I know it’s cliche, but I’d like to start the reply off with a " :rolleyes: "
Here’s a list of global awards that recognized the creativity (aka artistic value) of commercials. Maybe one of the plethora of commercials that uses that artistic hip-hop song “Hey Ya” by OutKast will win one. As for a group of people struggling to make commercials, what about moveon.org’s campaign to make creative, affective commercials? These commercials are directly supposed to engage the viewer. Maybe I’m missing your point entirely, but I don’t see how your art form is any different from these folks/“kids”.
I still don’t see how sampling an artist’s track is creative. IMHO, of course, it’s blantantly dirivative. It’s tantamount to you making a movie and having the supporting actor be Chewbacca and not have the movie be Star Wars. Sure, YOUR movie is a Western and is completely “original” and “creative” and “artistic” because no one put Chewy in chaps and a stetson with a long piece of prairie grass hanging out of his mouth, but that doesn’t make it good. It’s an obvious grab for fame whoring off of something that was good. (Insert off topic rant about what Lucas did to the Star Wars franchise here).
Of course “good” is completely subjective and is hard to objectively determine and deem its worth. Therein lies the central part of my issue with your arguments. The CH, presumably/preferably the artist or creator, should be afforded the decision whether someone can use their product. If that person believes in their opinion that what the sampler is going to do to their product why should anyone do what they want with it? If someone wants to not be greedy and share their product with the world why would they have slapped a copyright on it to begin with? Vanity or to have appropriate control over their product that they choose to do with as they please? I’d say it’s gonna be control.
In the same way sampling is a refuge for vultures and the musically untalented, I suppose. You’ve never tried to make a commercial, have you? It’s just another type of film. You don’t think filmmaking is a creative endeavor? You film-hating types are all the same. You just don’t appreciate this unique artform! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Motive is not the issue here anyway. Under your system I could be a creatively bankrupt, greedy sample musician trying as hard as I can to make a profit and I can still sample whoever I want whenever I want. Likewise, I could be advertising a product I’ve put my very heart into that I don’t expect to make a profit on.
You’re saying that once music is put out there it should be free for anybody to use, because it doesn’t belong to the creator anymore… unless I want to use it for something you personally don’t consider a noble, artistic crusade, in which case the original musician retains all his rights.
Would you be so vocal in your support of DJ Dangermouse if you thought his music was terrible? Or would you just dismiss him like you do Vanilla Ice? This isn’t really about what kind of music you like.
Both of you have missed the point by focusing on the single issue of creativity. The POINT is that advertizing is not protected by the first amendment. Commercial use could very validly be legislatively distinct from artistic use, as commercial speech is currently treated differently. (See the Nike lawuit of a couple years ago for examples.)
I remember when the use of “Beat It” in a Thriller-like public service drunk driving commercial got Michael Jackson shaking hands with the Reagans in the White House. That commercial can be considered part of the public service triumvirate with Smokey the Bear and the Crying Indian. So not all pop songs/commercial joint products are schlock.
By that logic, would you also agree that if someone is sampling large amounts of an artists work and then attempting to sell that music, that it could also be considered “Commercial Use”? Someone is using that music to make their product better and thereby more marketable.
I never said that there are NO commercials with artistic merit. My words were “Very few commercials have ever been accused of having artistic merit.” The ‘very few’ phrasing allows for the standouts that have been recognized for their artistic merits.
I went to their website and could find nothing that matches that description. Perhaps you could provide a proper link to what you are talking about . . .
When the subject is a song that exists for the purpose of being music, that is different from when a song is used to sell a product. A commercial is not a song. It is different. Surely, this should be obvious. Suppose I sit someone down in a room. I then play a track from the Grey Album, without saying anything. Then, I turn on the TV and show them a tampon commercial featuring “Why don’t we do it in the road”. Are you honestly saying that you see no difference? The first is a musical experience, the second is a commercial device for selling tampons. One is designed to be art, the other is designed to sell products. One would be percieved as a song, as music. The other one would be percieved as a commercial. A commercial is not the same thing as a song.
