Week1-Comment 2

Wk1_Reading response: Copyright, fair use and remix

In phase one, I found myslf really empathizing with movie creators because of the blatant piracy under Swedish law and Nigerian law. But gradually, I found myself empathizing with the remixers as creative folks themselves. The DJ Girl Talk convinced me he couldn't really do what he does without violating copyright law as it stands. And Mr. Lessig also persuaded me to rethink copyright in terms of print media.

As a lit teacher, I know a thing or two about print. I know I couldn't teach without print. I know I sometimes, okay, often redistribute a newspaper or magazine article in class to discuss the ideas or the words themselves without prior permission of the author or publisher. I might be protected with fair use as a legal defense, but I do what I do with full knowledge that I am somewhat living and working outside the law. As do many print artists. For example, my students know I like Twilight and the series. I like it even knowing it is a remake or adaptation of Romeo and Juliet, just as West Side Story is an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet (and Triolus and Cressida too). And guess what? Shakespeare didn't create that story either! He stole it from Brooke who stole it from, well, you get the picture. Stories, ideas, styles, words get recycled, emulated, copied and it's not necessarily a bad thing. Some people respond more to one version over another-- just ask my students. They have reasons for preferring any one of the star crossed lover stories. And my action-adventure fans actually find it interesting to find out that the basic story premise of most action films is the hero's journey archetype. Hero has problem, has to solve something or get something, has difficulty along the way and ultimately triumphs with a little help from friends. Boom. Archetype.

I saw a cool teacher website from a fancy prep school, I wish I had the link still so you could see it, but the students had to research a poet and complete a variety of tasks related to the poet's life and works, one of which was an emulation poem. The student studied the master and created a poem following the style of the original and showing the original side by side. Talk about remix!

I teach my students about allusion (the brief reference within a literary work to some other person, idea or literary work) and show them examples. Shakespeare alluded to mythology and the Bible. In his "I Have a Dream" speech on Aug28, 1963, Dr. King alluded to historical figures like Lincoln and his speech, current events and people and their speech such as George Wallace and his various segregationist ideas and words, nationalistic songs and African-American spiritual songs. These men are well-respected, clever, creative wordsmiths. But I want to point out that the very idea of allusion is one of remix. If they had alluded to copyrighted material, they may also be criminals under current copyright law.

How is it different if a musician does the same with a song, remixing snips from various artists to create a sound of their own? Is it okay for Kanye West to mention Gladys and the Pips in his lyrics but not include a snippet? Is it okay for Flocabulary to mention "say my name" in their song "A Love Like This" but nor use any part of the actual recordings of Destiny's Child? I agree with Mr. Lessig that we need some common sense in the law!

posted by Jen Geiger

my response.

I cannot agree with your last paragraph more. Common sense is the key. The way the law is currently laid out is way too subjective. Except in obvious egregious cases, I do not see with the current verbiage a clear way to settle copyright infringement/fair use issues. I agree with Mr. Lessing as well.