Reading:Lawrence Lessing, Free(ing) Culture for Remix
No Copyright? Sonic Outlaws Director Craig Baldwin
(sorry that the Lessing .pdf is a little blurry)
What argument is Lessing making about the relationship between copyright and creativity throughout the history of art/media technology? After reading Lessing and Baldwin's perspectives, what do you see as the pros and cons of copyright in re-mix culture?
80 comments:
Lessing sets up his argument to show us that throughout history free copyrights have encouraged remix in culture, furthering the economy and encouraging new technologies. He says that restricting that freedom with strict copyright laws stops us from this technological and economical growth. He also says people will break the rules anyhow, and having the people break the rules because they are doing what everyone else is doing demoralizes our culture. It is important to protect artists so that they will be compensated and continue to create, but you can't restrict copyright laws so much that only established artists create. Eventually fewer artists will emerge, deterred by the prospect of never truly being able to try, or simply never being given the opportunity to branch into art. In this manner we will lose originality and future technological and economic growth. Laws have to accommodate both sides or else one or both sides will start to rebel and simply choose not to follow the rules.
Not only is creativity lost, but parody is also sacrificed. In today's culture we use the Internet not only for art and creativity, but also to enact change. If we are restricted, the people's voice is compromised and we may end up lost in the fray of an increasingly overbearing government. In a sense this is a violation of free speech. Copyrights are meant to protect and help, not restrain and silence. Unfortunately, as Baldwin says, some people have bad intentions, and copyrights are there to help stop those people. But should we restrain everyone for the wrongdoings of a few? This is a bad idea, because if we wanted to truly protect people say from crime, we'd lock everyone up and never let them leave their homes. Bad things sometimes happen, but you can't try to stop every bad thing because then you end up overreacting, or worse, giving too much power to a law instead of the people governed by it. As Lessing says, we must weigh the costs and benefits. It seems to me that the costs are outweighing the benefits, and the law should be changed to fit the growing technology of our current culture.
Oops forgot the number again. I'm Group 3, Jackie Bentley. (My post is above, Jackie bentley film 201 blog)
copyright laws to an extent is a good thing. it protects the artist's work as his own. if the laws were too strict it would damage our cultures growth of creativity. the use of others work to help create your own is a big part of our media culture. our media roots from already done work anyway so to say that we can't do that makes it so that there can't be any new works created.
there are many good things that come off of using other peoples work. it can help a new society still be in touch with an old society. it also gives room for something that was a ood dea to be expanded into a create idea. we learn from our past and exceed because of it. that is the same for reusing others work. but copyright an be negative in the fact that someone else is taking praise for another persons work. yes the law is there so that we give credit to them but at the same time the given credit isn't always know.
Nacia Schreiner 115 g1
Lessing sees that creativity can either flourish or fail due to copyright laws. His first example, the photograph would not have been adopted by the mass market if the copyright law required permission of subject matter before captured and printed. Because of the law in favor of free subject matters, photography as a medium boomed.
Later on copyright laws made it legal to publish but not copy. Commercial use of any copyrighted material made it difficult to reuse a subject matter but noncommercial material opened doors for our remix culture. In the remix state, one can artistically represent an already existing media and is made possible by our technological potential. Lessing believes that, with copyright laws, people are given incentives to create. But without a restriction on copying, there is a fear of being stolen from. But he also sates that, “our legal culture, and hence, political culture, suffers a failure of imagination”. This comes from the restrictions on content as well as “piracy” issues, but it is up to new technology to reduce illegal use and enforce norms on pirating behavior.
As for Bladwin, he is anti-copyright laws and feels there needs to be adjustments so the art world can create using existing cultural artifacts. Thusly copyright hinders the idea of “fair use” but can also protect standards. Using copyrighted material in a re-mix, however, can truly represent the cultures we live in.
I find that Lessing uses his argument to describe a form of free speech, to an extent. I think, like many of the responses here, that copyright laws can both limit the artist and give the artist limitless possibilities. Youtube is a perfect example of how many things are taken, remixed or re-edited to make their own version and therefore new artwork. Does this take away from the original artist? In a way sure, but at the same time, the remixed artist would have never been able to flourish with new ideas or new artwork came around. While reading a portion in the Lessing article, he mentions the Woody Allen film, and how he overdubs his voice over a japanese film-this immediately reminded me of the television show MXC or Most Extreme Challenge, a show that shows footage from a Japanese show and is overdubbed by American Actors to give the show humor. What was probably an older show that lost it's popularity, soon became popular again through this remixed version.
I would think that artists would be flattered if their art was later expressed in various forms and different ways. It shows that they have influenced many into thinking other things...however, I can also agree/see where many of the artists(at least the ones that actually make money) could look at this as a negative, if they began taking away their profits. Copyright laws are a double edged sword in which you can get cut either way...so it's a tricky thing to discuss.
Mike Piehl-Gerkhardt Film 115(Section 4)
To tell the truth - I cannot think of a real pro to copyright restrictions.
Maybe it's an overly-utopia idea, but I truly believe that all art should be free - you shouldn't restrict ideas or information from the public. That's probably not the best idea for a film major to have - but it's what I try to hold to. Art should not be for the sake of money, which seems to be the reason why these copyright laws are in place.
YouTube is a great place for the interaction of ideas. We should try to take this a step further:
Not only would this large online database hold finished products, but also the materials that were never used - dailies from large-budget films - clips from the independent films that most people never get a chance to see - stock photos, sound effects and et cetera - this way, we would have infinitely more material to work with... This is the direction that we should be traveling towards - not the path of the greedy artist hoarding what he created for himself and his profit. What good is creativity then?
~Eric Fritz, Group 3
Lydell Peterson
Group 1 (Emir)
Lessing is making the argument that copyright laws and restrictions are double edged. They protect the artist’s rights for the work that they produce as well as get compensated for but they inhibit creativity among remix artists. The relationship has no clear solution to solve this problem. On one side, using remixes and incorporating other artist’s work creates new and evolving art that can be used to parody or re-invent in a nostalgic sense, but on the other side, using portions of an artist’s work without permission or compensation is in a sense stealing from them. Lessing suggests that if tighter restrictions are made with copyright laws then fewer artists will produce remix-type artwork. He also suggests that certain people will always go against copyright restrictions so there needs to be a middle ground between both sides so that the remix culture can co-exist while artists whose original work is used still have “artistic right” to their work.
Which side is right? Well, they both are. A person should be able to remix artwork and create/parody and follow their creative path. The reading used the mix cassette tape as one of the examples. While creating the mix tape was potentially illegal (the legality wasn’t resolved until 1992) it broadened the creativity of the maker to create their own album of songs from many artists. This I see as a good example of why remix-culture should not be put down by heavy copyright laws. On the other hand, they are using an artist’s original work when creating the mix tape, therefore the artist should be asked for permission. The main basic pro and con is simply, artists should be asked permission and possibly compensated for their work, but any artworks work should be fair game for remixing in pursuit of another artist’s artistic goal.
In Lessing's essay he spoke of copyright and creativity. Through ideas such as influence, and stealing, these two subjects intertwine in a somewhat controversial subject. Lessing brought up the point that people must use past ideas, thoughts, arts, and music in order to make a remix of a new set of brilliant ideas. However, this use of old material can be considered ripping a businessman or artist off. Lessing basically laid out an outline of what would be a happy medium for the digital remix culture. This new age of digital recording, and computer programs make access to many copyrighted ideas so much easier. With this newfound accessibility came problems such as piracy. Some people would say piracy is the same as sharing, and to an extent it is. Then things get out of hand and people depend on this method to save money. Lessing says copyright is a law that needs to be changed with the times. Like all laws they get out dated as new inventions and policies form. Musical artists make covers of each other’s music from time to time. Do these people need ask permission to use someone else’s work? The answer is yes. Many times artists use each other’s work to put a new spin of creativity on a piece of work. However, there is so much more behind it. There lines of people behind that piece of work that are getting ripped off. Record companies that own the artists. They do not want people taking their music. Some people mentioned in these essays want a more laid back form of being able to get your hands of someone else’s work. This would not work out because of the complicated line of legal work.
