Blog Assignment > Watch Rip! Remix Manifesto

Blog Assignment
Spring 2015Digital Arts / Mixed-Media Studio:

We used to be able to watch this entire documentary film online… but now they are asking for donations. Please try to view full video.
RiP! A Remix Manifesto (it’s about 86 minutes)

RiP: A Remix Manifesto from Laurent LaSalle on Vimeo.

http://ripremix.com/

Take notes on what you find most revealing or surprising about the contemporary practice of remix artists. Does the video raise issues about your own use of digital media… in your artwork or your life? How does the video relate to recent internet blackout/protest and SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) legislation? Do you side with the CopyLEFT or the CopyRIGHT?

Prepare your comments (about 150 words) and have them ready to post to the blog…

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Blog Assignment > Watch Rip! Remix Manifesto

  1. I side with the copyLEFT in this video. Since the beginning of time, humans have taken ideas from something and constantly morphing and changing it into their own way. The Bible is a classic example. There are a lot of stories, movies, shows, books, that can relate from a story in the Bible. That’s how society and this world grows is by sharing ideas. There is a difference between taking an idea and selling it as your own, rather than taking an idea and making it your own. In my own use of digital media, I try to take an idea and morph and change as much as I can of it to create something in my own style. Especially in the art world, artists have to reference to things to generate ideas and images to create something of their own. Every idea is basically already out there, so why put a stop to it?

    Like

  2. Losa Jung (Section 1)

    I do believe that public domain should be protected. If past artists built their work based on the work that came before them, we should be able to do so too. Culture is built on the past. Yes, those past should be respected in ways. No one should be just using the work and call it their own. However, getting inspirations, appropriating the work should be totally legal. Healthy public domain is essential to creativity and it is part of evolution. I believe that some rich cooperates are manipulating the copyright law. The good intent that started with copyright law is not being followed. We should thank the artist before us with their creativeness and whomever they got inspirations from before them. However, we should not be using our law to make money just for the sake of it. It is time to let our world evolve and let our creativity evolve by protecting public domain.

    Like

  3. Alli Robertson (section 1)

    I like some ideas of both sides of the argument. I think that learning from past artist is something everyone should do and get inspired by, but I don’t think it’s okay for someone to use other peoples exact work for their art and call it their own. I get how they are using only little fragments of many songs to make a remix which I think is very interesting and takes a lot of work to find parts that work together, but I still think the original artist should have to okay it to be used. I would’t want someone else using my own work for the wrong reasons, for example if I wrote a song about love and then someone else took parts of my song and turned it into a song about hate and sin I would not be okay with it. Not only did they not ask if it was okay to use the song but they would be totally turning the meaning I wanted to portray upside down. Its hard for me to be one-sided on this argument though because I think the world should be able to use their resources and not be punished just because that company wants more and more money!

    Like

  4. Keegan Burckhard
    Section 2

    I am split between CopyLeft and CopyRight because I feel like artists should be able to use and remix other artists work, however the original artist should always be recognized and receive credit for their work. If someone can “own” a sound or chord progression and it is off limits for everyone else, then some of the great music we know and love today would have never existed. We are constantly using knowledge and material from the past to build off of, and that’s what helps music grow and develop. I think mashing up songs is an important and creative art form and don’t believe people should be sued over making something new from an old song and giving credit to the original artist. I also think that if I buy a song on Itunes then I should be able to upload a video I made with that song in it onto the Internet if I give all the music credit to the original artist.

    Like

  5. Paul Jensen
    Section 1

    I understand both sides of the argument but I side a little bit more with CopyLeft (I believe laws should be in place so that someone can’t use a copy of someones work and profit off of it, but I believe you should be able to be inspired and reinvent off of others creations). I think its ridiculous that the labels protecting classics from seeing the light of day and the reuse don’t see that those artists did the same (recycled the past). These labels only see a loss in possible profit with little care for creation or the art form. As a fan of Girl Talk, I recall seeing an article in the past showing the effect of his music (similar to another article on uses of music in media/ads) on how the use of the music often showcases it to whole new crowds of people. The article on Girl Talk stated some of the music he had used in a mashup had soared in sales after it had been published, when it had been quietly selling before his sampling. This sampling and remixing goes on in many other fields (Vine, Walt Disney, etc.) its just these companies want more control and profit. I like the quote from the movie stating that it is like quoting from a book because it truly is. Its taking an excerpt and using it to complement (usually) an original whole. The artistic process is taking inspiration and mimicking what we appreciate artistically and if we don’t allow that I feel like our artistic growth as a society will be incredibly narrowed and we wouldnt be able to flourish as much as we would without such strict laws.

    Like

  6. Sou Van Vang
    Section 002

    The thing that surprised me was how Girl Talk used a sample that was less than a second, and they mentioned that he can get sued for it. I like creating music and art as well, so there’s no saying how many times I have sampled something without legal consent. I agree with the narrator and the people that it is wrong for giant companies to go after people who don’t have anything to give up. I side with the copyLEFT side because we are all influenced by what we are exposed to and that is what builds our creativity. This reminds me of a few years back when the SOPA act shut down tons of websites, including Wikipedia, because it had copyrighted information. A lot of people depend on Wikipedia for quick accessible information, so it was like a part of out life was taken away from us. It is always traumatic when something we’re so used to, get taken away.

