Off topic, but interesting: All Creative Work Is Derivative explores how all creative work builds on what came before and challenges the concept of “illegal art”.
Photographed and animated by Nina Paley.
Music by Todd Michaelsen (“Sita’s String Theory,” a Bonus Track on the soon-to-be-released Sita Sings the Blues soundtrack CD!).
Photographed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City.
More information at QuestionCopyright.org.
Making money off other people's creative work is not the business of a musican. It's the business of a Record Label . Getting rid of copyright would be the best thing ever to happen to record companies. They could take any musicians work and market it and distribute it worldwide, and not have to pay the musician a cent.
I'm with Sammy on this one. Shitkickings for everyone and their lawyers. Anyone defending the 'industry' is either in on the take, or completely oblivious. But hey, it was a nice dream while it lasted ~ but if you want to validate it, play it live. Everything else is just a presequenced wet dream of stolen ideas and status quo ideaology not worth the bandwidth they're stolen on. Also, who doesn't love a little fisticuffs ~ especially for art!?
This is a great idea, after all, doesn't it seem like our future is becoming less free?
This is a great idea, after all, doesn't it seem like our future is becoming less free?
I disagree. It doesn't challenge, it merely shows us something. And twists some words. I mean; "Illegal art" ? No, in those cases its not the art which is illegal but the things people do with it. Like selling a duplicate while pretending its real. Or by trying to make money out of the ideas or products which were actually make by someone else.
Yes, creative work is derivative. How does one really learn the art of art? By copying. Look at the early days; the way painters like Rembrand started.
But there is a huge difference between copying work in a learning process, by using someone elses (musical) work to explore your own capabilities (slightly back ontopic: like playing stuff like Oxygene, Aurora, Axel F, etc. on public events) than it is to produce stuff with the sole intention of making some big bucks out of it.
I disagree. It doesn't challenge, it merely shows us something. And twists some words. I mean; "Illegal art" ? No, in those cases its not the art which is illegal but the things people do with it. Like selling a duplicate while pretending its real. Or by trying to make money out of the ideas or products which were actually make by someone else.
Yes, creative work is derivative. How does one really learn the art of art? By copying. Look at the early days; the way painters like Rembrand started.
But there is a huge difference between copying work in a learning process, by using someone elses (musical) work to explore your own capabilities (slightly back ontopic: like playing stuff like Oxygene, Aurora, Axel F, etc. on public events) than it is to produce stuff with the sole intention of making some big bucks out of it.
I have to disagree with you, SynthFan. Nothing people do with artistic expressions should be illegal. It is all in the execution of the idea, not in coming up with the idea. For an example, see most deals between record labels and artist of the last 50 years. The artists had the ideas, but the labels helped them out with the execution by developing, recording, marketing, promoting the artists. But tell me that most deals were financially good for most artists. They weren't. I digress, this is the subject of a slightly different topic.
Ownership of improving on someone's idea is simply a social construct. And the sooner we can dispose of this, the better. Other cultures that do not have this social construct will outpace us soon if we do not.
I have to disagree with you, SynthFan. Nothing people do with artistic expressions should be illegal. It is all in the execution of the idea, not in coming up with the idea. For an example, see most deals between record labels and artist of the last 50 years. The artists had the ideas, but the labels helped them out with the execution by developing, recording, marketing, promoting the artists. But tell me that most deals were financially good for most artists. They weren't. I digress, this is the subject of a slightly different topic.
Ownership of improving on someone's idea is simply a social construct. And the sooner we can dispose of this, the better. Other cultures that do not have this social construct will outpace us soon if we do not.
Making money off other people's creative work is not the business of a musican. It's the business of a Record Label . Getting rid of copyright would be the best thing ever to happen to record companies. They could take any musicians work and market it and distribute it worldwide, and not have to pay the musician a cent.
Making money off other people's creative work is not the business of a musican. It's the business of a Record Label . Getting rid of copyright would be the best thing ever to happen to record companies. They could take any musicians work and market it and distribute it worldwide, and not have to pay the musician a cent.
People are going to do whatever they want. If someone samples you, blatantly, and you don't like it, just bust up their gear & beat the crap out of them.
People are going to do whatever they want. If someone samples you, blatantly, and you don't like it, just bust up their gear & beat the crap out of them.
@Elbjorg
We don't need copyright to end for that to happen. It is happening now.
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/21/exriaa_agenc…
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080711/1439371…
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090619/0323015…
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091207/1201017…
The point is musicians should make money from their own work and be able to borrow from culture, like the way Led Zepplin borrowed from Willie Dixon and Muddy Water's "You Need Love." But when a hip hop artist samples, that's wrong? Seems like a double standard. I am not putting words in your mouth, but trying to present sample of what you may be referring to.
@Elbjorg
We don't need copyright to end for that to happen. It is happening now.
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/21/exriaa_agenc…
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080711/1439371…
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090619/0323015…
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091207/1201017…
The point is musicians should make money from their own work and be able to borrow from culture, like the way Led Zepplin borrowed from Willie Dixon and Muddy Water's "You Need Love." But when a hip hop artist samples, that's wrong? Seems like a double standard. I am not putting words in your mouth, but trying to present sample of what you may be referring to.