-Tony Lopez
The argument Lessing is making is that even though copyright laws are set up help artists and protect their work, if they are too strict they can slow economic growth. We should still have them to keep their work safe, but we should lessen them so other people are able to be creative and new technologies can be created. He says that copyright regulations create benefits by encouraging people to be more original things and put something out there that hasn't already been done. Also he says, "impose costs which block speech that would be created by imposing oppurtunity costs on those who cannot do things with creative material that they otherwise would have been able to do." So there are pros and cons to the copyright laws that we have now. Although they should not be taken away altogether, they could probably be relaxed so people could have more creative freedom.
Lauren Zirbes, group 1
Copyright laws have both positive and negative affects. For example, if we had copyright laws before Kodak came out there wouldn't be this explosion of the camera. Photography would slowly develop and if it weren't for no copyright laws back then then who knows where we would be now. If we asked everyone for their approval of taking a picture of them we would never get anything done quicker. But there is also a down side to the quickness and productiveness just taking a picture, that is an invasion into one's privacy and people love their privacy. I agree with the fact that Copyright laws should better accommodate the invasion of privacy and the loss of creativity. If people are going to rip off others they should cite their sources. The originators should be given credit. Originality should be protected in order for artists to continue to create. But if you ask me it shouldn't have gotten into this whole mess in the first place. People should have some integrity and stop copying/stealing other's work. But that could only happen in a perfect world. In order to change all this, artists should be given an environment where they should be comfortable and not have to worry about someone pirating or copying their work and saying that it is theirs. So they should fix the copyright laws in order to accommodate what I just mentioned.
the above comment was from Michael Schafer Group 3
When you examine what Lessing has to say about copyright it is clear what his position is on copyright and remix is. If it weren’t for people doing a remix on anything we wouldn’t economic growth from new remixes of, well, anything. One of the many examples that Lessing brings up in the article is the one about Photography being an expensive and cumbersome process. Until Kodiak film came along and changed every thing all because the creator decided to do a remix on the current convention at the time.
What became of that was a new technology which pushed our civilization forward. Lessing goes on to say that if the courts put a bunch of laws restricting such creativity and ingenuity then what happens to the economic and technological growth that can come from it? There is of course in this process some kind of rule or law breaking involved, so does the end justify the means then. No morals and ethics are certainly important, artists need to be compensated and credited to there contribution. But also should everyone be wrapped up in red tap just so they can make their own remix on something that they think works better, no.
So what can be done about this? Well that is why there certain loop owls around the red tap so that people aren’t out right breaking the law but the artists are protected. Both sides of the scale have to be treated fairly and respectfully. Artists need room to explore and create new remix’s and ethics need to be upheld, other artists need protection so that their hard work and creativity is not been taken in vain. Baldwin brings attention to the point that the laws for copy right are put into place for a reason.
That they are meant to protect yet while still allowing artists to create grow. But he also brings to the table that some people have their own bad intentions and that is why copy right law is put in place. But at one point or another isn’t every one guilty of copy right infringement, illegal downloading, or other acts like this. Does that mean we should all be punished because of the actions of a few bad apples, no but it does bring up also that just one person can screw things up for every one.
Lessing say’s it is important to maintain the balance and it seems that Baldwin feels the same on his own level. When it really comes down to it I guess the best way to go about it is to find a way for artists to be protected like giving limited licenses use, or more available permission from other artists. Concentrating on keeping the balance between make sure that an artists has rights and is benign protected and making sure that everyone is free to remix something without having to worry about are they going to go to jail, pay a fine, or worse. This is what seems to be a starting point to help solve the problem.
Matt Gonia Group 1
Lessing argues that while copyright laws impede the progress of the remix culture, they should still exist but be altered to accommodate remix. Since photography their has been controversy with whether or not the original photographer or photographed should own exclusive rights to their pictures. Apart from silly superstitions about soul removal, the law became stricter in favor of the owner. This spiraled up until today where it is illegal to share most anything you didn't exclusively make. Lessing stresses the effects that this has already had on society because those who have already been denied remix haven't been able to help it grow and perhaps express their full creativity. He also says that if the laws were only changed to let artists opt out, this would be a great improvement. While I think that this should happen all together, we all know that the law doesn't work that way and this is the best solution.
There is really only one pro and one major con to the copyright laws as they are now. The only pros seem to come from the side of the creator of the media, as they control when and who they let copy their work and they get more money for it. The major problem with the laws is that they have stopped for many years the creativity of many people. It is vital not only to our culture but to each individual to be able to express themselves however they want to. If that means borrowing previously made works then so be it. Hopefully a change in laws will happen soon; I was hoping to do some "legal" remixing myself.
AHH... there should be an edit button.
Section 3!
Lessing points out that although copyright allows media artists to create their works under a protective envelope that insures against unauthorized reproduction, debauchery, or simply the stealing of ideas, it also creates a block for personal expression and the adaption of media for remix purposes. Throughout history media has been a form of expression, but when it becomes a commodity meant to be bought or traded, that is where copyright comes in helping ensure that the artist is properly acknowledged or compensated. Lessing agrees with this aspect of copyright, but as the Kodak example explained, the overuse of limiting copyright laws could hamper the growth of personal expression within media. And since there is a heavy cost and obviously tedious process required to get copyright protection, this has always been a problem for the common man looking to express himself in the growing world of big business media giants. As Lessing explains, there has always been a struggle between the costs and benefits to copyright throughout history, and that the solution to freeing this personal expression is in the balancing of these two.
I believe that in respects to remix culture, copyright laws do more harm than good. Strengthened or left the same, copyright would only throttle the creative expressions of remix. And since most of the perpetrators of remix media are normal people like you and me, they would most likely stop creating remixes if they were forced to pay royalties to the various original artists. Even if remix culture is completely freed from copyright, it is not like the original artists would be losing out. Their media is getting publicity, and that is what they want. On quite a few occasions I have watched a remix on the internet and been struck by a particular tune or video sequence and have gone off to find out more about the original artist, and i am sure that many other have had similar experiences. This shows that even through the lack of remix copyright laws artists can still benefit. The only real necessary remix copyright law is the requirement for proper credit to the original artists and that the remix would not be used for commercial purposes.
Toby Staffanson
Group 4
Lessing is shows us in his argument that copy write laws and other venues to protect creative property changes over time. Also, the changes in these laws are in response to the technology that is gradually changing over time. He notes different situations where this case was proven, like the commercial use of painted portraitures compared with the invention of the photograph.
With the dynamics of copy write laws, the original product is still being protected. People will be encouraged to devise original ideas without the fear of its theft. In a way, this may be a good way ensure clichés or rip-offs don’t become the norm. However, this may also hurt people’s ability to criticize topics through the use of satire. If these protections are too strong, then producing any creative product of an established genre would be impossible. In an extreme case, artists may even be considered to plagiarizing themselves, which would harm anyone with a distinct style or skill.
Lessing proves the point that Copyrights are a double edged sword and we need to be careful how we handle this in a lawful manner. He takes us through some examples through history showing us that if the court ruling on photographs had been in the favor of getting permission for every ones image taken at that time, that photography would have been really slow to get off the ground, let alone we would be missing some great documentary photos of early trains and cities of the time. It would have been impossible to get everyones permission. But Copyrighted material when it comes to books let's say have many positive outcomes. One; the copyright will protect the words and intellectual material proposed by the original author. Also, it creates an atmosphere of creativity, so that only your own original new ideas can be published. This creates a positive circle that only benefits the product.
