Hey Tom,
My decisions to release my material for any use are just that -- my decisions. I don't expect other people to make the same ones, and I don't believe in a black and white world where one type of use is "right" and another type is "wrong". U2 made the decision to work with a big record company (Island) where lots of people's salaries depend on their album sales. It's not just the $400/hour lawyers, but also the $10/hour graphic artists that do the art layouts and recording studio interns that load tapes and fetch coffee. Contrary to popular opinion, not everyone in the music industry is pulling down a huge salary and living on a yacht. This article from Wired magazine gives a good overview of the Negativland story, and you can see the cover art that SST tried to use for their single here. SST released this record at around the same time that U2's many fans were expecting a new album, and it's pretty obvious that they did this in an attempt to increase sales. They didn't request permission to use U2's logo or recording in their product, and so Island records sued them. If Negativland had simply wanted to make an artistic statement, they could have produced the same art and displayed it in galleries for free. The art would have been just as (if not more) effective, as it would have been unsullied by the base concerns of commerce. But by signing a deal with SST to *sell records* containing someone else's copyrighted material, they left themselves wide open for a lawsuit. The saddest part is that U2 has always been a very forward-thinking group, and if SST records had simply contacted Island about a partnership, this story might have had a very different ending.
While it's probably true that most creative types probably don't want to be in a multi-platinum sellling band, I'll still bet that most musicians and songwriters would jump at the chance, especially when the band in question hasn't sacrificed much in the way of artistic integrity to achieve their remarkable position. Whether or not you think U2's art is worthwhile, they have always remained true to their vision and are an exceptionally hard-working bunch of fellows.
Collage artists don't have it easy, and while we can debate whether our intellectual property laws are just and fair, I'll put my money on Sony and their army of lawyers winning the battle any day. The little guys just don't stand a chance. So what to do? Well, DJ Danger Mouse made a great piece of art by combining two others and giving it away for free. He probably caused a few heart attacks in Hollywood when it became obvious that there was no one to sue because there was no money involved, and now he has a successful career as a remixer and artist in his own right. What was different in this case? He knew he would never be granted permission, so he didn't even attempt to offer his art for sale.
|
My decisions to release my material for any use are just that -- my decisions. I don't expect other people to make the same ones, and I don't believe in a black and white world where one type of use is "right" and another type is "wrong". U2 made the decision to work with a big record company (Island) where lots of people's salaries depend on their album sales. It's not just the $400/hour lawyers, but also the $10/hour graphic artists that do the art layouts and recording studio interns that load tapes and fetch coffee. Contrary to popular opinion, not everyone in the music industry is pulling down a huge salary and living on a yacht. This article from Wired magazine gives a good overview of the Negativland story, and you can see the cover art that SST tried to use for their single here. SST released this record at around the same time that U2's many fans were expecting a new album, and it's pretty obvious that they did this in an attempt to increase sales. They didn't request permission to use U2's logo or recording in their product, and so Island records sued them. If Negativland had simply wanted to make an artistic statement, they could have produced the same art and displayed it in galleries for free. The art would have been just as (if not more) effective, as it would have been unsullied by the base concerns of commerce. But by signing a deal with SST to *sell records* containing someone else's copyrighted material, they left themselves wide open for a lawsuit. The saddest part is that U2 has always been a very forward-thinking group, and if SST records had simply contacted Island about a partnership, this story might have had a very different ending.
While it's probably true that most creative types probably don't want to be in a multi-platinum sellling band, I'll still bet that most musicians and songwriters would jump at the chance, especially when the band in question hasn't sacrificed much in the way of artistic integrity to achieve their remarkable position. Whether or not you think U2's art is worthwhile, they have always remained true to their vision and are an exceptionally hard-working bunch of fellows.
Collage artists don't have it easy, and while we can debate whether our intellectual property laws are just and fair, I'll put my money on Sony and their army of lawyers winning the battle any day. The little guys just don't stand a chance. So what to do? Well, DJ Danger Mouse made a great piece of art by combining two others and giving it away for free. He probably caused a few heart attacks in Hollywood when it became obvious that there was no one to sue because there was no money involved, and now he has a successful career as a remixer and artist in his own right. What was different in this case? He knew he would never be granted permission, so he didn't even attempt to offer his art for sale.
- G.K. Wicker 9-12-2005 8:03 pm