The best example for this being TRUE is just look at what happened with Rock n' Roll when it 1st started… At 1st it was mostly black men playing blues, jazz & country riffs except playing faster and louder usually.
Then some white guys started copying them and then some pretty hip British cats saw what these crazy Americans were doing both black & white and started copying them.
By doing so we now have a multitude of different "Rock n' Roll" genres based off another musical genre which the pioneers of which basically "stole" their ideas from. I like to say borrowed liberally what they liked/wanted but others call it stealing… That's the best example I can think of but it's not even close to the only example in life.
The best example for this being TRUE is just look at what happened with Rock n' Roll when it 1st started… At 1st it was mostly black men playing blues, jazz & country riffs except playing faster and louder usually.
Then some white guys started copying them and then some pretty hip British cats saw what these crazy Americans were doing both black & white and started copying them.
By doing so we now have a multitude of different "Rock n' Roll" genres based off another musical genre which the pioneers of which basically "stole" their ideas from. I like to say borrowed liberally what they liked/wanted but others call it stealing… That's the best example I can think of but it's not even close to the only example in life.
I'm with Sammy on this one. Shitkickings for everyone and their lawyers. Anyone defending the 'industry' is either in on the take, or completely oblivious. But hey, it was a nice dream while it lasted ~ but if you want to validate it, play it live. Everything else is just a presequenced wet dream of stolen ideas and status quo ideaology not worth the bandwidth they're stolen on. Also, who doesn't love a little fisticuffs ~ especially for art!?
I'm with Sammy on this one. Shitkickings for everyone and their lawyers. Anyone defending the 'industry' is either in on the take, or completely oblivious. But hey, it was a nice dream while it lasted ~ but if you want to validate it, play it live. Everything else is just a presequenced wet dream of stolen ideas and status quo ideaology not worth the bandwidth they're stolen on. Also, who doesn't love a little fisticuffs ~ especially for art!?
Let's not confuse "using samples without permission" with "being influenced by" or "building on"
– there is a clear and obvious difference between starting a band or writing music "that sounds like" a genre, band, or song and literally copying bits of the original audio or video. Copying a composition is infringement or plagiarism; "quoting" it is not. The difference has to do with the size of the excerpt and the context in which it's placed.
The whole point here is the Beatles, Stones, et. al. didn't *exactly* copy the people they heard, who also didn't exactly copy the people THEY heard. Each "copy" changed things slightly, emphasizing and de-emphasizing elements, making things more or less prominent, etc. The changes/differences are what made it interesting. More different? More interesting.
Art doesn't always respect the law, but art intended for commercial uses should. Otherwise you'll spend all your time and money in a courtroom. (infringing is not the same as illegal)
Let's not confuse "using samples without permission" with "being influenced by" or "building on"
– there is a clear and obvious difference between starting a band or writing music "that sounds like" a genre, band, or song and literally copying bits of the original audio or video. Copying a composition is infringement or plagiarism; "quoting" it is not. The difference has to do with the size of the excerpt and the context in which it's placed.
The whole point here is the Beatles, Stones, et. al. didn't *exactly* copy the people they heard, who also didn't exactly copy the people THEY heard. Each "copy" changed things slightly, emphasizing and de-emphasizing elements, making things more or less prominent, etc. The changes/differences are what made it interesting. More different? More interesting.
Art doesn't always respect the law, but art intended for commercial uses should. Otherwise you'll spend all your time and money in a courtroom. (infringing is not the same as illegal)
"Making money off other people's creative work is not the business of a musician. It's the business of a Record Label."
So true.
I don't see Nina Paley's video as saying we should get rid of copyright, though, but that we should questions the limits it can place on artists and musicians.
What people have done with the Amen Break, for example, has been amazingly creative and if the lawyers had gotten involved, we might not have whole genres of electronic music.
On the other hand, its seems reasonable that if you sample 4 bars of Rick James and then rap over it, that you gotta pay Rick James. At least until he died.
Go Jesus, Go Odysseus, It's yer birthday, its yer birthday
Go Jesus, Go Odysseus, It's yer birthday, its yer birthday
"Making money off other people's creative work is not the business of a musician. It's the business of a Record Label."
So true.
I don't see Nina Paley's video as saying we should get rid of copyright, though, but that we should questions the limits it can place on artists and musicians.
What people have done with the Amen Break, for example, has been amazingly creative and if the lawyers had gotten involved, we might not have whole genres of electronic music.
On the other hand, its seems reasonable that if you sample 4 bars of Rick James and then rap over it, that you gotta pay Rick James. At least until he died.
"Making money off other people's creative work is not the business of a musician. It's the business of a Record Label."
So true.
I don't see Nina Paley's video as saying we should get rid of copyright, though, but that we should questions the limits it can place on artists and musicians.
What people have done with the Amen Break, for example, has been amazingly creative and if the lawyers had gotten involved, we might not have whole genres of electronic music.
On the other hand, its seems reasonable that if you sample 4 bars of Rick James and then rap over it, that you gotta pay Rick James. At least until he died.
"It's not where you take things from – it's where you take them to." – Jean-Luc Godard
"It's not where you take things from – it's where you take them to." – Jean-Luc Godard