Ultimately I think copyrights are a good thing, but there is a gray area to consider, when it comes to re-mix culture
In Lessings article he shows us that the history of copyright has been shaped by the history of remix. The more we remix and use these copyrighted materials, the more of a stop the government has to put on our efforts. Eventually the laws will not only ban copyright infringement, but also the creation of tools and media that allow us to do so. These laws are to protect the creators of content and ensure that there will be a consumer base. Essentially there are only laws to stop us now, but eventually it could be to the point where it is nearly impossible for us to remix. Some of the cons to these laws are that our freedom is being stripped. Our freedom is defined by the ability to break the law. Whether or not we do it is up to us. Our creativity is also being stripped. If we are not able to express ourselves and educate others with these forms of media, then we're left to whatever is fabricated by the mainstream and there is no subculture for remix. Unfortunately laws have to be put in place to protect the creators of content and the more and more we break these laws, the more and more we push ourselves into a corner.
-Eddie Roberts
Lessing is trying to make a point for the remix culture which copyright laws restrict these artists. It definitely goes two different ways when talking about copyright laws. One way shows that the copyright laws are protecting their art and no one else can make money from their art. Yet Lessing is saying that by not allowing remix artists to do what they do creativity gets stunted in growth. He is also saying that our technological and economical growth is restricted by copyright laws. By building on other people’s mediums it takes creativity and builds on it, which would become a giant never-ending cycle. I believe this is a very hard topic to discuss and sit neutral as of now because I understand that some artist don’t want other people making money or even sometimes more money off of something that was originally their idea. Yet I do agree with Lessing when he says that copyright laws are holding back our growth as a country.
Colin Sytsma film 115 group 3
Troy Key
FILM 115
Group 1
Lessing sets the history of copyrighting, focusing at first on photography, and gives us a really good general understanding of the situation at hand. By providing the "Commercial/Noncommercial - Publish/Transformation" table, he allows us to literally visualize it all and then he proceeds to give us his take on things. Some of the pros that both Lessing and Baldwin discuss are that it can protect artists from being ripped off by 'nobodies'. However, that really is the only thing that they really have against it, they simply reitterate it in different manners. Whether it is saying that the industry could lose money, it really only boils down to the fact that the artist might lose money which would in turn cause the industry of music, photography, film, etc to decline. By no means does Lessing wish to demean this argument, however, he points out that in doing this, we are in fact preventing anyone who is not a "certified artist" -- in other words, someone who just happened to have or bump in to the right connections to become famously published, to prosper. Many times, there are hundreds if not thousands of artists who will never be seen nor taken seriously simply because their work is not being displayed or advertised, or because they are not in Pepsi/Coke commercials. Also, we miss out on the innovative artists, those who take the works of other people and twist it, which can sound harsh, however sometimes this twist is exactly what gives the work a certain freshness [depending on the generation], whether that freshness comes from the culture, politics, or even global issues of the time.
As Lessing suggests copyright is a good thing. It gives artist, inventors, and creators all the like, the ability to receive credit they deserve for thier work. However, copyright laws need to be limited they can't be too constraining or restrictive as he also suggests. If copyright laws were too restraining technology wouldn't be were it was today.
-David Ebner, Group 3
Jon Phillips
Group 3
Lessing makes the point that while copyright laws are essential in a moneymaking sense for the producers of the original works, they are detrimental to those who are advocates of remix culture and remix art. Unfortunately this sometimes leads to an impasse and sometimes even flat out hypocrisy as those who do remixing feel that their remixed art should somehow be safe from remixing. The simple solution would of course to be to keep the existing copyright laws in place but have those who wish to do remixing or downright piracy simply ignore those laws and do whatever they darn well please. The problem with this solution is, of course, that if no one is obeying the law then there really is no point in having laws in the first place. My opinion on the matter is that copyright laws are as of right now a tad too strict, and that they could be loosened, but not altogether removed as that would discourage anyone from making original works at all, since people could just steal them anyway.
Braulio Garcia group3
Free copyrights seem to be, according to Lessing, a very liberating environment for the remix culture. This is because restrictions made by copyright laws can hinder not only artists buy inventors as well. This slow down of artistic and technological creation can also bring sloth to our economic growth as well! This sticky situation is not one that I personally like and feel that the laws imposed, even though they mean well in their aim, the arrow seems to always fall short.
Lessing was making the argument that copying someone’s work is wrong and shouldn’t be allowed, however it is necessary to work off of other people’s ideas in order to come up with new possibilities. He is saying that in “copying” from someone else, it brings new creativity to people. For example, he mentioned how you would be unhappy to hear that your kids illegally download music online, however you would be proud to hear that your kids remixed their own music from the latest news and music. By making so many copyright laws, you are restricting people from coming up with new ideas. Although remixes are based on someone else’s previous work, they also consist of someone’s newly added ideas; things that they have thought up that would only work if it was put together with the piece it was inspired by. After reading these articles, I seem to think that copyrighting should be illegal. It seems kind of odd to me that someone is getting rich and/or famous off of someone else’s work. In some cases it’s alright to me, like when the previous work has had a lot of change done to it. That shows that it was only an inspiration and not a basis for the new idea. In some cases it seems wrong, like when a previous person’s work is barely changed and labeled with another person’s name. I think that there are so many possibilities in the world of art, that when something is done(like a movie or a song) someone else may hear/see the work and think of other ways that it could’ve been done, something that could’ve been added, or another direction that could’ve been taken. In my opinion, remixing is okay if it is a noticeable difference in work and if credit is given to the artist that it was taken from.
-Sarah Myszewski Group 3
Lessing is making the point that copyright protects original works, but hurts potential remixes. He makes the point when he talks about the beginnings of photography. A law was created that says anyone can take a picture of anyone or anything without permission. But imagine if a person DID need permission before photographing. Photography's growth would have been stunted by this, and may have eventually died out. This is Lessing's fear in today's remix culture. Video's are being taken off the internet because they use part of a movie or song. If this continues to happen, what will become of remix? What if you must get permission before making a remix? Eventually artists will stop, and the art form will possibly die.
Copyright laws are a double-edged sword. On one hand it protects original work. People can't cover your song without your permission. But remixes are considered the same thing. People are not making these YouTube and flash movies for a profit. They are making them for their own enjoyment and they want to share them with the world. Unfortunately, they fall under the copyright law. This is how the copyright laws both help and hurt the art world.
Joe Simanis (Group 2)
Lessing argues about copyright laws hindering an artists creativeness because they have to get permission to remix another artists work. He says luckily we didn’t establish copyright laws till way after photography boomed. If we had copyright laws before then we would have hindered the market and never would have inspired the economic growth that it did. There are many forms of remixing art/culture like for instance critiquing a movie, song, or joke you saw on a sitcom and it is free. But if a studio wants to retell by making it into a movie like Spiderman they need exclusive rights. His reaction to this is “No doubt some noncommercial copying has a commercial effect, but not all. So why should all be regulated?” There are pros and cons to it. One pro is that copyrighting regulation produce incentives that would not exist if we did not have them. Another is that it protects artists work against being stolen or corrupted. A con is that it blocks a form of freedom of speech. Also there are opportunities costs depending on the technology and form of art.
-Judith Marker-
Group 1
In his article Lessing discusses the nature of the copy right beast—the legality of remix, possible creative and political uses and of course continuing the never ending love affair with youtube animations. He proposes that copyright laws were designed to “protect” artists material, but suggests that these restrictions may not be necessary in our Remix culture. He brings about the example of the mix tape—classic. The invention of the cassette allowed music lovers across the nation to construct the perfect “I HEART YOU” tape for their girlfriends, chock full of Steve Perry and Al Green. People were able to remix their own records to convey a specific message, be it how much they appreciate their lover, or an obsession with Rush. The articles also discuss that copyright restrictions can potentially strangle important discourse. With the internet being massively available, there are more conversations occurring about politics, art, television, news, and world events. All of which are at our fingertips to examine, digest, share, and in some cases, laugh at.
