent College of Law and author of Free Speech and Human Dignity, from which this viewpoint is excerpted.
citation of article:
Heyman, Steven J. "Free Speech Has Limits." Free Speech and Human Dignity.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008. Rpt. in Civil Liberties. Ed. Auriana
Ojeda. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale
Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 27 Oct. 2012.
Friday, October 26, 2012
News Article: The Denver Post; Crowdfunding through social media and the internet
Article: The Denver Post; "Crowdfunding Gives Startups a Capital Boost."
brief description of article:
"Entrepreneurs, consultants and potential investors Friday explained and dissected
crowdfunding
,
a
means for small-business owners to raise early-stage
capital
through social media and online" (Mossman)
source citation:
Mossman, John. "Crowdfunding Gives Startups a Capital Boost." The Denver Post
[Denver] 9 June 2012: n. pag.America's News. Web. 17 Oct. 2012.
Alternative Source Idea: Blog; Hollywood Reporter THR- Esq.
Source: Hollywood Reporter THR- Esq. the intersection between entertainment and law (Blog)
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/thr-esq
example of a useful post:
BB Hollywood, a new branded entertainment venture, finds that its own branding may run afoul of a Los Angeles landmark.
But it turns out the splash page has already made more of a splash in Hollywood than the agency intended. When it showed up in a New York Times story identified as the new venture’s logo, at least one person in LA took notice.
“I’ve already sent it over to our attorney for a cease and desist (letter),” Jeff Lotman told The Hollywood Reporter. Lotman is the CEO of Global Icons, a licensing agency that represents the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. The non-profit Chamber, as much of Hollywood knows, owns a trademark in the Hollywood sign – and they police it vigilantly.
“It’s an infringement of our trademark,” said Chamber president and CEO Leron Gubler, when asked about the BB Hollywood image. “This is not an isolated occurrence.”
Gubler could just as well have used the plural – i.e., “trademarks” – because the Chamber actually owns about a half-dozen related trademarks, not in the image of the sign itself, but in the word “HOLLYWOOD” when depicted in the aforementioned staggered, blocky typeface.
In addition, the Chamber’s lawyers use a form of quasi trademark called “trade dress” to extend its rights to cover other words when set in a similar typeface against a Hollywood Hills type backdrop. The sponsors of the X Games, for instance, paid a licensing fee in order to use an image of “X GAMES X” set up to look like the Hollywood sign.
This might all sound ominous for The Brooklyn Brothers, whose three partners are neither brothers nor from Brooklyn. A chat with agency head Guy Barnett made clear from his accent that he hails from England, in fact.
But about that logo. “It’s not a logo,” said Barnett. “It’s just a way to launch the company, a fun visual.”
“We won’t be so pleased if we get sued,” he added a bit nervously.
Actually, that seems unlikely. Lotman told THR that he was open to a deal and that the fee – even if it were for a logo – “is not going to be much.”
That sounded more comforting to Barnett, whose agency has offices in Manhattan, London and, somewhat improbably, Brazil. (“That’s where our digital wizards live,” Barnett offered.)
No doubt a quick settlement will allow the agency to focus on the new enterprise, which aims to create branded entertainment. It’s actually a joint venture between The Brooklyn Brothers and eight writers and producers: Ned Rice (“The Tonight Show,” “Politically Incorrect”), Mark Goffman (“White Collar,” “The West Wing”), Lester Lewis (“Madison High,” “The Office”), Rob Long (“Cheers”), Adam Kulakow (Les Miserables, Race to Witch Mountain), Danielle Uhlarik (“The Family Tools”), Paul Ruehl (“Hard Times of RJ Berger”) and producer Laylee Olfat (casting director and producer on Roger Dodger and Secret Lives of Dentists).
With nary a connection to New York’s outer boroughs, why call the agency The Brooklyn Brothers? Said Barnett, “I liked the way it made us sound like a circus.”
Indeed. While some people analogize moving to LA as running away and joining the circus, this might be one of the few times the circus ran away and joined Hollywood. Splash page kerfuffle aside, they should fit right in.
Email: jhandel99 at gmail dot com
Source Citation:
Handel, Jonathan. "Hollywood Sign Owner Cries Foul Over Ad Agency 'Infringement'" Web
log post. The Hollywood Reporter. Billboard/Backstage/AdWeek, 26 Oct. 2012. Web.
26 Oct. 2012.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Additional Resrources to Continue Exploring/Uncovering
Additional places research can be found will include:
-auraria website: skyline search (books in print, online resources)-primary source: business school (CU Denver campus)
-Ken Bettenhausen ask for references of where to go (FYS professor)
-primary source: Robert John Stevens- Interview
-how did you prepare as a working individual in the entertainment industry for changes within the workplace specifically in technology and the ways that technology affected the order in which you complete tasks at hand?
-primary source: David John Stevens- Lawyer Interview
-Lawyer; could ask how intellectual property plays a part in all areas of the law and how does it play a part in your job on a daily, monthly or yearly basis?
- is the current legal system prepared to adapt laws and regulations fast enough to be able to deal with changes in technology?
-if not, how will these changes be represented in law?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)