Not really. I’m saying that you should be allowed to sample any music recorded to create new music. I do, however, advocate laws that limit, but not forbid, how the new music may be used. They can sell it, but the OAs have to get a reasonable piece up-front, and a bigger piece on the back end if the track blows up and rakes in the cash. If they want the music to be used for product endorsements that would require a second compensation for the OAs, and they should have the right to block a sell-out move if they are not down with it. Even if a commercial does have artistic merit, it exists to sell something. If the commercial was for nothing but a copy of the commercial you were watching that would be tricky, but that’s not how it works. Commercials exist to sell something (other than themselves).
The artist can take one second samples, totally unrelated to each other, and create new beats, melodies, and rhythms. Once captured, this sound can be morphed, reversed, spliced in to sections, re-spliced, equalised and effects added to varying degrees, depending upon the nature of the users wishes. In this way some digitised samples can be so far removed from the original that they are basically impossible to identify. Putting them together in ways that are appealing is creative and requires skill, effort, and alot of time. Like any other instrument it can be used in a fashion that isn’t very creative, but in the hands of a master the creativity comes out gang-busters and you think to yourself “Damn. Wow.”, like I did listening to the Grey Album last night.
I was thinking about this last night. On some public access channel in NYC they will from time to time have these 30 minute long video collages put to music. They take bits and pieces of tons of movies and tv shows, and then make a powerful collage. The result is intense. These days video samplers are sold right next to music samplers. No doubt, before too long, similar debates will arise for video material. As an art form, appropriation has been a prominent element in the inspiration and creation of art since the Industrial Revolution. Digital sampling is arguably a contemporary technological version of this method of creating art. Where does the right to make collages end? If I take a bunch of books and magazines and rip the pages out, attach them to canvas, then paint around them and sell it as an original painting am I violating copyright laws? A substantial similarity test seems like the way to go. An expansion of these fair dealing or fair use guidelines, to encapsulate a ‘whole being greater that the sum of it’s parts’ test seems to be needed. The protection given the copyright owner should not stifle independent creation by others. Obviously, it’s a thorny and complex issue involving some very grey areas (which makes the title “The Grey Album” so very appropriate).
I disagree. They should be compensated in the case of creative use, further compensated in the case of financial gain from said creative use, and they should control product endorsement related issues (remeber an album being sold commercialy is different from a song being played in a ‘commercial’; the words sound alike, but in context mean very different things.) The copyright law should be reworked to entitle them to these financial compensations and commercial (as in ‘commercials’ not ‘commercial sales’) related control. Similarity tests to determine whether the new product is sufficiently different to be considered an original work should be left up to the courts, and they should be given guidelines to help them determine whether something qualifies as original.
Absolutely. I would be in support of Vanilla Ice having the right to do what he did, if he just would have admitted that he had done it and given the OAs and CRHs a piece willingly. Whether I like the result of a particular artist’s work isn’t really important. It’s their right to strive to make great art that I wish to protect. As a matter of fact, I just heard the Grey Album for the first time last night. Like Doctor J, I am a huge fan of the White Album (and the Beatles were my favorite band for a good 4 or 5 years). The Grey album is mind blowingly good. And I have it. And 30 of my friends now have it because I told them about it. And thousands of others have it. You can’t stop the distribution. You can’t stop the creation. All you can do is force a black market. Prohibition doesn’t work. I would prefer that EMI get a piece. I would prefer to have gone into a store and paid for my copy. Tons of my friends have said they would be glad to have paid for something so cool. Instead, no one gets anything and yet the music is out there. The system screws everybody: the OAs, the record company, and the DJ. Reform is needed or they’ll just keep the art underground, which gives it even more appeal by keeping it “edgy”.
I very specifically referred to “commercial speech” in the limited definition of “advertizing.” Advertizing is not protected by the First Amendment. There are other contexts in which the First Amendment does not apply. Sworn tesimony in a court, for example.
Traditionally, exceptions to First Amendment protections have been very narrowly defined; anything not so defined is presumed to be protected speech. To use copyright laws that were intended to prevent someone from selling unauthorized reproductions of someone’s work as a means to limit an artist’s palette is archaic and, ultimately, against the spirit of the First Amendment.
