Have you heard of these? Do you know what they mean?...
The image that has been used for the background of this blog has been used under creative commons license. I am free to use it as long as I attribute the creator (thanks George - awesome photo) and agree not to use the image for commercial purposes (I am writing this blog out of love not for profit :) ).
[EDIT: I have been in contact with George and have permission to slightly tweak the photo and have uploaded the latest version now. In the original photo you can see it is an Australian flag on the back of the chair - I used photo shop to change the stars to make it a NZ flag.]
So - creative commons - making stuff and then letting other people use it for free... what do you reckon? You've poured your heart and soul into making something and then someone else comes along and just uses it - in less than 1/100th of the time it took you to create it... is that ok???
I am a big fan of Girl Talk who has made himself famous by remixing other people's music. He has a couple of albums - one of which he has asked for payment - an amount of your choosing - buy it here at Illegal Art. His music is pretty amazing - a lot of the time you don't actually recognise the original music. So what??? Is this ok??? Is this good??? He is more famous now than some of the original artists!
This video is a must watch for anyone wanting to wade into the copyright debate. It is a documentary featuring Girl Talk. Check out the link to the website also http://ripremix.com/
Some bands are famous for the way they let others access their music - Nine Inch Nails is pretty well-known for allowing you to download their latests songs for free. RadioHead are another band that encourage their fans to download their music and remix it and then share the remix. Kanye West releases Stem Files for some of his music - allowing you to take just the drums, or the base or the voice files and drop them into your audio programme and edit away.
It leads me to wonder why do people do it - the re-mixers I mean?
Why sit there for hours and hours re-mixing a song or video - just to release it - for free - with no potential reward.
It makes you question what it means to be successful - are we talking financial success or popularity or getting your message to as many people as possible.
In that case, I love watching this guy - I can't work out why! He is just too cute and obviously loves being on camera! He's not really doing anything special - but he has had over 17 million views on his YouTube channel and now has invites to appear on all the big talk shows round the US... crazy huh! But is it ok? He has ripped another artist's music to create his own text - but it has had over a million views that that artist (Justin Beiber) may not have had otherwise...
So - what do you think??? Creative Commons? Is it killing the industry by allowing ANYONE regardless of skill to potentially mangle the work of 'professionals' who have had to work hard to make their place in their profession? Is it ok?
[EDIT: I have been in contact with George and have permission to slightly tweak the photo and have uploaded the latest version now. In the original photo you can see it is an Australian flag on the back of the chair - I used photo shop to change the stars to make it a NZ flag.]
So - creative commons - making stuff and then letting other people use it for free... what do you reckon? You've poured your heart and soul into making something and then someone else comes along and just uses it - in less than 1/100th of the time it took you to create it... is that ok???
I am a big fan of Girl Talk who has made himself famous by remixing other people's music. He has a couple of albums - one of which he has asked for payment - an amount of your choosing - buy it here at Illegal Art. His music is pretty amazing - a lot of the time you don't actually recognise the original music. So what??? Is this ok??? Is this good??? He is more famous now than some of the original artists!
This video is a must watch for anyone wanting to wade into the copyright debate. It is a documentary featuring Girl Talk. Check out the link to the website also http://ripremix.com/
Some bands are famous for the way they let others access their music - Nine Inch Nails is pretty well-known for allowing you to download their latests songs for free. RadioHead are another band that encourage their fans to download their music and remix it and then share the remix. Kanye West releases Stem Files for some of his music - allowing you to take just the drums, or the base or the voice files and drop them into your audio programme and edit away.
It leads me to wonder why do people do it - the re-mixers I mean?
Why sit there for hours and hours re-mixing a song or video - just to release it - for free - with no potential reward.
It makes you question what it means to be successful - are we talking financial success or popularity or getting your message to as many people as possible.
In that case, I love watching this guy - I can't work out why! He is just too cute and obviously loves being on camera! He's not really doing anything special - but he has had over 17 million views on his YouTube channel and now has invites to appear on all the big talk shows round the US... crazy huh! But is it ok? He has ripped another artist's music to create his own text - but it has had over a million views that that artist (Justin Beiber) may not have had otherwise...
So - what do you think??? Creative Commons? Is it killing the industry by allowing ANYONE regardless of skill to potentially mangle the work of 'professionals' who have had to work hard to make their place in their profession? Is it ok?
[Geoff Lealand, in the guise of Josephine] Great work, Toni! Is there a way you could link to my www.historyoftvinnz.com site. It is quiet there at the moment but participation is still welcome.
