Making art in the age of abusive copyright enforcement.Negativland and Public Enemy are two '80s groups who became experts on copyright whether they wanted to be or not. U2's overbearing record label forced Negativland to defend appropriation theory in court (and radicalized them to a point of complete obsession on this issue, as trauma has a way of doing); Public Enemy quickly learned what they could and couldn't create after sampling suits brought hiphop's most innovative phase to a halt. Negativland now maintains an online database relating to "fair use" and other copyright issues (be sure to check out their interview with U2's The Edge if you haven't), and Public Enemy's Chuck D and Hank Shocklee recently gave an industry-savvy interview on "how copyright changed hiphop." Along with law professor Lawrence Lessig (and many others) these groups are urging fundamental changes to American copyright laws. This is important but don't expect it to happen anytime soon, given the strength of the music and film industry lobbies. For those planning to make art in the meantime, these are your sole options:
1. Stay poor. The humorless twit who sued Jeff Koons over that "string of puppies" photo would never have done it if Koons hadn't been an "art star." Very few people sue to make a point (except RIAA); it's too expensive.
2. Record live versions of other people's songs, or song fragments, for the sole purpose of sampling them--you avoid the "master recording" fee for the sample and only have to pay the "publication" fee. Just kidding: this is actually done by the big-bucks hiphop performers, as described in the Chuck D/Hank Shocklee interview, but it sounds fake as hell--essentially having a lawyer as a creative partner.
3. Stay several steps ahead of the shysters by mutating the sounds so they're virtually untraceable. A lot of drum and bass producers do this. You don't get that bang of recognition ("Oh that's Richard Dawson in Running Man!") but the texture of the sound is yours to play with.
4. Make completely original art. No more samples, no more collage, it's back to the Modernist dictate "make it new." It's always possible you heard or saw something subconsciously that crept into your work and could get you sued, but creativity isn't just about mixing up other people's stuff. (Dumb, I know; I just put it in in case Jed Perl stumbled across the page).
or/and 5. you could publicly license your own work so it is available for use by others at the creative commons website.
My comments were addressed more at running afoul of other people's copyrights, as opposed to protecting your own. The question is, how will art be made with all this oppressive legal stuff hanging in the air? Art changes, but doesn't go away. Right now we're having to accept that the law acts as an invisible attractor in the art field, affecting creative decisionmaking, but that shouldn't mean we have to sleep with attorneys.
"My comments were addressed more at running afoul of other people's copyrights" ... I get it. But by putting your own work up for grabs, wouldnt you then be actively participating in the hoped-for shift away from proprietary culture?
I'm actually not arguing for a "shift away from proprietary culture." If someone was offering a book for sale called Blog Writing by Pete and it was mostly copied from this weblog, then the sellers would hear from me because there is a (standard) copyright notice on these pages. But if I noticed a fragment of a drawing of mine in someone's photoshop collage posted free for the viewing on the internet, I'm not going after the artist hammer and tongs, the way they do in the music industry. As a practical matter, everything I've posted on the Internet is up for grabs. You can copy the html or right-click and save the image and music files. I'd actually prefer not to have some neo-legal announcement on the page spelling out what people can and can't do with it. How I use other people's copyrighted material (as a sample, or under "fair use" because I wrote about their work and needed to post an example, or in an "appropriation piece" with a link back to the originator) is a pretty fair indication of how I would hope to be credited if the shoe was on the other foot. I'd like to keep the law off the page as much as possible.
This sounds cranky because I haven't thought about the CC license vis a vis my page much and it's awkward having to suddenly state a position. There's a delicate balance in art between loners and what you've aptly called joiners and I think the CC scheme is a bit too much of the latter for me.
Oh geez I'm sorry. I didn't suggest this item for your list becuase I advocate it, necessarily, but because it is one more in the possible list of things "to do". While I find it challenging and useful to consider putting my own art /writing up for grabs, I do not have anything like a resolved position on the idea. In fact, while I'm intrigued, the concept still scares and puzzles me. Notice I don't have a CC license on my blog either. sorry about the pressure - that was not intended. I think you are correct that legal-ese would not jive with the fluid ettiquette of idea/art sharing that is already going on here (and yes, touché, I am kind of a "joiner").