For one thing, i think copyright laws are a good idea. i one puts in the hard work and determination to create something new and fresh, they should therefore be given credit for what they have done. The feeling of accomplishment for producing a product that is original and one that you can be proud of, is unlike any other. For someone to copy or duplicate your work and put their own name on it total defeats the feeling of originality that tastes so well to the hard-working tongue.
On the other hand, it is sometimes valuable to imitate other's work, maybe using similar techniques, that in the long run, lead to a better, yet still original product, merely influenced by another. In the world of film making, though still very inexperience and with much still to learn, i have found that by following examples of past- knowledged individuals, the film community is able to play off each other's attributes and learn by successes and failures of those before. It only makes sense to lead and learn by example. If that means using a editing or cinematography trick to ultimately result in a more solid production, than i think that that will lead to more enjoyment by most in this share/learn, yet keep it original, society.
-Tyler Hudson (Group 1)
Lessing feels that copyrights can help creativity and make ideas flourish. He states that remixing ideas is making a new set of brilliant ideas. He brings up past thoughts of art and music as a way to make remixes. However, this use of old material can be considered ripping the creator off. Lessing says copyright is a law that needs to be changed with the times. Like all laws they get out dated as new inventions and policies form. He says that copyright regulations create benefits by encouraging people to be more original and put something out there that hasn't already been done. The example that I like to think of is music. Bands make covers of famous songs all the time. The main remix and copyright I like to think of is “The Gray Album” by DJ Danger Mouse. He uses Jay-Z’s black album and The Beatles white album. He mixes them together and remixes the albums to make something completely new but yet using two great musical albums. With Lessing’s arguments and comments about copyright and remixing this is what he wants. New things to be created and thought of out of old art or music forms!
Evan Koepnick group 4
Well, lets face it everyone wants credit for their own work and if people are sealing it, they should be punished. But everything is good in moderation, allow people's creativity to stand, in remixes and artistic recreations. If Campbell's sued Andy Warhol for his painting of the soup cans, where would art be today? As long has proper credit is given to the original artist/author, I see no reason for royalty payments. DJ Spooky uses clips of "Birth of a Nation" as an artistic recreation to change the main idea with the changing times. This is example is boarder line simply because DJ Spooky took the whole plot and reversed it. Though interesting, it might infringe upon D.W. Griffith's work because of the drastic change in the original work. Remixes are ultimatly an important and valid form of art and need to stay in our culture, FOREVER!
~Kurt Sensenbrenner
group 3
Throughout the article Lessing presents several justifiable arguments to support his claim. The argument that Lessing presents is that even though copyright laws were set with best intentions, strictly enforcing them could be detrimental to both economic and creative growth. A prime example that he points out is the growth of the photograph. The mass media market would not have embraced the medium of photography if the permission of the subject were needed before it was captured and reproduced. Imposing strict copyright laws could determine the fate of creativity; it will either allow it to prosper or fail. I think that there needs to be laws put in place that will discourage the blatant stealing of others work. However, I don’t think that they need to be as strict as they are. Great products can and are be produced by intermingling past and present works of art. If the copyright laws are over the top and prevent any similarities to be drawn between two works, the re-mix culture would be tremendously different. The laws that are put in place must accommodate both sides of the spectrum.
Lessing’s argument between copyright and creativity is that the copyright limits how our culture understands itself through its creative nature of remix. On page six, Lessing says, “The argument is this: First, that the “weapons” now being used to wage war against “piracy” are destroying the opportunity for “remix”. Second, that there is no need for this conflict, because we could- and should- craft a law of copyright that would encourage the remix that digital technology enables without undermining the legitimate protection against unauthorized verbatim copies.” This statement, to me, shows Lessing’s main concern is not that we should eliminate copyright but create new laws that would still allow our creative culture to flourish. Obviously the pros of having copyright in our culture is so that the singers, bands, or filmmakers get paid for the uses of their works in other forms. The cons of this such copyright is that is prohibits societies creative nature forcing us to stray away from the vast potential of this remix technology. I think this copyright issue can relate to many students and their battle on “piracy” of music.
Max Larsen
Film 115
Group 3
Lessig's argument brings to light how copyright and creativity in remixing can barely survive while the other exists. It is difficult to draw a line separating the two, especially with inconsistent laws, cases, and developments. Lessig remarks that not everyone is well informed of the boundaries when remix makes an appearance into a media niche, which can cause problems and perhaps even set back the progress of creativity and artistic evolution brought on by culture's remixing. The pros and cons are vast. Copyrighting limits the abilities to expand and inspire, but without a certain amount of limitations, the system providing from the entertainer to the entertained would suffer and undergo unfortunate change. Remixing, however, contains similar amounts of pros and cons on its own. There must be an understanding and cautiousness about remixing the entire history of arts and media, especially during such a time when freedoms of remixing and development are exploding far out of control. In the end, while remixing a culture's art and media can bring forth many positives as well as negatives, society has to decide if the risk is worth the possible outcome.
-Matthew Balz group 3
Ryan Laing
Group 2
I'm commenting on what Eric F. posted earlier about how there should be no copyright laws and art should be free; referring to todays artists who sell their work as 'greedy' and 'hoarding what they create for themselves.' This is a ridiculous statement and an especially ironic statement coming from someone who wants to work on films 'for a living.' I'm not sure if he expects all artists to work dayjobs they don't want and use what they make to create their art with their free time on the weekends or what. Sure, thats what many artists have to do, but if they could live off their artwork and dedicate more time to that then of course they would. Art takes time, money, and work to create. Trying to sell it, at least to make back what you spent makes sense to me. The fact is, if artists couldn't make money off of what they do, it would literally be impossible to continue for most of them and overall the amount of art in the world would drop drastically. As a quick example, small bands touring barely break even. They are doing it to make good music and to have fun, but if they did not sell their albums on tour, a lot of bands wouldn't have enough money to go on tour in the first place. Selling artwork, whether it be paintings, music, books, photography, films, or whatever else falls in this category is essential to keep them being made.
I want to start by saying “Thank goodness!” that the proposed law requiring permission of a subject by the photographer didn’t get passed! I can’t begin to imagine how that would have slowed down the development of photography, and later film, as a medium.
While the ‘permission’ law didn’t get passed, the development of the copyright law, I believe, was a good thing. Lessing argues that while copyright laws protect the artist’s rights, the laws also limit creativity among remix artists. He believes that this is a good thing because it then gives artists incentives to create new ideas that haven’t already been done. I have to agree with Lessing that the copyright law should remain and that artists need to stop relying on the works of others and work with their own creative ideas instead.
While some believe that artist’s should be flattered if their work was remixed, I don’t know if I agree completely. I especially don’t agree if the remixer doesn’t clearly give credit and state that his work is a remixed version of a different artist’s work. You can’t just rely on the idea that viewer’s know that certain piece is remixed since they may not of seen the original work. Besides remixers taking away from the original artist’s profits, some artist’s may attempt to “steal” these ideas and portray the idea that they were their own original work.
-Amanda Zimmerman
Group 1
The argument put forth by Lessing is that stopping creative individuals from having material to work with or to be inspired by greatly hinders what these individuals can do to make new forms of art. It would be like taking away the medium that any artist uses to create their pieces.
The pros of copyright would include that your work and money is protectected from other people “stealing” it. The cons of copyright are that it hinders creativity and in a remix culture it impedes the growth of the industry. Also to the average citizen though these laws have been legislated they may be constantly violated as is common in unpopular laws, such as during the prohibition era. Especially if the common citizen believes that production companies have enough money as it is, they may attempt to justify their pirating in this manner or the fact that if it is information on the internet and then at some point someone had to buy it and choose to share it.
