This weeks reading “Remix: How Creativity Is Being Strangled by the Law” brings up the similarities between remix culture and pirating. The lines between these activities are, as described in the chapter, a legal mess. This chapter proposes that information be of free use if it is for good or creative purposes. But It seems to be much easier said than legally enforced. I’ll admit that I don’t have a sure fire theory to solve these disputes, nor can I easily define what we should and shouldn't share, but I think it boils down to a attitude of respect in a community of creators.
In my personal experience the vastness of the internet and digital sharing allows me to access so much information without much concern as to if the way I am using this information is legal or not, and I don’t really see that changing. I would not go as far to say that I am comfortable debating media law, but because I am very much a part of remix culture, a frequent user of digital sharing technology, and because I both create my own content and work with previously existing information it is important to me that I am able to define what I think appropriate and fair uses of this information are to me as an individual.
Ideally I would like to use any bit of information as it suits me may it be photographs, music, or video. Of course this is unreasonable, but I wouldn’t say it is completely unreasonable, so where do i draw the line? I think the line is drawn when someone else is profiting from your intellectual material. In the simplest terms it is both unreasonable and illegal for me to use a song someone published in my video, or a photograph I found online in my magazine and not at least offer them part of what I receive in exchange for my work.
This article references several cases in which artists were sued for repurposing the art of others, the cases and settlements vary, but it begs the question, what is fair and what is theft? When I look at Koons sculpture or Prince’s reappropriations I feel like these artists are remixing previous ideas and but the original texts is still obvious and important in the meaning of the reappropriated text, but could these artists have made the same effect without the originals? I think the answer varies per case, and the question is one that is nearly impossible to answer.
I think the true answer to who gets to remix what is that artists need to respect each other and fairly cite and compensate their collaborators. Realistically that isn’t something that anyone can assure but it is something I try to abide by.
So I wonder, to what levels are my peers willing to share their content with others? Where do you draw these lines? When is it necessary to use existing information and when is it not?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs we talked about in class, the law needs to change to reflect the way our ideas are shifting in society. Not only our ideas (what we choose to reflect upon, to build upon, to critique) but how they are shared and viewed. And to what magnitude the creators in question hold power and influence (for those whose art is being "stolen," and those who "steal").
ReplyDeleteFor me, being a lowly art student whose creative output has not yet earned me monetary gain, art is at its core _creative_. Most of the artists I admire most, filmmakers or otherwise, stress the fluidity of knowledge and appropriation-- those with the respect for the art will give credit where credit is very much due. I would hope to do the same, in terms of sharing my ideas and when pulling from others'.
So is compensation always necessary? The sliding scale rule seems pertinent, which brings me back to my point: we will not know until government comes down to meet us on the hill and discuss what it is we as a society believe copyright laws should entail. That conversation must include everyone from the big industry to the guy drawing Mickey Mouse erotica in his basement. That's how we will know where the lines are drawn.
As for the necessity of using existing information and when it is not... that depends on the creator of this new art. Who is to say if it is necessary or not? Really... who?
I agree. The laws do need to change with the way society views/uses media on a daily basis. In today’s world most artistic ideas are based off of previous material thought of by other individuals anyways, so the restrictions over fair use laws need an adjustment. Maybe since government isn’t meeting “us” users, perhaps we should take the issue to them. In my opinion the government isn’t going to make an effort to address the issue because fair use laws are difficult to define. As for the question, is compensation necessary? I think that if a user is making profit, compensation and credit is appropriate. If, I were the originator of a successful film or song I would want credit if someone had created a remixed version of my creation that I had worked very hard for an was making a profit, especially if there remixed version was making more money than my original idea.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of my own work, I am always eager to collaborate. However (as far as I know) I have never had my material used and not been given due credit. Now some things have grown so large and culturally all encompassing that it is a bit unnecessary to tell where they came from (think Mickey Mouse or Darth Vader). But I usually draw the line at when people aren’t giving credit where its due.
ReplyDeleteLike you said, it’s unclear where the line is because there is not one effective rule that can encompass all of this. There are too many intricacies and little possibilities. Its not going to be a rule that changes the landscape, its going to have to be a sweeping change in attitude among the artists, producers, and consumers. Until then we’ll continue to have people squabbling over royalties and being credited. Maybe its just a side effect of restrictive business meeting free art.