The pressure is self-generated; I'm sure there are CC "partisans" out there who might wonder why someone doesn't embrace their scheme. Some people have gone around the bend on the victim side of the copyright issue--my post was (among other things) a slightly flip way of saying that art does go on in spite of the evil property holders. Negativland used to make great art that involved "stealing"--now it seems they mostly make art about stealing. We need our obsessers--that's the only way things get done in our society--but it can sap your energy from "pure" work. I'm not saying any of this applies to you. The CC thing just set off this volatile thought-train.
|
Making art in the age of abusive copyright enforcement.
Negativland and Public Enemy are two '80s groups who became experts on copyright whether they wanted to be or not. U2's overbearing record label forced Negativland to defend appropriation theory in court (and radicalized them to a point of complete obsession on this issue, as trauma has a way of doing); Public Enemy quickly learned what they could and couldn't create after sampling suits brought hiphop's most innovative phase to a halt. Negativland now maintains an online database relating to "fair use" and other copyright issues (be sure to check out their interview with U2's The Edge if you haven't), and Public Enemy's Chuck D and Hank Shocklee recently gave an industry-savvy interview on "how copyright changed hiphop." Along with law professor Lawrence Lessig (and many others) these groups are urging fundamental changes to American copyright laws. This is important but don't expect it to happen anytime soon, given the strength of the music and film industry lobbies. For those planning to make art in the meantime, these are your sole options:
- tom moody 6-07-2004 8:37 am
or/and 5. you could publicly license your own work so it is available for use by others at the creative commons website.
- sally mckay 6-07-2004 8:47 am
My comments were addressed more at running afoul of other people's copyrights, as opposed to protecting your own. The question is, how will art be made with all this oppressive legal stuff hanging in the air? Art changes, but doesn't go away. Right now we're having to accept that the law acts as an invisible attractor in the art field, affecting creative decisionmaking, but that shouldn't mean we have to sleep with attorneys.
- tom moody 6-07-2004 5:43 pm
"My comments were addressed more at running afoul of other people's copyrights" ... I get it. But by putting your own work up for grabs, wouldnt you then be actively participating in the hoped-for shift away from proprietary culture?
- sally mckay 6-07-2004 5:54 pm
I'm actually not arguing for a "shift away from proprietary culture." If someone was offering a book for sale called Blog Writing by Pete and it was mostly copied from this weblog, then the sellers would hear from me because there is a (standard) copyright notice on these pages. But if I noticed a fragment of a drawing of mine in someone's photoshop collage posted free for the viewing on the internet, I'm not going after the artist hammer and tongs, the way they do in the music industry. As a practical matter, everything I've posted on the Internet is up for grabs. You can copy the html or right-click and save the image and music files. I'd actually prefer not to have some neo-legal announcement on the page spelling out what people can and can't do with it. How I use other people's copyrighted material (as a sample, or under "fair use" because I wrote about their work and needed to post an example, or in an "appropriation piece" with a link back to the originator) is a pretty fair indication of how I would hope to be credited if the shoe was on the other foot. I'd like to keep the law off the page as much as possible.
This sounds cranky because I haven't thought about the CC license vis a vis my page much and it's awkward having to suddenly state a position. There's a delicate balance in art between loners and what you've aptly called joiners and I think the CC scheme is a bit too much of the latter for me.
- tom moody 6-11-2004 9:01 am
Oh geez I'm sorry. I didn't suggest this item for your list becuase I advocate it, necessarily, but because it is one more in the possible list of things "to do". While I find it challenging and useful to consider putting my own art /writing up for grabs, I do not have anything like a resolved position on the idea. In fact, while I'm intrigued, the concept still scares and puzzles me. Notice I don't have a CC license on my blog either. sorry about the pressure - that was not intended. I think you are correct that legal-ese would not jive with the fluid ettiquette of idea/art sharing that is already going on here (and yes, touché, I am kind of a "joiner").
- sally mckay 6-11-2004 9:32 am
The pressure is self-generated; I'm sure there are CC "partisans" out there who might wonder why someone doesn't embrace their scheme. Some people have gone around the bend on the victim side of the copyright issue--my post was (among other things) a slightly flip way of saying that art does go on in spite of the evil property holders. Negativland used to make great art that involved "stealing"--now it seems they mostly make art about stealing. We need our obsessers--that's the only way things get done in our society--but it can sap your energy from "pure" work. I'm not saying any of this applies to you. The CC thing just set off this volatile thought-train.
- tom moody 6-11-2004 10:41 am