I have been listening to the Grey Album for a few days now. At first, I couldn’t stop laughing – the talent required to put it together is absolutely astounding. The song remixes are kind of hit or miss, but the novelty of the whole thing (every kick, snare, instrument except for voice is lifted off the White Album) makes up for it. If you are at all a rap fan and have a passing interest in the Beatles, definitely take a listen. Get a copy of the White Album for reference. I recommend the track with the “Piggies” sample (it is IMHO the best song) and the one with the “Julia” sample (what he does to that song is absolutely unbelievable).
Sampling, even in big quantites, is nothing musically new. Carl Stalling, the guy who wrote all of the music for the cartoons, did it all of the time. (the Carl Stalling Project albums are very fun listening and he is very well regarded among musicians and composers, despite being basically a 9 to 5, only doing it for the job kind of guy). Does anyone know whether all of the music that he used and basically “remixed” were in the public domain or how the copyright worked on them? Surely the song “Powerhouse” wasn’t in the public domain in the 1940s and 1950s when he was putting together his scores? Before him, Bernstein based “Cool” from West Side Story on IIRC the Missa Solemnis by Beethoven. Rachmaninoff has Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganinni. Rachmaninoff also transcribed “Flight of the Bumblebee” and a few Bach violin partitas for the piano. He is not unusual in any of this – most composers have done the same, predating modern copyright law by centuries. These pieces retain their popularity, as do their source materials.
Musically, Danger Mouse has done the same thing digitally. Danger Mouse truly has talent and he makes stuff which is highly entertaining. The pragmatic solution is to find a way to make some money off of it in a way that would be fair. On one hand, it isn’t fair to take 100% of the royalties and give them to the Beatles (like what happened to the Verve for “Bitter Sweet Symphony”'s uncredited Rolling Stones orchestral sample). I certainly think that every nickel made off of this album should be split in threes by EMI or Apple Records or whoever owns the music, Jay-Z, and Danger Mouse.
Music piracy and free downloading is a whole other ball of wax which can be neatly separated from this discussion. Needless to say, EMI has created its own piracy problem by banning this album – I would definitely buy this if it were available but the only way for me to get it was to find it erm elsewhere. It is unfortunate, but there is a changed paradigm in terms of the way our society deals with information. The music biz needs to fit into this paradigm or be left behind. The same has happened in plenty of other industries – typewriter manufacturers have become computer giants, telegraph companies have become wire transfer and telephone companies. I’m sure the people who supplied hitching posts found a new line of work or they went hungry. There is still a need for companies to develop, promote, record, and distribute entertainment talent, but once the information exists and is put out into the public’s hands, it loses much of its value. My view is that in a few years, CDs and DVDs will extremely cheaply priced (well under $10) and viewed as advertisement for a record company, and their real product will be live shows, merchandising, branding, and services. It may not be what music purists are hoping for, but it is necessary for long term viability. The music companies will produce entertainers and they will probably still be wildly overpaid and live a “rock star” lifestyle. The real artists will go unsigned or signed to small labels and make their living entirely off of small club gigs.
Nope…I would never say that there isn’t a difference at all. Speaking solely for myself, it’s easy to associate the song to the product. Every time I hear Nick Drake’s beautiful “Pink Moon” song up comes the VW Cabriolet into my head. The song existed and was wonderful, VW absorbed it and made it part of its marketing consciousness. I also understand that songs are written specifically for commercial’s sake. “I’d Like to Buy The World a Coke” was written specifically to move product with the understanding how music emotes a person to want a product. The same understanding should be given when a commercial uses a pre-existing non-commercial song for its commercial needs as VW did and the propensity to entertwine the song with the commercial. That propensity makes it problematic for the artist that doesn’t want to be associated with said product.
There are songs like Imani Coppola’s “Legend of a Cowgirl” that tickle my fancy when I hear a riff from Donovan’s “Sunshine Superman” in it. I really dug that song when it came out. I still think it could stand on its own without the sampling tho as it distracted from the message and still felt derivative. But, that’s the artist’s vision (or the producer/record co./et al) and you can take it even further out as Dean Elliot and his Big Band did on his album “Zounds! What Sounds!” where he recorded samples of animals, cement mixers, bowling, and more and incorporated them into pieces of wonderful jazz works. Thus proving that sampling can come from anyway, even outside of music.
