Um, you do realize that being that these stories were written so long ago that they fell into public domain use?
Source: “Mouse Under Glass” by David Koenig 1997
Snow White - 1812
Cinderella - 1600’s
Beauty and the Beast- mid 1700’s
Little Mermaid - 1835
Yes, I’m aware of that. Surely a little legal trifle like copyright term limits shouldn’t matter to someone who, despite the fact that copyright has all kinds of limitations that property ownership doesn’t, still believes that an artist owns everything he creates.
Point is, those movies are based on someone else’s work… yet by standing on the shoulders of giants, Disney created classic movies that we still enjoy today. “God forbid they should have to come up with anything original of their own”, right?
I don’t have a problem with derivative works or sampling, if the person who controls the copyright agrees to it. In the movies you mentioned, that person, nor his immediate family, is still alive so the point is moot.
I do have a problem when the copyright holder has no say in how their work is used. I don’t believe that people should have the right to use someone’s music for a chicken commercial or their artwork for a salad dressing bottle if the artist doesn’t want his or her work used that way. From what I understand, you see no problem with someone benefitting monetarily from something that someone else created. We will have to agree to disagree then, because I don’t think we are going to change each others opinions much.
dj: My views on copyright, and indeed Intellectual Property Law in toto perhaps deserve their own thread, but I would like to ask one question:
**Why not play the music yourself and sample that? **
As a sampler and musician myself, are you trying to convince me of the splendour of these musical incompetents’ new clothes?
But the very fact that they appear on it is enough. Surely I don’t have to explain this? If I sell something that contains the work of others it is not unreasonable to think that they are aware and in agreement with the product. The fact that they are also getting paid for their inclusion doubles that.
And the fact that it’s his voice and a significant portion of his song counts for nothing? What if the song was an overt promotion of cocaine use, drug pushing and gangland killings? Like, the exact opposite of the original message of the song. Would you not be a bit annoyed in his position? Particularly if you are then getting “blood money” royalties.
I’m afraid it isn’t. If I hear John Lennon’s voice on a recording I, and just about anyone else, am justified in assuming it to be a recording approved by his copyright holders. If you are suggesting that that assumption is no longer valid and should be replaced, then you are talking about a world where you will no longer be able to accept a product with anyone’s word, opinion and work at face-value unless you were physically there when they said/wrote/produced it. Anything and everything could be a ‘remix’ made without their permission or approval. The scope for confusion and dilution of reputation and recognition would be limitless and never again will you be able to purchase anything on the strength of prior reputation.
But no matter. DJ Danger Mouse’s little crusade is doomed to failure as it is legally and morally wrong and his real motivations are all to clear. He may think he’ll win some support because it’s the little guy against the nasty music-biz corporation, and it’s very fashionable to knock them just now. Unfortunately in this case the nasty music-biz corporation is in the right.
Allow me to explain the concept of “public domain” to you.
We, as as society, have decided that it’s important to protect ideas/art/music so that the creators/artists/inventors get “compensated fairly” to encourage more ideas/art/music. In return for this, after a fixed amount of time, the ideas become public and anyone can use them free of charge.
In your example, the Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Anderson and Charles Perrault were long dead and, had there been a copyright, it would have expired.
If this DJ Dangermouse guy wants to butcher the White Album, he currently has two legal options–wait until copyright expires or get permission from the copyright holders. Or, he can break the law and hopefully (after listening to one of the tracks (“Change Clothes”), ) get the shit sued out of him. Were I Paul McCartney or John Lennon’s estate, I’d be pretty unhappy to hear that this character took huge chunks of my work and pissed all over them.
Done here, after this, because all I’m doing is going “That’s not what I said.” If you can’t respond to what I actually say, then I’m not gonna waste any more time on you.
Where did I say that I was the one to decide? I’ve said more than once that these kinds of issues need to resolved, defined, codified, whatever; I never said that I was the one to do that.
Your “happiness” does not trump my artistic freedom. Once you put something out into the public discourse, you don’t get to pout about how it’s received or reacted to by the public. If you’re going to be unbearably unhappy if someone reacts negatively to your work, then don’t publish it. But once a politician says something, it’s free game; it should be the same for artists, as long as compensation is taken into account. There’s far less conceptual difference between a politician’s expression and an artist’s expression than between freedom of expression and legislated “happiness.”