    Like

  7. Laura Schmidt
    Section 2

    I think that remixing already thought of ideas and concepts should not be as looked down upon as it is. I would definitely put myself into the copyLeft side of the argument. I think that we have such a rich bank of already great ideas, concepts and music from our history, like Micky Mouse, and the group U2 that we should be able to use those resources as a starting place for more great ideas and concepts. When the director showed GirlTalk talking about his real job, and how there are so many patents on ideas that are protected by the law, it made me sick. To think that we as a people are so focused on personal gain and recognition that we can’t share ideas with each other to accomplish simple and sometime life saving goals is ridiculous.

    Like

  8. Gannon McDonald
    Section 2

    I found the video to be very intriguing, for a variety of reasons. The most interesting thing that I observed during the video was when the Copyright law professional, Marybeth Peters, was shown video of Girl Talk remixing individual parts of music and then putting it all together to represent his own song. There were several things that made me confused, to a certain degree its still the same song, or base of another song, even though he put together his own elements, it still originally starts from that song that is not his. The issues of copyright 100% apply directly to upcoming artists in this age, due to the fact that so much content is recycled, and is shared among other artists via the internet.

    Like

  9. Jess Naber
    Section 2

    One thing that stuck out to me was in the very beginning; the narrator said using certain songs in his video is grounds for a lawsuit. This is a concept that blows my mind because this video is basically giving the artist free advertisement, and the narrator isn’t claiming the song as his own. Though I can see where each side is coming from, I agree more with CopyLeft. There are so many ideas already out there that it’s almost impossible to think up something without representing someone else’s work in some way. However, there is a fine line between plagiarizing and using something to inspire your own work, and that’s where things get confusing. How similar do two pieces of work have to be to consider it plagiarism? To what extent do you have to morph it to consider it your own? Those are the questions that get tricky. Art is all about inspiration and I think if someone else were to use my work in their own way, I would be flattered and glad I could help them out in some way, not offended that they used my ideas to inspire them.

    Like

  10. After watching RIP: A Remix Manifesto, some of the most surprising facts that stood out to me the most was how much money big corporations would make if every single person paid them for copyright. I think if people are going to recreate a song, art, etc. then citing the artist or artists is all they should have to do. In my opinion it would be flattering the original artist by having their work recreated or remixed. I often use pictures from the Internet as inspiration and recreate it to make it my own, and after watching this documentary I feel more inclined to spend greater amounts of time on coming up with ideas. Many of the ideas brought up in the film are concepts that I would have never thought to be illegal, especially the remixing of two songs.

    Like

  11. After watching RIP: A Remix Manifesto, some of the most surprising facts that stood out to me the most was how much money big corporations would make if every single person paid them for copyright. I think if people are going to recreate a song, art, etc. then citing the artist or artists is all they should have to do. In my opinion it would be flattering the original artist by having their work recreated or remixed. I often use pictures from the Internet as inspiration and recreate it to make it my own, and after watching this documentary I feel more inclined to spend greater amounts of time on coming up with ideas. Many of the ideas brought up in the film are concepts that I would have never thought to be illegal, especially the remixing of two songs.

    Like

  12. Kyle Powley
    sec 002

    I’m am so CopyLeft, there is no question. Copyrights seem of a thing of greed to me now after watching this. when talking about music, most of the money doesn’t even go to the artist anyway. If you buy from iTunes, the artist only gets like 10% or something ridiculous like that. I think we should have access to the things of the past. Where would we be if we never used anything from the pas? The past is what builds the future. Using ideas of the past and building of them and making them your own of the time is a great thing. I definetly don’t think taking something and using it as your own is right, but you should be able to use those ideas. I think its ironic that those big corporations that own all this stuff want us to pay to have access to the media. They didn’t even create any of that stuff. They were just on a power trip and bought everything. They should be able to own any of that stuff.

    Like

  13. I am stanch supporter of copyrighters, or as it is called in the video, “copyright side”. The artist Girl Talk has the right to make and play his remix’s however he does not have the right to sell or share them. The music he is using is merely morphed forms of other artist’s songs. He has not added or altered the forms into anything that stands as original. I also approve of Walt Disney’s lawsuit against air pirates. I cannot think of a better excuse to have copyright laws than the case of air pirates vs Disney. A group of comic strip artists bluntly took a well-established design and in no way changed it in a manner that affected the characters (they even kept their names the same). What makes things worse is that they took these characters that were invented for children and depicted them in immoral derogatory fashion. What these artists did were nothing less than slander, and when all nine of the supreme justices of a government know for indecision agree unanimous guilty I feel fairly confident I my opinion.

    What they should be focusing on is adjusting the provisions established under royalty claims.

    Like

  14. This video really made me think as far as what is copyright. As an artist I can’t even begin to think how I would feel if someone took my artwork and claimed it as their own. However, if that same person was inspired by my work and still gave me credit, then I would feel wonderful and happy that they were able to create something after being inspired by me. These days the music industry is trying to get as much money out of their music as possible. However, how do the artists feel? Are they bothered if someone used the base sound of their song in a new creation? I feel that as long as the artist is recognized for their part in the work then there is no problem.

    Like

  15. I can see both sides of the argument, however I am leaning more towards copy left. I think artists have the right to protect their work from being copied. There is a certain point though when it becomes no longer a copy, because if the original idea is altered enough then it has the right to become something new. It is kinda like paraphrasing in writing. You should never use someone else’s work and call it yours unless you’ve done enough alteration and added plenty of your own creativity to it. At that point the original work has become more of a inspiration and not just a copied idea.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s