- Brian SHea Group 4
Dan Boville (group 3)
Lessing was making a point that free copywriting induces remix in culture and the expansion of new technologies and such. He continues that no matter what, people will find ways around these restrictions and they will remix in a different way. One example that comes to mind is Mystery Science Theater 3000. Without the added commentary and humor, some of those films were rather mediocre. This rebirthed those films into a culture that accepted them for their remixed status.
I feel there are many pros and cons to copywriting the “re-mix culture”. I think that if artists are influenced by others, there is a sense of respect for using their work and remixing it into their own style. It is a way to pay tribute to their influences and put a spin on it, which in turn may influence others to do so. If heavy restrictions are held, then perhaps licensing would prohibit this form of tribute. On the pro side, sometimes remixing can damage the original idea or style. Misinterpretation can ruin a song for example when remixed for a different reason. Copywriting would halt any use of work that the artist feel should be left alone. This way artists can sell their work to others, that they feel will do a good job with it.
I agree with Jackie Bentley’s film blog 201’s interpretation of the Lessing’s argument to a point. I find myself disagreeing with what Baldwin and Lessing were trying to get across. On one hand, Lessing is arguing that copyrighting does not help technology. That creativity is killed by the law trying to help society, but only helping the individual. That as human beings, we should not want to have copyright laws because it makes sure we will not grow as a society. With Baldwin, he’s arguing that people should be allowed to have use others work, because its art and therefore is for the people and not the owner’s. From both articles, I’m stuck between the pros and cons of copyrighting.
The cons are that people have to admit that they aren’t the maker of what they are using and take the responsibility to let people know that. Also, this requires the person to talk to the maker of the thing and ask for permission. The internet is vast and it’s not possible to find all the information that someone has used on a person. However, as Baldwin did point out, people do not like it when the fruits of their labor is used and used for profit. Take for instance, Doug Kahn, who was upset that people took his work and didn’t give him credit for it, even though he had remixed another person’s work.
The pros of copyrighting, ensures the following; that the artist gets paid for their work that they spent time and energy on, that people do not use the work to further beliefs that would harm others and to ensure that another person can’t take credit for something that they didn’t think or create in the first place.
As much society has grown from technology that other people improved on, the fact remains that in this society, anything can and does remain on fact if enough people say its right on the Internet. Yes, art should be seen by the people, but we need to realize that by copyrighting something, we are not hampering its success, but preventing others from stealing it and using it as their own or using it for their own propaganda.
Veronica Mosley Group 04
Lessing is arguing that copyright laws can sometimes restrict what the creative mind is capable of. With new advancements in photography such as the invention of the Kodak, people could express themselves through their pictures. However the free public felt that it was an invasion of privacy if people took their picture. Since the courts ruled against the people anyone could capture and copy images for free without permission. Lessing’s argument is if copyright laws did exist for capturing photographs then the photography market never would have took off like it did. People would be restricted to what they could do and therefore a lot of good photographs wouldn’t even exist. A positive thing about copyright laws is that it protects a lot of products such as films, television shows, music albums, radio broadcasts, and pretty much anything that can be consumed. It prevents people from using these products for bad things, like downloading a song or a CD without paying for it. A negative thing about copyright laws is that in some scenarios it stops people from being a hundred percent creative. People have to watch out what they do or say in their types of media because it may use someone else’s property and therefore break the law.
Mike Terrill
Group 4
In today’s world the remix culture has a big impact. Lessing’s argument is meant to demonstrate to us that throughout our history weaker copyright laws have encouraged remix in culture and therefore encouraged all the benefits of remix. Without that freedom to take others work and remix it, we as a whole lose some of our freedom of speech. The remix allows us to make a comment on the work of others, whether it is critical or positive, political or academic. Being able to make this comment is important as it empowers the individual, encourages growth and opens people’s minds to the possibilities. The purpose of copyright laws is to protect the author of creative works, but protect him from what? The re-mixer is not out to kill the original creator, just re-shape the original work to voice his own opinion. So then what do copyright laws protect, they are meant to protect a authors right to the profits he makes from his work. I believe that copyright laws should do all they can to protect a artists right to his earned profit, this obviously meaning no direct duplication of a piece of work for the explicit use of moneymaking. Even more creative means of duplication probably should be prohibited from direct profit without some reimbursement to the original creator. However, any remix of an artist’s work that is used for non-profit, should be made completely legal. The you-tube artist should be un-restrained in their creative potential and ought to be free to use and thereby comment on any piece of material that moves them to do so.
Matt Smaglik
Group 1
Peter Holzinger
Group 1
Lessing is saying that copyright and creativity are linked through a dynamic relationship. A copyright law may be put in place that encourages creativity through compensating the artist for the work they have done. However, once new technology is available allowing the artist's work to become material for another artist, the copyright law is restricting creativity. This shows that such laws are time sensitive and must be re-evaluated from time to time in order to weigh the pros and cons of the law's developing effects. From a creative perspective, there seems to be mostly (if not only) cons resulting from copyright in re-mix culture. Any restriction of the usage of an artist's work would only limit the material available for re-mixing. One possible pro could be that copyrights will compensate the artists of the original works which could arguably create more of an incentive to produce more original pieces. This could actually broaden the range of material accessible to re-mixers offsetting the fact that they would have to pay some sort of fee for the material they use. Unfortunately a fee of any kind brings a whole new array of questions. How can the original works be protected? Who is receiving royalties? Does the extent to which original works are used in a re-mix have a bearing on the amount of the fee or would it be a set figure? It seems as though such copyright laws would bring about a lot of messy legislation plagued by gray areas and thin lines between what is legal and illegal.
Film 115 Section 2
Both of these authors state that this particular argument has both pro's and cons. They both think that copyright is a good and bad thing. The good thing about it is it gives individuals the ability to put their creative input or spin on a topic that has already been covered. The negative side is that a lot of people who are re-mixing are not giving credit where credit is due.
As for me, I think that re-mixing is a great way for beginners in the field to experiment with something that has already been done and give is a bit of their own personality. I also believe in giving credit where credit is due.
I also agree with Craig Baldwin's perspective on bands like U2. I consider those type of groups pathetic that not the majority of their time is being spent searching for individuals who use their works without permission. They already have a lot of money so to me it looks like they are the most greesy people in the world.
Copyright laws both restrict and promote creativity. Without them, original artists wouldn't get the credit they deserved for their work. But with strict copyright laws, there is no room for new ideas. If you think in terms of music, artists use guitar riffs and cliche lyrics that used to be original, all the time. No one thinks too much about it though, and the original artist still gets the recognition that they deserve, as a "legend" or whatever else. I believe copyright laws are necessary, but should perhaps be a little more lenient than they currently are...
-Amanda Laning, group 1
As time goes on, remixing becomes a more prevalent part of the arts and media. Technology is becoming more accessible and easier to use which is allowing new artists to put their own spin on already-done things and get praise for it. The problem with it is the artists that have work being remixed and redone are getting pissed and want the people that pull that stuff fined for copyright infringement.
As established artists get older and their work becomes stale, there is no one to replace them. The emerging artists that got screwed over by the system are doing something else at a different job and there is no art left. All that does is leave a bland and boring world.
-Benj Gibicsar
Group 4
Kyle Smith
Group 2
Film 115
Lessing's argument in his article is that remix culture and the ability to freely sample other's work has been both encouraged and hindered by copyright laws. The laws try to protect the original author by creating penalties for "stealing" other's work, but then that brings up the idea of ownership. I think that since we live in the technological age, and every idea has already been used or tried at least once, the idea of copyright laws seem sort of silly, especially as it relates to the world of art. The idea of ownership is sort of changed with the advent of new technologies. Once an artist creates his/her work, he/she essential gives it over to his/her audience. Since the audience has the freedom to view and interpret any piece of art in any way, ownership of the piece is shared by both the artist and the people he supposedly made the work for. So if an artist gets angry with the contextualizing or re-use of footage or imagery or any one element of their work, you have to wonder what they expected to happen when they made the piece in the first place. Baldwin’s stance was that copyright laws aren't necessarily bad, but they need to be adjusted to conform to modern culture. I would somewhat agree with his stance. It’s not logical to abolish all copyright laws, but changing them to take into account the idea of remix culture seems necessary. I guess it comes down to whether or not the new media created using others’ material is really a new piece, or if it only tweaks the original weak to a minor degree. Since judging this would be completely subjective, it’s hard to say what changes to the copyright laws would have to be made. Baldwin admits not knowing how to account for this grey area, and so do I.
Lessing brings out the point that as more and more restrictions and laws come about in our society the less people are going to be able to show off their creativity through art and remix. As more technology comes along there is more of a need for regulation. Back in the day there wasn't as big of a worry about misuse of copyrighted material because we didn't have the internet and now youtube.com to freely post someone else's work or a remix of someone else's work. He feels we can have a fair balance when it comes to regulation and remix, it's just that no one out there in congress is creative and open minded enough to come up with that great idea for balance and compromise.
The positive outcome of having light regulation on remix and use of copyrighted material is that people will definitely be free to show off their creativity. I can think of many times where I wanted to add something to a short film I was working on and because it was copyrighted I could not include. Music for example, I currently as a student do not have the ability to create it myself for my short films and do not have connections with any musicians to perform it for me. If I were to include copyrighted music tastefully in something I created I really don't see any harm towards the original creator. The key point there being "tastefully." I can understand why an artist would be upset if his music was being used with ideas about the KKK or the holocaust, even if it was used as a parody or remix. However, I also think if people were available to freely use copyrighted material for movies it could end up terrible. There are certain music artists out there that choose to not allow anyone to use their music towards advertising and films because they don't want to ruin the song's integrity. If they have went out of their way to make sure their songs aren't abused then why should someone else be able to without their permission? Thom Yorke of Radiohead made an excellent point in an interview I saw where he stated that he feels the music belongs to the fans. Once they create it the fans own the music in their minds and lives and if they were to take a song and put it towards a car or soft drink then any imagery the fan had created personally would be ruined. If they were at a Radiohead concert and had an amazing experience with a certain song then if it was used later for something else it could possibly ruin that experience because then instead of always remembering the concert all you can think about is a Ford truck or Coca-cola.
As someone else has already mentioned, Lessing thinks of copyright laws as a doubled-edged sword. They are at the same time important but also detrimental (to the remix culture, that is). When an artist or anyone creates something original, they should most definitely have a law preserving the work as their own - that is plain and simple. But when it comes to the world of media and such things as remix, if copyright laws are too strict, people like remix artists really have no way of expressing themselves. Also, with media in general, we all know that almost every kind of media that exists draws from at least one other kind of media - that's just the nature of technology. Newer media is influenced by and sometimes improving upon perhaps an older form of media. As long as they are able, artists will always draw from other artists to create their work. And this is perfectly okay, in fact, it usually makes any given kind of art much better. But also, credit must be given where credit is due. Copyright laws need to be in place to protect the original vision of the artist, but they should also allow the the freedom of other artists to create work that may be influenced by or added on to others' work. As Lessing says, the more strict copyright laws are, the less we will see creative remix work. So, in the end, it's all about finding a balance with the law that will benefit both the original artist and the remix artist who gives a different (not better) perspective of a certain piece of art.
alas, i forgot my group number....
it's four
groan... i forgot again... sorry.
ryan fox is in group two.
scroll up to see my blog comment.
Copyrighting is good because it gives the creator the credit that they deserve for their work. Lessing, in his article, says that copyrights have helped the economy and culture because of the new technolgies that it brings. See, with copyrights, people often find ways around them. "Remixes", for example, or "Spinoffs", are remakes of the copyrighted original, but not exactly. And while copyrights help protect the creators originality, it is also intersting to see how people remake or remix their ideas into the original piece. However, when a person does something that other people are doing only "demoralizes" the culture. Basically, Lessing states that copyrights can either make or break creativity of our culture.
For me, I like when people use others' work IF THEY DO A GOOD JOB DOING IT. I do NOT like people taking classic songs or movies and completely smothering them. But, using others' work while keeping their creativity shows originality. Does this mean that creativity is "Lost"? I don't think so. In films and T.V shows, the film makers or writers grew up on classic movies. A lot of them may have been big influences on them when they were little. And now they want to pay tribut to them by remaking it only with a few different changes. However, when filmmakers take classic movies and completely butcher the story so that it isn't even the same, that's terrible. Like Baldwin says, some people are jsut terrible [at remixing or remaking]. And the copyright laws are there to make sure they don't ruin a good thing. But for me, I enjoy listening to bands who have covered other bands' songs (if they do it well) because it shows that they really like and respect that band. The same goes for movies. If they're done well, I don't have a problem with them.
In his essay Free(ing) Culture for Remix Lessing introduces his philosophies on copyright through the example of the Kodak camera, who's creation, provided not only the first step in vast progression of media technology, but also an open and new medium through which to view and interpret the world. Lessing states that “It was in part because of this freedom that the market for photography exploded as it did.” People’s ability to photograph nearly anything they desired is what provided such strong and monumental images that we use presently to help us to not only understand our history, but also to feel the full emotion of the past points and situations we study. Lessing feels that strict copyright regulations prohibit creativity’s evolution and growth. If every individual is given freedom to use and remix certain media forms, it provides high probability for quality work that may not have otherwise been created. People’s rigid protection of their inventions and ideas, stunts the progress of that invention or idea. I believe that strict copyright regulations are the result of individual’s strong need for credit and recognition. People do not understand that the creation can be bigger than the individual, who is merely the medium through which the creation or idea was born. When someone creates a movie, the plot, characters, and ideas should be open to new interpretations which in-turn could create better results. Copyrights are created for people who fear their ideas being stolen and losing that recognition. But if that idea is truly brilliant and unmatchable it will still reign supreme among the thousands of re-creations and re-mixes. Lessing and Baldwin do not desire complete anarchy and a total abolition of copyrights, only a slight adjustment to create a more harmonious balance in the media world.
Sam Slater
Group 2
-
Not having been able to read Lessing's article, I can only comment on the second part of the question that being what are the pros and cons of copyright in re-mix culture. As far as the pros are concerned, the only one I see as a definite is that copyrighting protects people from being blatantly ripped off. If an a small artists work is reworked by someone else and they are not paid or given credit, copyrighting at least provides legal recourse. As far as the cons of copyrighting the biggest would have to be, as Baldwin mentions, the people with all the money just want to make more money and use copyright protection as a tool for extortion, for example why should I have to pay $18 dollars for a cd with nine songs on it. You hear all these cases about some guy downloading a song and being sued, or you look for a video on YouTube and its been deleted by such and such a company because they own the rights. Virtually all copyrighted material is meant for public consumption and perhaps if these companies that are producing this quote unquote art let the masses become more hands on with it, then maybe the masses would contribute more back. If a band let me download a couple of songs for free I just might go buy the album.
David Lewandowski 115 Group2
I think Lessing is trying to argue against strict copyrights, but not as radically as Baldwin. Lessing is worried about the future of creativity. As we all know sampling can create great art. Hip hop is rooted in borrowing from other artists. Some make great use of what they borrow, even while others can be tasteless. Lessing feels there should be rights to the original artist, but that restrictions on copyrights have helped society. When artists are given more freedom, they are allowed to create some interesting things from borrowing from others. He puts forth the idea that we should not restrict ideas that could have a potentially positive impact.
I think copyrights in remix culture is touchy issue. Honestly, I sometimes get sick of this remix culture. Doesn't our generation have anything original to offer? How about an entirely new musical and artistic movement? Something that we can claim as our own. On the other hand I really do dig some of the things created in our remix culture. Post modernism has had some very notable creative breakthroughs (Outkast is an example of post modernism at it's best). I also think is important that copyrights are kept to the point where an artist can produce something and know it won't be ruined by a shitty rapper or an uncreative filmmaker. ~Dane Baumgartner Group 1
If an artist is insecure about their art being used by someone else to furthur their art, i feel that is an insecurity that they should face, or learn to accept. Lessing makes a great argument saying that by having free material out there, uncopyrighted, we learn from that and use it to our benefit to "remix" society and art and culture. It's progression. The only thing stopping us is greed, feeling like someone is going to steal our work and make millions off of it, it is rediculous, if they do, hey, you were involved with it, be happy. Copyrights are a good protector against greedy people or people who may scew and artists image, but i feel instead of it being looked at as a sort of jail cell they're locking their work up into, it should be a group home where others can come in and ask and state purpose> What society needs (in my opinionated and in no way authoritative mind) is a little more openess about what we do and share with the world, and little less hostility. I think lessing described this very well.
Noah Therrien Group 4
I think the point Lessing was trying to make was that by enforcing these copyright laws ridgidly in the technological world is ultimately deconstructive to the new age of re-mix artists. That times have changed from people requiring their permission to be given before a portrait could be painted of them, and that the positive uses of the media that can be acquired of the internet, (most specifically music), far outweigh the negative consequences on the original artists. I understand where Lessing is coming from, and I tend to hold a neutral view of downloading music and/or remixing media, but I was not impressed with one of his points on page 169, where he asserts the following. When kids know they're breaking the law, it's corrosive to themselves and society. Would'nt it be far easier for kids not to break the law at all? Also when he says these copyright laws are holding back creativity, wouldn't it be far more creative to make your own art? (I was also irritated by the constant first, seconds, thirds while making his points). These things aside, media sharing can be constructive for those new artists who are trying to gain exposure, or for any artists trying to promote. But, as Baldwin's interview touches on, these same artists have to expect that their work will continue to be 'shared', even if they no longer want it to be.
Lessing is trying to say that harsh copyright laws will decrease creativity because there will be decreased access to media that can be used for remixing and it will decrease the ability to publish the remix. I do agree with this but I think there has to be some copyright law. Artists should be able to close off their music almost completely from re-use, or be able to let the media bounce around and appreciate the remix and re-use of their work. It should be the artist's decision. Some pros of copyright in the sense of remix: certain things should not be mixed on offensive grounds: one cannot mix Birth of a Nation with The Wizard of Oz, unless the artists of both feel it is okay; without some control, media will repeat itself all over the internet and television; not all artists want their stuff remixed and they need a way to prevent it; some kids do not know what they are doing when remixing and there might need to be restraints to prevent them from creating something offensive; hard-core fans probably disapprove of any change to their media choice and want to preserve it forever; and some remixes are just bad (Psycho). Some cons: some remixes are awesome: I've especially noticed it with songs and I must say one of my recent favorites is Christina Aguilera's "Ain't No Other Man" Remix by Rafael Lelis; some kids do know what they are doing and can make powerful or political or cool stuff from their home computer: limiting their "libraries" limits their talent. As for the creativity factor: if no one was allowed to copy anyone else, even in the strictest way, wouldn't we all be obligated to create something original? What's the harm in that?
-Julianne Arnstein G4
Lessing’s argument is that freedom of the artist to images and sounds not belonging to them has historically caused a technology/ art form to prosper and develop in a much more rapid pattern then if those rights were enforced. His initial illustration is that of the early photographs; congress’s law made legal the use of someone’s image with out permission in a photograph. With out this freedom photography would have developed as a household media as quickly, reserved for commercial and artistic die-hards who bothered to carry image release forms. His argument continues on to the use of remixing music and photo-images by students cites that much creativity is being thwarted as schools and other institutions are not teaching remix because of the laws protecting material.
Copyright seems an important part of the creative process, allowing an artist to reap the benefits of his or her work. However, the contemporary culture that is developing on the reuse of ideas is indeed being hindered by artists who refuse any other artist to develop the original ideas. I feel that with proper citation the use of copyrighted material does not harm the original material. There seems to be a hypocrisy among the “no copyright” advocates who target powerful and rich artists but object on the basis of not having money when their work is sampled. It seems if lawmakers opened the doors to remix, we would have a much richer dialogue between artists. The current dialogue is very minimal because of the copyright infringement suits being thrown around by those trying to close the dialogue and those simply to use the dialogue to their benefits.
I always thought that it would be an honor to have people download my work even if it was for free; however then I would be losing my pay. Copyright laws are in place so the publishing companies make their money to pay the artists and get new artists to make even more money. We all need money in order to live so it does make sense. But we are now in a remix culture. Music artists sample old songs to make more money than the original song ever did. Filmmakers make money off of spoofs that other films have been recently relesased. What Lessing shows is how the lower end artists were able to do these such things but are now combated with ever changing copyright laws. Appreciation for other artists work shown through remixing has been getting eve harder especially on a low income. So ultimately we lose another artist's creativity and appreciation for other's work. Baldwin defends copyright laws because of those people who will abuse the use of other artists' work for there own personal gain. This I understand completely with. This shows no appreciation to the artist what so ever. So this brings up one large question: who is the real enemy? The abusers of copyright law, or he copyright laws themselves?
Jake Thorn - Group 4
Lessing argues that there needs to be a change in the policy of copyright laws and that remixes shouldnt be included under infringement upon the laws because rather than stealing the work, we are able to use songs, clips from tv, and our own editing to create remixes that opens up discussion about our culture today. Throughout history non-commercial transforming of media has been free which has allowed for people to be able to further revolutionise technology. Not that commercial publishing is not as creative as non-commercial, but rather the statements they may be trying to make are different. The non-commercial views are not regulated by the government and allow for people to express an issue. Whereas, the commercial industry is interested in people expressing their views, but also in obtaining money for their work.
The pros of our remix culture is that no matter who you are you are able to make a statement that can now be heard or seen by millions over the internet. The problem is that without consent from the songwriter or the movie producer, using clips from these media forms is still illegal and those who dont get permission are breaking the law, and losing their freedom of speech at the same time. I think that their has to be a new line drawn on what is copyright infringement and what is your right to express your opinions openly in our new global forum, the internet.
--Nick Reindl, Group Two (Sec. 802)
Lessing emphasizes historical examples of how having free copyrights leaves room for a huge potential of growth, room and change for the original idea as well as new ideas. Photography was his introductory subject, and he insinuates that if we had modern day copyright laws in existance at the time photography was introduced, the massive ard medium that we know today could not have existed, at least not to the extent that it does.
Lessing does address the point that artists need some degree of protection to prevent true stealing and to encourage the artist to continue to do their work, but you need to leave room for new artists to enter the field. Current, or stronger future laws, could rut in established artists and prevent anything new from appearing.
Personally I understand we need copyrights to an extend, to ensure that a person gets paid for their work and to prevent people from copying it and claiming it for themselves. But people also need to understand that no technological or art innovation is truly independant of a link to a previous innovation, everything is a giant chain. To continue this chain of innovation, you need to allow new ideas to re-make, transform and improve old ideas. With the advent of internet file sharing and web sites such as YouTube, the sharing of new ideas has never been easier, however it has also become easy to display whatever you want and claim it as your own, and when an artist needs compensation for his work to continue future work, I can see how limited copyright laws are important.
I forgot to post that I am in Group 1, for my above post.
-Jon Hillbo
Lessing gives us an argument against copyrights for the use of re-mix culture. Lessing's opinions state that re-mix culture a wonderful new form of medium that is under attack by the stringent copyright laws that are in effect regarding the use of copyrighted music. For the use of copyrighted music in that of re-mix, generally the song chosen is a necessity for the re-mix to work correctly, whether it be humor-based or otherwise. So Lessing suggests that there should be a copyright law in effect that takes re-mix culture into consideration, as it is a new art form and an excellent source for creativity. Regardless, people are breaking these copyright laws now, and only a few of them are getting caught and having to pay the financial consequences for their re-mix work. The law is certainly an irritating obstacle to overcome when it comes to allowing the use of creativity in all forms and should be changed to accommodate this growing art medium, instead of suppressing it.