Guess I’ll have to spell things out. When I said ‘You’ I meant ‘You’ as in ‘anyone’, be it you, me, DJ Danger Mouse, Oprah, Mickey Mouse or anyone other than the copyright holder. All your defining and codifying isn’t going to get around the one fact that ultimately it comes down to only opinions. The opinion if the remix is any good, if it’s damaging to the thoughts, reputation, career and finances of the original artist. Who exactly is going to decide that? Is it you (i.e. anyone) or the copyright holder?
If it’s the copyright holder then that’s exactly the position we have currently that apparently is so unfair. If it’s ‘you’, then what exactly makes ‘your’ opinion better than the copyright holder?
Now, see, you don’t have any problems using the terms ‘you’ and ‘my’ here and I fully understand you are using the terms to illustrate the opposite sides of the argument, rather than talking about me personally. I wonder why you found it such a hurdle in my previous post??? :rolleyes:
However, interesting point, but then we’re not talking about someone reacting negatively to your work. We’re talking about someone disassembling your work and using it as they please, even in direct opposition to your intentions. There’s a huge difference.
We may be getting very philisophical, but please explain why my happiness (and by which I mean not just happiness, but reputation, standing, future career opportunities etc, etc) in regards to the use of my work is outweighed by your artistic freedom? It would appear to me that I certainly have more to lose in the equation, whereas you have everything to gain. Particularly if I have the greater talent. How can you defend this as fair?
long response, hamster chow. Nutshell:
Codifying terms that boil down to opinions is nothing new to US law. Who decides what “reasonable” search and seizure means? You’re arguing against all legislation.
The second artist’s re-interpretation of the first’s artist’s work in NO WAY damages the the first artist or his work. The second artist is altering one of an infinitely available number of copies. Your bizarre assertions of destruction and damage to the work applies only to physical objects, and I’m not advocating the physical vandalism of an art object, but your arguments make no sense in any other context.
How does “Bittersweet Symphony” damage the Rolling Stones? How does Negativland damage U2? (Though U2’s wielding of antiquated copyright laws greatly damaged Negativland.) Missy Elliot’s use of Ann Peebles’s “I Can’t Stop the Rain” led me–and others–to go out and buy the original Ann Peebles work. Who’s hurt there?
You can’t argue that positive effects are different from negative affects. If the second artist’s reinterpretation casts the original work in a new light, that’s protected speech. Whether the new light is negative or positive is constitutionally irrelevant. Why is it OK for #2 to SAY that #1 is a bad artist, but it’s illegal for his to SHOW this? The distinction is ludicrous and, ultimately, unconstitutional.
If a politician’s public statement can be “used,” an artist’s published works should be open to the same kind of commentary. Don’t want your work referred to specifically? Don’t publish it. Once you do, it’s as much a part of the marketplace of ideas as anything George Bush says.
The copyright laws should be amended to address compensation alone: any further limits is at odds with the First Amendment.
Prince’s refusal to allow WAYankovic to parody his songs protects nothing–NOTHING–but Prince’s ego. Is that really worth sacrificing the First Amendment?
And your bizarre assertion that a remix is damaging to the “thoughts” of the orignal artist is ludicrous enough to moot everything else you say, IMHO.
You have failed uttlerly to demonstrate ANY damage. You keep squeaking “damage! damage!” but you have made no case for it whatsoever.
Seven:
I must admit that this is a pretty good point. My stomach turned when I saw the commercial in which Nike used John Lennon’s “Instant Karma” to pimp their sneakers. I would be in support of allowing the OAs to refuse to grant licenses for use in commercials. I don’t feel that they should be able to withhold licenses from artists who wish to sample or remix the work. In addition, the OA should be able to block licenses for use in commercials of the newly created work. They should not, however, be allowed to block them from making or selling songs with samples (as long as they get a fair piece of the action) once they have released the material to the public.
Treis:
This is certainly how things are set up now. I find it to be an unfair and foolish arrangement because the work that these Djs are doing is quite often original, innovative, catchy, and is highly marketable. They are stifling creativity and forcing music lovers to become criminals to listen to the art they love so well. This sucks.
Club 33:
Many of these compositions are breath-taking, original, and clever. For example, the song “The Adventures Of Grandmaster Flash On The Wheels Of Steel” is mind blowingly creative. I can’t imagine anyone listening to that track and saying that it is just some guy copying other people without being creative. What he did revolutionized music, helped spawn a multi-billion dollar global industry, and gets people dancing to this day. The techniques he invented were original. Some day, if you are not scared, you should check out a turntable battle. I have seen people create compositions that are incredibly original and mind-numbingly difficult to pull off. The end products transcend the individual parts and are unique musical experiences that are the result of creativity, talent, and practice. These people practice every day for hours and hours, like any musician who wants to be good must. What they create is original. They use other peoples songs in ways that are creative. To say that these people lack originality or creativity is way off the mark. Sure some people who try it will be untalented hacks, but the ones who are good break ground. I just don’t feel that recorded sound is simply private property, and its re-use simply theft. Recorded sound is now the raw material of creative expression, a resource without which artists’ voices would be stifled. Samplers have replaced electric guitars as tools of the trade for many musicians; remixes and sonic collage are musical staples from the Top 40 to obscure electronica and hip-hop. It’s cool stuff that shouldn’t be held back.
