Great post, Bruce! :)
I agree that at its core, copyright deals with basic morals (theft). That being said, we use other people's ideas every day. Very little of what we do or think can be considered "new." As an educator, I hope that my students take my thoughts, ideas, concepts, and even direct quotes and use them if it's appropriate in their lives. While I realize that music, art, videos, etc. may be slightly different than "ideas," I think the primary issue here is money rather than the moral outrage that someone would claim another's work as their own. I too, am an artist, and get a kick out of it if people use my work. However, I can also understand being angry if other people were getting paid for something that involved very little work on their part after I had labored to create it (if that makes any sense).
I completely agree with you that the traditional roles of the musician (and singer) are changing dramatically. Instruments and voices are being digitally "enhanced" and altered to create much of what we hear today. Distribution is a major issue for the record labels in the face of file sharing and Internet downloads.
I also happen to be on the slippery slope, as I love using music (old and new) to help me tell a story. I get a kick out of splicing the old and new together to produce something different - altering the mood of my audience (primarily just my family). Though, obviously, I am not creating anything of my own in the process. I have found, though, that familiar music can really enhance video productions.
As for what is right and what is wrong....I'm really going to have to take some time to think. Thank you for the insightful post!
From Bruce's blog:
I am a fanatical user of http://creativecommons.org/ , but even there one must be cautious. Just because an image is available does not mean it is usable. Often one must check with the image's owner to view the CC license agreement. My experience with CC is that usually the owner allows for free usage (including image manipulation) as long as you do several things: 1) Give proper attribution, 2) Give proper tittle, and 3) Make some kind of statement in which the image's owner is viewed as endorsing the content of your production.
I also like to use old film and video footage. It is fun to view and adds a nice creative bump to any video project. Older black and white footage is especially cool to use in more modern pieces. Its retro look even adds a bit of humor. I have used stock footage this way in several FSO projects. A great place to locate stock footage is at Internet Archive http://www.archive.org/ This site provides a vast array of older films that are bow in the category of public domain. Public domain is great stuff because there is absolutely no worries whatsoever about any ownership infringements.
I did like the 10 copyright myths. I always used to laugh when someone would tell me, "But I'm not selling it." I could never convince these people that the issue was never about sale, it was about unauthorized duplication of any kind.
As to the content of the film, Good Copy, Bad Copy. I'm not sure where my thinking is on this. I have never really considered it before. I tend to believe someone's property is someone's property, regardless whether it is physical or intellectual or creative. I have strong feelings about people being overly subjective about someone else's possessions. I understand the need for the free exchange of ideas. But to freely exchange a creative piece that is the direct product of someone else's s efforts and talent? Well, I just don't know. This feels like a slippery slope to me. I have the impression we are trying to over-intellectualize what is at the core a moral issue. Maybe that's why it feels slippery to me. It feels like a lot of people seeking for a way to justify a presupposition.
As the one executive stated, "You need copyright law as an incentive for people to create." Also, I have read that the era of the 'professional' musician is on the wane. The advent of digital technology and the Internet have completely changed how musicians produce and distribute their creations. We may be seeing a major shift in how music is consumed by its listeners. According to the film this is already the model in Brazil. Still, I have a hard time calling someone 'creative' when all they are doing is mashing up pre-existing pieces and parts from someone else's talent. It's ending up with a product, but with little of the sweat and musing of a real artist. Again, this feels like a slippery slope of some kind, like we're willing to settle for a certain amount of creative blandness; like we're becoming addicted to mediocrity.
I have used footage from other films and videos in my FSO projects. So I am also a remixer of sorts. But I certainly would not call my projects creative or artistic. I just reassembled a few odds and ends to use toward an end.
But I have to hear and read more before I can think intelligently about the issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment