It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

RiP : A Remix Manifesto

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Found this quite interesting




In RiP: A remix manifesto, Web activist and filmmaker Brett Gaylor explores issues of copyright in the information age, mashing up the media landscape of the 20th century and shattering the wall between users and producers.

The films central protagonist is Girl Talk, a mash-up musician topping the charts with his sample-based songs. But is Girl Talk a paragon of people power or the Pied Piper of piracy? Creative Commons founder, Lawrence Lessig, Brazil's Minister of Culture Gilberto Gil and pop culture critic Cory Doctorow are also along for the ride.

A participatory media experiment, from day one, Brett shares his raw footage at opensourcecinema.org, for anyone to remix. This movie-as-mash-up method allows these remixes to become an integral part of the film. With RiP: A remix manifesto, Gaylor and Girl Talk sound an urgent alarm and draw the lines of battle.

Which side of the ideas war are you on?

www.nfb.ca...



Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread Page):
AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events, or important information from other sites; please post one or two paragraphs, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.



[edit on 19/6/2009 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I think that if someone wants to "create" something artistic out of someone else's art for themselves, that's fine. If they want to make money off of it, they should have to pay a percentage of the profit to the original artist.

That being said, I also think that if you want to make art, make it. Don't chop up someone else's work to do it. To me, those who do "mash ups" are just wannabes who don't have enough talent to actually create their own art.

Of course, then you get into the issue of most of today's music being not very creative in the first place, which begs the question: if you make a mash-up out of a bunch of computer generated crap that kinda sucked in the first place, what makes you think your end result will be any better. Garbage in, garbage out.

But the most apalling thing about the whole issue is that the masses seem to like it. When the public will pay for crap that was made by pasting a bunch of other crap together, well, that's a pretty sad statement about people in general.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I bought the RIP DVD and watched it last night. Not the best documentary in the world, but the stuff about the Brazilian music scene was very interesting to me.

I'm a big fan of Larry Lessig's talks on remix culture.
www.ted.com...
www.plagiarismtoday.com...


Originally posted by subject x
I think that if someone wants to "create" something artistic out of someone else's art for themselves, that's fine. If they want to make money off of it, they should have to pay a percentage of the profit to the original artist.
To a large extent, that's what the Creative Commons license is all about. The majority of things that I've seen released under CC allow for the creation of non-commercial derivative works. Under existing copyright law, things such as fan fiction are technically illegal, even if they're not sold. By an author placing his original work in a CC-BY-NC-SA license, he or she is explicitly giving permission for others to come play in the world they created.


That being said, I also think that if you want to make art, make it. Don't chop up someone else's work to do it. To me, those who do "mash ups" are just wannabes who don't have enough talent to actually create their own art.
Then I'm guessing you have a pretty dim view of Walt Disney? Most of the major Disney films are merely retellings of traditional fables, folk-lore and other older stories. How about Star Wars? A bit of Joseph Campbell, some Kurosawa and some WWII aerial combat footage... Crap, right?


Of course, then you get into the issue of most of today's music being not very creative in the first place, which begs the question: if you make a mash-up out of a bunch of computer generated crap that kinda sucked in the first place, what makes you think your end result will be any better. Garbage in, garbage out.
Parody and commentary. A significant part of post-modernism is the dissecting of popular culture and reinterpreting it, showing it to us in a new light and possibly using it to tell us something new. Heck, I can appreciate a Weird Al parody of a song when I would have absolutely no interest in listening to the original.


But the most apalling thing about the whole issue is that the masses seem to like it. When the public will pay for crap that was made by pasting a bunch of other crap together, well, that's a pretty sad statement about people in general.
Not at all. That's actually a pretty close-minded way of looking at the world. Quotes can be used to illustrate a point, to criticize, or to raise awareness or make a social commentary.

Check out Illegal Art, Free Speech for Sale, Negativland, or the Evolution Control Committee for different examples.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton
To a large extent, that's what the Creative Commons license is all about. The majority of things that I've seen released under CC allow for the creation of non-commercial derivative works. Under existing copyright law, things such as fan fiction are technically illegal, even if they're not sold. By an author placing his original work in a CC-BY-NC-SA license, he or she is explicitly giving permission for others to come play in the world they created.

I have no problem with people using CC works to make their own stuff, but when folks start making money off other people's works that just bugs me. I know how much work is involved with making music or fim, and for others to profit off this work without sharing just sticks in my craw.


Then I'm guessing you have a pretty dim view of Walt Disney? Most of the major Disney films are merely retellings of traditional fables, folk-lore and other older stories. How about Star Wars? A bit of Joseph Campbell, some Kurosawa and some WWII aerial combat footage... Crap, right?

Although I'm not a big Disney fan, I don't recall him chopping up other people's films to construct his own. The retelling of traditional stories is not the same thing, and I think you realize that.

As far as Star Wars goes, yes, he absolutely took themes from those you mentioned, but once again, that's different. There is zero footage from any Kurosawa film in Star Wars. I know, I've seen every Kurosawa film available. Big fan. Also, keep in mind that he, and many others, took a lot of stuff from Shakespere and many others. And no, I don't consider Kurosawa or Campbell (or WWII footage, for that matter) crap.


Parody and commentary. A significant part of post-modernism is the dissecting of popular culture and reinterpreting it, showing it to us in a new light and possibly using it to tell us something new. Heck, I can appreciate a Weird Al parody of a song when I would have absolutely no interest in listening to the original.

