It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In RiP: A remix manifesto, Web activist and filmmaker Brett Gaylor explores issues of copyright in the information age, mashing up the media landscape of the 20th century and shattering the wall between users and producers.
The films central protagonist is Girl Talk, a mash-up musician topping the charts with his sample-based songs. But is Girl Talk a paragon of people power or the Pied Piper of piracy? Creative Commons founder, Lawrence Lessig, Brazil's Minister of Culture Gilberto Gil and pop culture critic Cory Doctorow are also along for the ride.
A participatory media experiment, from day one, Brett shares his raw footage at opensourcecinema.org, for anyone to remix. This movie-as-mash-up method allows these remixes to become an integral part of the film. With RiP: A remix manifesto, Gaylor and Girl Talk sound an urgent alarm and draw the lines of battle.
Which side of the ideas war are you on?
To a large extent, that's what the Creative Commons license is all about. The majority of things that I've seen released under CC allow for the creation of non-commercial derivative works. Under existing copyright law, things such as fan fiction are technically illegal, even if they're not sold. By an author placing his original work in a CC-BY-NC-SA license, he or she is explicitly giving permission for others to come play in the world they created.
Originally posted by subject x
I think that if someone wants to "create" something artistic out of someone else's art for themselves, that's fine. If they want to make money off of it, they should have to pay a percentage of the profit to the original artist.
Then I'm guessing you have a pretty dim view of Walt Disney? Most of the major Disney films are merely retellings of traditional fables, folk-lore and other older stories. How about Star Wars? A bit of Joseph Campbell, some Kurosawa and some WWII aerial combat footage... Crap, right?
That being said, I also think that if you want to make art, make it. Don't chop up someone else's work to do it. To me, those who do "mash ups" are just wannabes who don't have enough talent to actually create their own art.
Parody and commentary. A significant part of post-modernism is the dissecting of popular culture and reinterpreting it, showing it to us in a new light and possibly using it to tell us something new. Heck, I can appreciate a Weird Al parody of a song when I would have absolutely no interest in listening to the original.
Of course, then you get into the issue of most of today's music being not very creative in the first place, which begs the question: if you make a mash-up out of a bunch of computer generated crap that kinda sucked in the first place, what makes you think your end result will be any better. Garbage in, garbage out.
Not at all. That's actually a pretty close-minded way of looking at the world. Quotes can be used to illustrate a point, to criticize, or to raise awareness or make a social commentary.
But the most apalling thing about the whole issue is that the masses seem to like it. When the public will pay for crap that was made by pasting a bunch of other crap together, well, that's a pretty sad statement about people in general.
Originally posted by JoshNorton
To a large extent, that's what the Creative Commons license is all about. The majority of things that I've seen released under CC allow for the creation of non-commercial derivative works. Under existing copyright law, things such as fan fiction are technically illegal, even if they're not sold. By an author placing his original work in a CC-BY-NC-SA license, he or she is explicitly giving permission for others to come play in the world they created.
Then I'm guessing you have a pretty dim view of Walt Disney? Most of the major Disney films are merely retellings of traditional fables, folk-lore and other older stories. How about Star Wars? A bit of Joseph Campbell, some Kurosawa and some WWII aerial combat footage... Crap, right?
Parody and commentary. A significant part of post-modernism is the dissecting of popular culture and reinterpreting it, showing it to us in a new light and possibly using it to tell us something new. Heck, I can appreciate a Weird Al parody of a song when I would have absolutely no interest in listening to the original.
Not at all. That's actually a pretty close-minded way of looking at the world. Quotes can be used to illustrate a point, to criticize, or to raise awareness or make a social commentary.
I understand. It's a tough call for me as well. I'm acutely aware of copyright law (worked at Kinko's when I was working my way through college) and as a content creator myself (internationally published photographer, musician on 5 albums, credits in IMDB and on DVDs you probably own, etc...). And my own art lately IS derivative work, which is probably why I'm a little defensive on the subject. For me, the line I draw, or the question I ask myself is "Is my new piece substantially transformative from the original?" 2 Live Crew vs Roy Orbison was a clear case, in my opinion, where the new work was NOT transformative. Sure, they were rapping over it and to a degree made it their own, but the original was still too recognizable. It's a fuzzy area, to be sure.
Originally posted by subject x
I have no problem with people using CC works to make their own stuff, but when folks start making money off other people's works that just bugs me. I know how much work is involved with making music or fim, and for others to profit off this work without sharing just sticks in my craw.
Of course, I'm just taking Disney as an example because they're the ones who keep pushing for copyright extensions and many of the works that built them up as a company were based on things they didn't own rights to.
Although I'm not a big Disney fan, I don't recall him chopping up other people's films to construct his own. The retelling of traditional stories is not the same thing, and I think you realize that.
Legally I see a difference (though minor), procedurally there's a difference, but as far as the end results, I don't know if I'm willing to make a judgment call and say that a musician playing someone else's riff (a la Jimmy Page vs Muddy Waters) is any better or worse than someone sampling a recorded riff.
Once again, not the same thing. Parody and commentary are not the issues here. The issue is people like "Girl Talk" pasting together other people's work and profiting from it. He's not stealing riffs and melodies and re-performing them in his own framework, he's using other artist's hard work to patch together his own drivel and profit from it. I'm sure you see the difference, but for some reason you're acting as if you don't.
Of course, William S. Burroughs and Brion Gysin were notable for doing exactly that. For that matter Robert Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns if you're willing to extend the metaphor beyond words to other visual collage.
We're not talking about quotes. When quoting, credit is given to the quotee. (is that a word?) People generally don't paste together a bunch of quotes and call it their own work.
Again, see Rauschenberg, Johns, Warhol, Duchamp, and any number of others who made their art sometimes literally copying and pasting.
Besides, nothing you said about quoting has anything to do with my statement about the sad state of a public who will actually pay for copy-and-paste "art".
No need to apologize, we can keep this civil, and as I said, I'm coming at this from both a content creator who's done original work and someone who's sampled, so my point of view on the matter has shifted over the years. (Not saying that I'm any more right than you, just letting you know it's not a topic that I treat lightly... copyright and intellectual property rights are important issues for me and my friends, so it's something we've debated long into the night for more than 15 years...)
So basically, your responses here have nothing to do with the issue as I see it. I could be wrong, and feel free to clarify your connections for me, as I might just be a little dense.
The real problem is that the labels own the recordings. Artists might own the songs, but most of the time it's the label who owns a specific version/performance/recording/documentation of that song.
Originally posted by Storm_Indigochild
How much money is someone willing to pay to clear a sample..?
How much could someone afford to have a sample cleared, it depends on the A-Z status range of artists, or the interest of making profit by a (major) publishing company.
Doesn't it..?