In 1988, Information Society made it big when they released “What’s on Your Mind (Pure Energy)” which included a sample from Star Trek. They’ve now turned around and are making samples of their music available via their website. This is what you were mentioning earlier that James Brown was allowing. I totally support this and say that if the CH is ok with it, perfect. I still maintain that without said permission no amount of money should trump an artist’s desires to keep their work intact.
If anyone wants to make their own re-mix of the Black album, check out the Jay Z Construction Set. Funny stuff. Anyway . . .
I love that quote. It speaks to the creativity in humans. That insatiable desire to invent, to innovate, and to produce artistic works. To me, art is the whole reason I do everything. Every time I go to work, it is so that I can have enough money to support my artistic endeavors. When I have free time I write, I spin, I dance, I perform in plays, I make short films, and it is those things that bring me happiness. All of the pain, the frustration, the hard work, and the tragedy of life is worth it to me because those moments of artistic endeavors bring me such happiness. I live for those moments. Without art (my own and others), I don’t think I would be a very happy person. When I was a teenager and going through the required growing pains, it was acting that would bring me back from the edge of depression. Hell, if it weren’t for art, I might not have lived this long. My point is that art is an incredibly good thing for humans. It can give people a reason to live. It can bring happiness. It can spread awareness. Congress recognized this, and it is in that spirit that copyright laws were forged:
That is from Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. The goal of copyright is to “provide for the general welfare” and “promote the progress of science and useful arts” by encouraging further creation. The rationale behind copyright is that granting creators temporary monopoly rights over their creations will encourage them to create more. The real goal of copyright is to ensure that new knowledge and art will be developed and circulated through society. It was not intended to create a syndicate of powerful corporations that can control, via legal mechanchians and strong arm tactics, what art we are allowed to experience.
At the time these laws were written, the technology was much different. Samplers and digital music editors have allowed for a highly entertaining art form to be accessible to people of almost all incomes. Kids who can’t afford lessons can use their computers (which will soon be so cheap that almost any income will be able to provide for one) to become immersed in the world of music. The PC can be a creative outlet for them, and allow them an almost immediate gratification. Give the Jay Z construction set a try. It’s fun. It’s entertaining. And, potentially, it is a tool with which one could create highly original compositions. Just because someone uses appropriation as a tool does not mean that the end result isn’t original & creative. As per the spirit of the law, original and creative works should be promoted and encouraged.
As a result of the new technologies, the current legal setup is now working against its intended purpose. Creativity is being stifled and progress, rather than being promoted, is being fought against tooth and nail by corporations seeking to maintain a monopoly on distribution and content. Either way, the current laws are unenforceable. Information flows too freely these days. There is no way to prevent distribution. If the kids want it, the kids can get it, as the Grey Album has proven. The industry is setting themselves up in a very adversarial manner, clutching to an all but dead business model that simply cannot survive in the age of the internet. They need to adapt, to compromise, and to encourage artistic endeavors. When the entire sum of recorded human music can fit on something the size of a quarter that can be bought for $10 on the street corner, the whole thing becomes moot anyway. They are going to lose everything if they keep it up. Compulsory use law reforms would go a long way to getting these artists to partner with the industry willingly, resulting in profits for both. As it is they are simply alienating some of the most talented cutting edge artists and no body gets anything.
Let the Dj’s pay a couple hundred a year to ASCAP/BMI (like venues do - good point DoctorJ!) up front. Willingly. Then they can sample whatever they want, register their own works, and if commercial success is achieved the OAs get a piece. Any other way just isn’t going to work, right or wrong. Whether you like the music or not isn’t important. In matters of opinion debate is useless; there is no accounting for taste. As far as the laws go, they will be unable to stop this art form, they shouldn’t even try, and they have reached a self-defeating state that begs for reform. Not only is it self defeating in regards to Article 1, Section 8, but also in regards to this section, with which you may be familiar:
Ahh, so morality can be trashed to make room for creativity? Umm…no.
Just because you wanna crap over everyone else’s art doesn’t make us all fecophiliacs. Usurping one’s legal belongings because “it’s what the kids do” is such an asinine argument, how 'bout this. The kids grow up and learn that just because they can commit a crime easily that they shouldn’t.
I’ll try and type it so makes sense to me now (preview, dammit, preview).