ReplyDeleteLet me know what I could add here; ppts etc which may be useful. We are planning to run an afternoon seminar for Waikato/BOP students next month (in the Screen & Media Studies foyer) and I will let you know as soon as a date is set. There will be something useful created for this, which could be shared around.
Creative Commons: As someone who makes photographs (www.samcunnane.com) I find creative commons an interesting area to think about. On the one hand, I'm stoked if other people like my images enough to want to share them, and it's cool to know that they could be seen by people who might otherwise not look at them. But on the other hand, I put a significant amount of time and money into making each photo that I release for public viewing, and I'd be pretty annoyed if people rip off the image for their own purposes (for example, I'd prefer Toni to check with me before using one as a wallpaper for this blog ;-)). I guess part of this comes down to the fact that I make the photos to communicate certain ideas, and I like to maintain control of the way they are presented.
ReplyDeleteKia ora! This is George, the taker of the (previously Australian, now NZ) chair photo. As the creator, it's just wonderful to see my work being used -- although in this case, I must admit, being an Aussie I was somewhat conflicted on whether I was comfortable with Tanya's NZ-ifying!
ReplyDeleteThe best thing about CC is that it allows me, the creator, to state publicly that I'm (very) happy for people to use my photos, as long as they attribute me correctly. Woo!
Whoops! Argh! I meant *Toni*, not Tanya. Excuse me!
ReplyDeletePersonally, I'm all for "Creative Commons". Similar to Nine Inch Nails, Celldweller and Blue Stahli are huge on letting fans download new music, remix it and send it back to them.
ReplyDeleteThey even encourage it through competitions for the best and most original music.
The Fixt Store is worth checking out(http://fixtstore.com/storefront.php)
Its important to remember that those artists don't often release entire albums for free, just sample or music and singles.(there are acceptions)The artists themsleves benefit from this in a multitude of ways the abovious being; publicity and interaction/staying connected with fans.
As someone that enjoys doing remixes of songs, I can understand why people sit there for hours working on a project then distribute the product for free. Its similar to putting videos or AMV (anime Music Videos; which involve splicing together of copyrighted animation and music, both mainstream and indie to create a music video) on youtube. Its all about harnessing the power of the internet as a marketing tool. In the realms of music, its about geting the arrangers name out into the world. Without having to go through endless record deals and contracts that can be terminated depending on sales.
Also everybody has to start somewhere. With your own remixes out on the web you can self market for free via facebook and twitter etc.This allows for us users of virtual Dj and AVS audio editor(usually inexpensive or trail software) to get public attention, without having the means to create our own sound(Pro tools, thousand dollar mixing boards and recording studios). Its also a gate way for those that aren't multi instrumentalists to begin carving out a name for themselves with orginal arrangements of previously recorded music. Keep in mind, that the likes of Blue Stahli, Celldweller and Nine Inch Nails are all soloists and multi instrumentalists which allows them,to create entirly orignal compositions, something, we don't have the means to do as students/hobbists.
The case of "Girl Talk" is interesting, because regardless of how indistinguishable the songs in his remixes are, by publishing the remixes he is in direct breach of the copyright law-much like those that remix as a hobby. That said, loaning a Cd to your friend is a breach of the "Private use" clause and copying a cd to your iTunes library was also illegal because it was considered "Unathourised copying".
Any form of mutliation-for lack of a better term- That a song is subject too, then released as a new form without permission is a breach of copyright. Though, you can't deny that the old copyright laws are out of date and ineffective with internet and peer to peer file sharing such as bit torrent. The use of another artists song, in a remix, should be allowed IF it is not used for commerical gain and the copied/remixed artists name or names is mentioned in a form of footnote and the remixer doesn't take credit for the creation of the orignal song or songs.
It would benefit each of the parties involved. The remixer is able to begin carving out a name for themselves, while the orignal song and artist and experince an influx of popurality or at the least, free advertisment for the orignal of the song. I'm for both sides of "creative commons" even with the knowlegde that my orignal compositions or photogrpahs can be copied and distributed or remixed. So long as the person or persons isn't making money off of a remix of my orignal composition.
as a final thought, should sampling between established artists be illegal because they are creating money through the use of a pre established riff or drum track?
Great comment! I don't want to jump in and get in the way of someone else responding to you - so everyone else who is reading get in here and have your say too!
ReplyDeleteIt is a really tough one though, isn't it... it seems difficult to put a line in the sand and say what is ok and what isn't - it's almost like a fair-use policy is what is needed - which I guess is what Creative Commons allows for.
Just out of interest, do you publish your remixes online or somewhere for others to hear them? What keeps you going - do you just create for your own satisfaction or does getting a big audience for your work inspire you too?
Toni