Also, my group number is Group 3.
I think Lessing is trying to say that while he agrees that artists' work should be credited and protected, copyright laws are becoming more and more poisonous to creativity today. The explosion of remix over the past year is due to the creative minds that recycle the original artwork and make it something of their own. He makes the connection between free speech and the freedom to remix, a connection that I consider legitimate. A lot of remixed artwork is a way of taking a stand on an issue. For example, the Bush/Blair clip could be interpreted as opposing the President's and Prime Minister's actions, which we are allowed to do right?
I appreciated his three points on the constraints that the law imposes on remix. Especially how he describes the knowledge of breaking the law as being "corrosive" because it is true. Eventually, with more laws constraining remix, creativity of that sort could very well become endangered.
I see the same pros and cons that Lessing does, but I also feel an arrogance of the remix culture. If someone wanted to take my work and remix it, I'm sure I would be opposed to the idea. However, as I agree with certain points of both sides, for the sake of future creativity, I say remix.
Devin Smith, group 1
It was in the late 19th century that the debate over copyright and creativity first began. With the emergence of the Daguerreotype, the case was made that remixing works of art, whether they be commercial or noncommercial, had to be approved by the original artist. Lessing also argues that technology plays a big role in depending what costs should be applied to using copyrighted material.
As we movie into the 21st century, digital technologies have offered opportunities for thousands of people to engage in remix culture. And after reading Lessing/Baldwin, I agree with them that remix culture is an important, if not entertaining, new art form. The only con I can see with it is that it can sometimes degrade the original work of art.
Brian Dunigan (Group 1)
Group 3
Copyrighted material can both inhibit and promote creativity when it interacts with the "remix culture." Since remix is a mix of old and new, artists must know the boundaries of what they can or cannot utilize for their own purpose. However, the internet is a near infinite source of both copyright and free-use material, and this promotes the usage of copyright illegaly. For example, Lessing states that the JibJab cartoons are technically illegal, but without the copyrighted material, their "remix" would not seem as satirical or comical to audiences. This is truly unfortunate, because in this sense copyrights are more for the purposes of greed instead of protecting the originality of an artist.
Lessing also states that anyone with access to a decent computer, the internet, and certain media programs, anyone can become a remix artist. This is true, but instead of clogging the internet with more copies, one would hope that this introduction of art to those who normally abstain from it, should bring new light to "remix." When engaging in remix, one is introduced into new forms of music, film, photography, animation and any other form of art. With more people being exposed to more forms of art, the possibilities are endless.
Overall, copyright seems to put a brick wall in the way of some "remix" artists, but it can also force an artist to create more new and take less old. Remix art can be extremly original, as long as we can define the difference between copyright as a form of protection, and copyright as a form of protecting ones wealth.
The argument we hear over and over again with regard to copyright law, is that there is no way to clearly define what is or is not an infringement. In "No Copyright?" Baldwin, when asked about how he would react if someone "remixed" his film, laughs and says, "That's a really good question. Which is why it's impossible to answer! I don't have an answer for you." This sentiment seems to be universal among artists and lawmakers, it's an issue that has no easy solution, if any solution at all. That being said, it still seems to me that it is necessary to readdress this issue often, even if no solution is in sight. There's no escaping the fact that with each new technology, remixing becomes more and more accessible. Even in comparison to the technologies used by the artists in "Sonic Outlaws" (VHS, etc.), today's artists have the ability to access virtually any sound or image they want, with one piece of equipment. This change in technology has created a revolution in remix culture. It is no longer something that is mainly relevant to people that consider themselves to be artists, but is now a mainstream phenomenon. For this reason it would seem like now would be a time when copyright laws need to come into question. Once an artist, company, etc., puts their work on the internet is it fair use? It's no longer as black and white, since there is no physical form for the work in question. In the end, the copyright debate is not coming to a conclusion, but that doesn't mean the debate should end. If it's ongoing it can constantly be promoting change to keep copyright law in sync with changing technology.
-kristen gibb group 3
afdadu
In the article about copyright laws, I felt Lessing was talking about how those laws get in the way of creativity. When someone creates something they get it copy written so that their creation isn’t taken away. The argument he raises is that artist or fans of those people that want to remix the people’s copy written material can’t do it, because of this law. Remixing is just taking a snippet or sample of there work and revamping it to a whole another stage. Creating something new and keeping it in history. What I mean by that is people can go back and see or hear the original. An artist and music producer I know that do this is Kaws and Kanye West. Kaws take pop culture icons, like The Simpson’s and puts his symbol over the characters face. Kanye West uses samples from the greatest people in the music industry and puts it in his music. They are using pieces from those that have inspired them to expand their creativity. After reading both articles, I don’t see anything wrong with the remix age, everyone looks to someone else for inspiration. We all influence each other in this world. I see the copyright fit though, because no one wants what they created to be completely stolen and they want it protected.
-Randal Jackson-
Jacob Feiring
Group 2 (Emir)
Lessing makes the argument that copyrights are important in giving credit to the “original” freethinker for his/her work, however, can often damper creativity by putting constraints on what the artist can do. Lessing essentially explains that throughout the history of art/media technology, the borrowing of ideas that could be construed as copyright infringement have been important to new developments and creative outlets. One example of art that Lessing uses in relation to the copy right is digital technology explaining that “As well as enabling an extraordinary opportunity to remix our culture, digital technologies have enabled an extraordinary opportunity to “share” our culture. And when that sharing, even for non commercial purposes, impacts the market for the content shared, this “sharing” is renamed “piracy.”
By using copyrights, certain constraints are put on the artist. For example, if the hip hop artist who samples other people’s songs to make a new song is sued for copyright infringement, a new way of looking at a song and music is discouraged.
A more close to home example that Lessing uses is the mix-tape. Lessing explains how the mix-tape “induced a great deal of creativity,” because the listener could now create a new soundtrack for whatever emotion or feelings he/she possessed.
It’s apparent that Lessing has a point and proves that if the copyright is followed too strictly creativity and choices for the artist are lost.
After reading Lessing and Baldwin's perspectives, I see few pros to the copyright in re-mix culture. Frankly, there is no re-mix culture if copyright laws are reinforced to heavily, and a voice is lost. To some extent I think it is important to give credit where it is due, however, borrowing or even taking an ideas is an important part of the creative process.
To me, the article seems to be weighing the the pros and cons of copyright, though it certainly has the tone of dislike when it refers to restrictive copyrights. The buildup of restrictions is one of interest. The desire to protect the economic sanctity of the creator is what in the end prevents others from making full use, or "remixing", of that work. The issue I have with idea of complete sharing is that it flies in the face of our economic system. I'm not saying that I agree with either extreme...not by any means. In my ideal, you take what you can, as much as traffic will allow. This article seemed more reasonable than some others I have read related to the subject of copyright and freedom of sharing, however. The examination of the topic is interesting, to say the least.
A. Robertson
Section 4
F 115
Although I believe copyright laws are needed, to some extent, I also find the remix culture fantastically creative. Lessing argues that throughout history free copyrights have encouraged remix in culture, furthering the economy and encouraging new technologies. He says that restricting that freedom with strict copyright laws stops us from this technological and economical growth. Not to mention something called originality! But one must think about protecting the artist too. But what about the remix artist?! How can a government tell one that their art is illegal- he/she is simply inspired by another artist’s work? Just like the original artist is inspired by who knows? A childhood memory or something. Should there be a copyright law restricting childhood memories from art so that they stay solely as a memory? Of course not! Copyright laws are meant to protect and help, not restrain and silence.
Post a Comment