Usurping one’s legal belongings because “it’s what the kids do” is such an asinine argument. How 'bout this: the kids grow up and learn that just because they can commit a crime easily, doesn’t mean that they should.
Easy with the jumping and the conclusions. It’s not about general morality, as in all morals of any kind. That’s not what the I get from that quote, anyway. Morality is relative. The industry can say “Don’t make the Grey Album, it is illegal, and therefore immoral.” Just because they say it, does not make such morals good, or worth following. In some cases, such moral messages can be effective. For example, I think that the “Movies, they’re worth it!” campaign, which illustrates how many everyday people are involved in making movies, will discourage people from downloading movies illegally. It won’t stop it all together, but it may help. In this sense, laws and appeals to certain moral outlooks (remember - there is no objective morality), can effect behavior. But in the face of creativity and human ingenuity, those laws and recommended moralities will not stop the flow. Morals which should not be followed will fall in the face of human dignity and expression. Danger Mouse made music that he loves. The morality and laws that the music industry would have us buy into are not enough to stifle that man’s creativity. At one time it was considered by many immoral to deny that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Yet human ‘appetites, ambitions and propensities’ would not be stopped, and as a result this fallacy was defeated, and a poor moral structure was improved. I am not advocating the demise of all morals, only those that don’t make sense and/or stifle human creativity and potential.
That isn’t the argument I am vigourously defending. My position, to repeat, is that the copyright laws should be changed, as they are now in conflict with the whole reason copyright laws were drafted in the first place. They also are now working against the spirit of the first amendment. The fact that “it is what the kid’s do” is an aside to illustrate the unenforceable nature of the current laws, and the futility of trying to stifle artistic inclinations in human beings.
The heart of the matter is that the letter of the law is now contrary to the spirit of the law. That is the justification I offer for reform. The inability to stop distribution and creation of appropriation based art is not offered as a justification for reform. Rather, it is to illustrate that they, ultimately, can’t win anyway. They should join forces and profit, instead of fighting a war that is ultimately unwinable. Though the recording industry people may preach morals, the reality is they care about one thing: money. Not morality, not art, not the betterment of society, but the bottom line. The way they are playing it, ironically, is depriving them of huge revenue streams in an attempt to protect revenues that are about to disappear anyway. Crazy fools.
As per the spirit of the law, it was meant that creative works built on the backs of public domain material instead of currently copyrighted material were to be promoted and encouraged. Thereby protecting the holders of the copyrights.
I think the real goal of copyrights was to ensure the holder be compensated for their work as well as having it protected from thieves. Yes, they’d be given a monopoly, not everything has to be communist in this world to be good but not every copyright is held by Conhugeco Corporation bent on sitting on your golden egg.
Cite? I see no mention of monetary compensation. Hell, there isn’t even a hint of an assurance that any compensation will be recieved. That’s depends on what the market will bear. Protection from thieves? Don’t see any language regarding that being a motivation either. The only language in the relevant articles that reveal motivation are the words “To promote the progress of science and useful arts”. The laws are now standing directly in the way of artistic progress, therefore, the letter of the law has conflicted with (and trumped) the spirit of the law.
I based my interpretation on what was written in the legal code. What do you base yours on?
It looks to me like there would be not only financial compensation and penalities but also a return and destruction of the intellectual property that was stolen.
You’ve confused the penalties for breaking the law with the motivations for creating the laws. The laws weren’t created to guarantee authors $.50 per page. That is a punative measure and therefore doesn’t speak to motivations. The reason for legal penalties of any kind is to discourage people from breaking the laws. They are not the motivations for making the laws in the first place.
dalovindj, the thought process of promoting the progress of science and useful arts is made by protecting the inventors by granting them copyrights so their intellectual property is properly protected.
Please refer to Thomas B Nachbar’s work here (page 44) that states:
Noah Webster was a strong proponent of US copyright laws and lobbied to get them passed due to fear of theft of his property. Cite:
Since Noah Webster was the prime motivator for getting these copyright laws passed and his motivation was monitary, I think it’s reasonable to assume that the grounds behind enacting these aren’t to solely encourage creative expression. In fact, that is the lesser of the results of copyright laws, once the holder is fiscally and intellectually protected, then they are free to create more works with the knowledge that their work would be properly compensated.