Avurnede:
I’d love to find a cite for this. I have had a hell of a time figuring out what exactly the laws say. As I said in the OP, I’ve heard that Paul’s Boutique is filled with samples they never got permission for. Supposedly, they were able to do that because all of the samples were below a certain duration. I cannot, however, find a cite. Based on all of the laws I have been able to find, it seems that currently the only clearly legal sample is an authorized sample. As far as James Brown goes, he is one of those artists who has pretty much said anyone can sample his music as much as they want. George Clinton does the same. I have tremendous respect for artists who do this of their own accord. They understand the beautiful art that is possible, and they want to encourage it. It makes the musicians trying to stop the art form look greedy and petty in my book.
SentientMeat:
Resources for one thing. If I wanted to recreate the White Album I would need a shit-load of musicians, instruments, and studio time. They used whole orchestras for cryin’ out loud. So I can either buy a $1,000 sampler with a 4-track and spend another $1,000 on the Dj rig, or spend millions of dollars. Plus, the Djs spend their practice time on the turntables. That is their chosen instrument. Why should someone not interested in playing the guitar learn to play the one?
DaLovin’ Dj
No, I think you do have to explain it; IMO a reasonable person wouldn’t think that “contains portions of songs by the Beatles” means “authorized by the Beatles”.
When you buy a new Toyota that comes with Firestone tires, you don’t think Firestone designed the car, right? Even if Firestone is mentioned by the salesman and in the brochure, it’s obvious that Toyota has bought a product from another company and incorporated it into something else.
Of course I’d be annoyed, but so what? I’d also be annoyed if someone made a parody of my album, lent it to his friend instead of telling the friend to buy his own copy, wrote a bad review of my album, or chose not to buy it at all. Copyright isn’t intended to keep artists from being annoyed, it’s intended to let them profit when their work is used.
Yes, I’m suggesting that assumption is no longer valid, and hasn’t been valid since sampling was first used. Your conclusion is unwarranted: Of course you’ll be able to accept a product with someone’s word, opinion, and work at face value if it says it’s their work, not just based on their work.
It’s really that simple: If a CD says it was made by the Beatles, then you can assume it was made by the Beatles. If it says it’s a remix that DJ Danger Mouse made from a Beatles album, then you can assume it was made by DJ Danger Mouse, who used portions of the Beatles’ work to produce something new. (If you can’t tell whether a particular CD is a Beatles album or a third-party remix, I’m sure someone at the record store will be glad to let you know before you buy it.)
And what do you think those “real motivations” are? Did he put all that time and effort into making this album just to give the Beatles the finger?
Indeed. Copyright is given as a reward/incentive for producing new works, and the artist’s rights need to be balanced against the public’s right to benefit from and expand on the culture that surrounds them. One of the ways the artist’s rights are limited for public benefit is that copyrights expire after a while; another is that copyright violation can be excused if it’s for “fair use”.
And here, some of us are suggesting that they should be limited in yet another way, to let other artists create new works based on older ones. We’re asking the question “How will DJs make remix albums if they aren’t allowed to use source material?”, which is just as valid as the question that comes up in most other copyright threads, “How will Hollywood make $100 million movies if they aren’t allowed to charge for copies?”
Now, someone opposed to change might reply, “Maybe some artists will let DJs use their work, even if they don’t have to.” Sure. And maybe some people will pay for copies of movies, even if they don’t have to. But relying on altruism is no way to fund a movie, or to get samples or source material.
Sorry, but a poor example. Firestone do not make cars, they make components for cars, i.e. tyres. The Beatles made songs, they did not make components for songs, i.e. samples.
Apart from that, when I purchase a Toyota with Firestone tyres I do so on the understanding that Toyota have a contract with Firestone and they are both in agreement that their products are complementary, suitable and are not going to adversely impact on each other’s reputation. Toyota have not obtained Firestone tyres without Firestone’s agreement.
And if they are annoyed because they believe that using their work in this manner will seriously damage their reputation and future sales?
And I’m sure that every radio DJ will read out the entire list on every play too.
