20
ENG/IMS 224: Lessig, Owning Culture, and Mashing stuff up

Remix and IP Law

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Remix and IP Law

ENG/IMS 224: Lessig, Owning Culture, and

Mashing stuff up

Page 2: Remix and IP Law

Remix is Like…

Remix is the act of taking one or more cultural artifacts-- visual, video, audio, and/or alphabetic texts- and deliberately mixing elements together to create something new that often specifically mimics one or more of the sources. Many remixes are meant to be satirical or overtly political, though satire is not essential.

Page 3: Remix and IP Law

The problem rises….

If you look at my definition, you see the problem really, really early on: “you take one or more cultural artifacts”– stress on the “take.” On the next few slides are some remix images I’ve made myself recently, just for kicks.

Yeah, I’m a big ol’ remix for fun nerd.

Page 4: Remix and IP Law
Page 5: Remix and IP Law
Page 6: Remix and IP Law
Page 7: Remix and IP Law
Page 8: Remix and IP Law

Key issue: IP law

The question here becomes “whose intellectual property are these things?”

Are those mine? I “made” them, but I didn’t make them from a blank slate. Am I allowed to just borrow that stuff?

Let’s ask a lawyer!

Page 9: Remix and IP Law

Lessig on IP law

• Lessig declares that he has the following positions:– He is anti-piracy– He is anti-war (meaning law vs. creators

here)– He is anti-lawyer and anti-lobbyist (he

includes himself here, so he’s anti-Lessig, too)

Page 10: Remix and IP Law

Lessig is like,

• “We need to hear less from lawyers and lobbyists and more from artists [about who owns culture].”

• " This is a relationship between technology and ownership, which is translated to digital technology and copyright.”

Page 11: Remix and IP Law

Pirate Technologies

player piano – “pirated” sheet music radio– “pirated” records cable TV– “pirated” network TV betamax– “pirated” TV and movies

But as these were regulated, the law always waited to see “the potential of the technology.”

Page 12: Remix and IP Law

We Didn’t Start the Fire…

• “...this is not the first time radical new technologies have appeared and changed the way that culture gets made and distributed. This is a constant theme...”

• But… The law favored the pirate in those old cases. It is now "fit the technology to the law" and not "fit the law to the technology."

Page 13: Remix and IP Law

"This architecture demands... the right to remix culture."

Enter DJ Danger Mouse. He felt that the Beatles’ White Album and Jay-Z’s black album went together.So he created “the Grey Album” which you can Google And download. but don’t, because it’s totally illegal. *wink*

Or is it?

Page 14: Remix and IP Law

RemixRemix

Remix is the act of taking one or more cultural artifacts-- in this case visual, though video, audio, and alphabetic texts are regularly remixed-- and deliberately mixing elements together to create something new that often specifically mimics one or more of the sources. Many remixes are meant to be satirical or overtly political, though satire is not essential to the genre.

Remix is the act of taking one or more cultural artifacts-- visual, video, audio, and/or alphabetic texts- and deliberately mixing elements together to create something new that often specifically mimics one or more of the sources. Many remixes are meant to be satirical or overtly political, though satire is not essential.

Page 15: Remix and IP Law

Remix: from The Daily Show

+ =

Page 16: Remix and IP Law

Remix: from Marvel Comics

+ =

Page 17: Remix and IP Law

Remix: from random net site

+

=

Page 18: Remix and IP Law

Another Example

• The New Yorker ran a piece on Danger Mouse and the idea of mash-ups.

• “Mashups find new uses for current digital technology, a new iteration of the cause-and-effect relationship behind almost every change in pop-music aesthetics: the gear changes, and then the music does.”

• So… whose song is this?

Page 19: Remix and IP Law

A Stroke of Genius

“In October of 2001, a d.j. named Roy Kerr, calling himself the Freelance Hellraiser, sent Temple-Morris [a mash-up show duo] a mashup called “A Stroke of Genius,” laying Christina Aguilera’s vocal from “Genie in a Bottle,” a lubricious pop song, over the music from the Strokes’ “Hard to Explain,” a brittle, honking guitar song. “

Page 20: Remix and IP Law

So what we have to consider…

1) Who “owns” a particular piece of art2) What can we use and what can’t we use? 3) What IS Fair Use? 4) What is Creative Commons? 5) How do we avoid having to try a justification

like this?