Once again, not the same thing. Parody and commentary are not the issues here. The issue is people like "Girl Talk" pasting together other people's work and profiting from it. He's not stealing riffs and melodies and re-performing them in his own framework, he's using other artist's hard work to patch together his own drivel and profit from it. I'm sure you see the difference, but for some reason you're acting as if you don't. I've read many of your posts, so I know you're smarter than that.


Not at all. That's actually a pretty close-minded way of looking at the world. Quotes can be used to illustrate a point, to criticize, or to raise awareness or make a social commentary.

I hate to say it, but you're doing it again. We're not talking about quotes. When quoting, credit is given to the quotee. (is that a word?) People generally don't paste together a bunch of quotes and call it their own work.

Besides, nothing you said about quoting has anything to do with my statement about the sad state of a public who will actually pay for copy-and-paste "art".

So basically, your responses here have nothing to do with the issue as I see it. I could be wrong, and feel free to clarify your connections for me, as I might just be a little dense.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by subject x
 


maybe he was creating a textual remix ?

food for thought




posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Andy Warhol did it, it happend to Mona Lisa too, I assume the Akai S1000 sampler wasn't invented for nothing. What about Coldplay, Madonna, Britney and so many others..? Mickey Mouse is the very best example, don't you think so?

Is a VJ using existing material or footage for the projections a criminal?

However..

I do agree that in some specific cases maybe an 'original creator' should atleast get credits in some sort of way. When not in cold hard royalties, maybe in the idear that what was created inspired someone else to create something 'new'.

Or.. Should art in whatever behaviour and creativity be restrickted into rules and laws?

Up to what point people tolerate 'Art'? What art is to you could be garbage to me. Art and having perception of art is something very personal to every individual.

Plagiarism is not a good thing..!

In my language there is this saying: Beter goed gejat dan slecht bedacht..

I quote: "It makes me want to go and download all that stuff!"

I add: Art in whatever way should not be restrickted, like freedom of speach and expression.

And now.. I am gonna play with my sampler and write a new track



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by subject x
I have no problem with people using CC works to make their own stuff, but when folks start making money off other people's works that just bugs me. I know how much work is involved with making music or fim, and for others to profit off this work without sharing just sticks in my craw.
I understand. It's a tough call for me as well. I'm acutely aware of copyright law (worked at Kinko's when I was working my way through college) and as a content creator myself (internationally published photographer, musician on 5 albums, credits in IMDB and on DVDs you probably own, etc...). And my own art lately IS derivative work, which is probably why I'm a little defensive on the subject. For me, the line I draw, or the question I ask myself is "Is my new piece substantially transformative from the original?" 2 Live Crew vs Roy Orbison was a clear case, in my opinion, where the new work was NOT transformative. Sure, they were rapping over it and to a degree made it their own, but the original was still too recognizable. It's a fuzzy area, to be sure.


Although I'm not a big Disney fan, I don't recall him chopping up other people's films to construct his own. The retelling of traditional stories is not the same thing, and I think you realize that.
Of course, I'm just taking Disney as an example because they're the ones who keep pushing for copyright extensions and many of the works that built them up as a company were based on things they didn't own rights to.



Once again, not the same thing. Parody and commentary are not the issues here. The issue is people like "Girl Talk" pasting together other people's work and profiting from it. He's not stealing riffs and melodies and re-performing them in his own framework, he's using other artist's hard work to patch together his own drivel and profit from it. I'm sure you see the difference, but for some reason you're acting as if you don't.
Legally I see a difference (though minor), procedurally there's a difference, but as far as the end results, I don't know if I'm willing to make a judgment call and say that a musician playing someone else's riff (a la Jimmy Page vs Muddy Waters) is any better or worse than someone sampling a recorded riff.


We're not talking about quotes. When quoting, credit is given to the quotee. (is that a word?) People generally don't paste together a bunch of quotes and call it their own work.
Of course, William S. Burroughs and Brion Gysin were notable for doing exactly that. For that matter Robert Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns if you're willing to extend the metaphor beyond words to other visual collage.


Besides, nothing you said about quoting has anything to do with my statement about the sad state of a public who will actually pay for copy-and-paste "art".
Again, see Rauschenberg, Johns, Warhol, Duchamp, and any number of others who made their art sometimes literally copying and pasting.


So basically, your responses here have nothing to do with the issue as I see it. I could be wrong, and feel free to clarify your connections for me, as I might just be a little dense.
No need to apologize, we can keep this civil, and as I said, I'm coming at this from both a content creator who's done original work and someone who's sampled, so my point of view on the matter has shifted over the years. (Not saying that I'm any more right than you, just letting you know it's not a topic that I treat lightly... copyright and intellectual property rights are important issues for me and my friends, so it's something we've debated long into the night for more than 15 years...)

[edit on 6/19/2009 by JoshNorton]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
How much money is someone willing to pay to clear a sample..?

How much could someone afford to have a sample cleared, it depends on the A-Z status range of artists, or the interest of making profit by a (major) publishing company.

Doesn't it..?



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Storm_Indigochild
How much money is someone willing to pay to clear a sample..?

How much could someone afford to have a sample cleared, it depends on the A-Z status range of artists, or the interest of making profit by a (major) publishing company.

Doesn't it..?
The real problem is that the labels own the recordings. Artists might own the songs, but most of the time it's the label who owns a specific version/performance/recording/documentation of that song.

About 5 years back my friends wanted to cover a Bob Dylan song. I sent Ram's Horn Music (his publishing company) a check for $85 to cover his 8.5¢ per copy to press 1000 discs, and we were all square. If they'd wanted to sample a Bob Dylan record the licensing fees would have been significantly higher (and probably would have involved a combination of voodoo and non-linear equations to figure out the rate...)



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join