Money. Kudos. He wanted to make sales on his work.
Uh, what if they are annoyed because they believe that using their work in this manner will exacerbate the microwaves’ penetration of their skull and facilite the theft of their thoughts by the government, which is a puppet regime propped up by ammonia-breathing jellyfish from your anus? Sorry; from Uranus?
This is insane! How can you possibly suggest that sampling an artist’s work could in any way damage future sales?
Repeating it over and over doesn’t make it any more convincing. You haven’t put forth any kind of plausible scenario that results in a LOSS of sales from INCREASED exposure. It simply makes no sense, and until you make a good faith effort to explain how it makes sense to you, you give the impression that you’re just arguing to hear yourself argue.
Maybe they have, maybe they haven’t. It’s perfectly legal for a car dealer to buy four tires from the neighborhood auto shop, put them on a car, and sell the car with those tires on it, even if the tire manufacturer objects. That’s the first sale doctrine.
Then I guess I’ll have to cancel my appointments so I can attend their pity party.
A negative review or a parody could also damage their reputation and future sales, and friends lending CDs to each other instead of buying extra copies certainly damages the artist’s sales. So what? The public’s right to share their opinions about art (whether that means a review, a parody, lending a CD, or using it as a sample) is more important than the artist’s right not to be annoyed.
What’s your point? Do you seriously think anyone’s going to misrepresent the Grey Album as the Beatles’ work?
If the radio DJ is really pressed for time, he might say “Here’s (track name) by DJ Danger Mouse”; typically it’d be announced as DJ Danger Mouse’s remix of Jay-Z’s and the Beatles’ work. He definitely won’t say “Here’s a track by the Beatles” and then play DJ Danger Mouse’s remix, unless he’s trying to get fired and/or sued, because that would be lying.
By giving it away for free?
Just as a data point: as a lifelong Beatles nut who knows and loves the White Album like the sound of my mother’s voice, I think The Grey Album is brilliant. (It it still readily available to the industrious soul.)
It’s also worth reiterating that I can do my own solo acoustic version of “Happiness is a Warm Gun” in a live show (for money) or even record it on an album, and as long as I secure the rights and attribute the song properly, there is no mechanism in place to stop me. (In fact, in the case of the live show, IIRC it’s the venue’s responsibility to pay the ASCAP/BMI fees.) Fortunately for the Beatles, I restrict this to drunken parties. To the people who oppose compulsory licensing of samples–do you feel the same way about this arrangement, which has existed for decades without bringing the music business to its knees?
Dr. J
If that’s what they think, then what business is it of anyone else to over-rule their concerns about the use of their product? The point is it doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks. It’s their music. They own the rights to it. They can be as obstinant and as crazy as they like, no-one has the right to take it off them if they don’t agree.
Ever heard of over-exposure? The fact is that if I hear a recording that clearly features an artist’s music/singing voice and I hate it, but hear it all over the place, then I am less likely to either buy the original recording or any subsequent recordings by the same artist. Record companies know this. Artists know this. Why else do you think they like to keep control of their music?
My point is that in the mind of the average listener a song will not be “DJ Mixalot featuring samples from the Beatles and Justine Timberlake to the tune of the unauthorized remix of Eminem with Britney including samples of Michael Jackson”. It will be; "That song with the Beatle’s “Hey Jude” and Eminem going “Uh-huh”.
No, by selling it, which was the original intention had it not been denied sampling rights by EMI.
Why? What is the difference? Surely you aren’t alleging that your reputation as a musician could be smeared by anything somebody else does with your music.
And once the proper laws are in place, nobody will have any reason to suppose that you support company X’s yeast infection-treating topical cream just because they used their song in your commerical.
It seems like the distinction you are drawing has less to do with any kind of logic and more to do with what you yourself enjoy making and listening to.
Product endorsements are a different matter then sampling. A product endorsement has different negotiating techniques and pricing schemes. Very few commercials have ever been accused of having artistic merit. Creating a musical composition is not the same as using a musical composition to sell a product that is not music. There is no legitimate, vocal, group of talented artists demanding the right to make commercials. Commercials are the domain of the corporate, the system, the sell-outs, the brain-washing, the programming, and the product they put out tends to numb the mind, not expand it. The culture of Djs/Hip-Hop music is innovative, ground-breaking, talented, and artistic. There is no artistic movement or culture that has mass appeal involved with the production and placement of commercials.
The laws should change so that they encourage artistic development and allow this art form to blossom. Comercials simply don’t meet the criteria, so therefore are in no need of such protections.
DaLovin’ Dj