Rhimc's Remix

For my multimedia project, I explore the artistic benefits of opening up works for collaboration. I use images, text, sound and video to make my argument that creators should legally open their work for collaboration and comment. Creators will continue to transform others' creations into new works, but they should be given legal permission--so would-be commentators are not stifled by fears of lawsuits.

Method

My presentation is self-referential in that I am making a mash-up of already existing works.

Images:

• Shepard Fairy's transformation of the Associated Press's photo of Obama
• In the same photo, another artist's painting of Fairy's work
• The same Fairy image transformed to signify Christmas by adding a santa hat and replacing the word "hope" for "noel"
• A quilt (traditionally a collaborative genre) composed of the same Obama image
• A photomosaic (another collaborative genre) of the Creative Commons licence logo

I chose the Obama image because of the controversy surrounding Fairy's use of AP's copyrighted material. The image is iconic and clearly more significant now than it was as a photo. The argument is not just whether it is fair use of the photo--but whether it is good for society to stifle creative expression.

Audio:

• Airtone "Sometimes," a collaborative song composed on CCmixter and CC licensed
• “How Creativity is Being Strangled by the Law," clip from Lawrence Lessig's lecture at TED

Video:

• Clip from RiP: a Remix Manifesto

In order to create my visual and aural argument, I borrow from already existing images and sound. Therefore, the medium, the mash-up, is the message. Indeed, Marshall McLuhan argues that this is always the case because everything is composed of something else. Therefore, "the 'message' of any medium or technology is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs.("The Medium is the Message, 3). The medium of my presentation is web 2.0, and its message is about scale and pace.

Web 2.0 has increased the number of people who are making remixes, mash-ups, collages and remediations and the number of media that they are using to make their works. Web 2.0 has also increased the pace of commentary--it is now 24 hours and in real time.

It is the technology--Web 2.0--that has allowed users to creatively reference more than just words--music, pictures and video too.

Issue

Many copyright owners, or so their lawsuits would suggest, do not view this Web 2.0-borrowing as commentary, but stealing. They have not been willing to open their works for comment and transformation without being asked for permission and, often, given royalties.

In reality, cultural borrowing predates Web 2.0. We have always critiqued past media in our own works. In essays, writers have always referenced other works and attributed their sources. Artists have used others' art in collages. Pop artist Andy Warhol changed the size and color of a piece of someone else's art in order to emphasize the object. As the music montage in the RiP: a Remix Manifesto clip emphasized. Early in the 20th century, musicians recorded other artists' music. Even cartoonist Walt Disney stole the Mickey Mouse drawing from another cartoonist, and yet he did not face legal sanctions.

Due to the advancement of technology and monetization of intellectual property, however, borrowing has become easier (for copyright "infringers") and more explicit (in the eyes of copyright owners). Again, the medium has increased the scale of borrowing, and therefore, it has made it seem more like stealing. Lawrence Lessig explains this idea: In a digital world, everything is a copy, and if making copies is illegal, then all remixes are illegal. They are illegal, unless they are fair use.

Fair Use Test:

1. What is the size of the borrowed material--is it the heart of the original piece?

2. Is the use non-commercial?

3. What is the effect on the market of the original?

"Remix is legally interesting. Infringement is a central issue because much remix contains varying amounts of unauthorized copyright-protected material. There is a strong argument, however, that much of this remix is fair use and hence legal. Because the trend toward remix is substantially technology driven, it is likely to continue, if not to accelerate, unless the law somehow puts the brakes on the process," (Hetcher, "Using Social Norms to Regulate Fan Fiction and Remix Culture).

In order to avoid such case-by-case rulings on fair use, Lawrence Lessig suggests creating a different space for artists to choose to make their work available for remix. Lessig started Creative Commons for creators to have legal licenses that allow creators to use their material (under chosen conditions) without the remixer having to worried about being sued.

Argument

Artists should choose to license their work with Creative Commons. More important than the subjective artistic value of remixes is the remix itself. More important than which songs Girl Talk cuts up is the act of cutting up. In order to have a robust and engaged democracy, the people must be able to comment on the media. Copyright laws have made the masses consumers and not creators, argues Lawrence Lessig in his TED lecture “How Creativity is Being Strangled by the Law." A society of few creators and a mass of consumers is not a democracy and does not lead to innovative technology that fuels a country's economy.

Remediation is progress: "Our culture conceives of each medium or constellation of media as it responds to, redeploys, competes with, and reforms other media. In the first instance we may think of something like a historical progression, of newer media remediating older ones and in particular of digital media remediating their predecessors," (Bolter and Grusin).