Montagnard Cooking

This project was an interesting one for me. It took a couple of turns that I didn't expect. First off, I wasn't going to do this project to begin with. I wanted to go all out and do a cooking show with the owners of a restaurant in the next city over, but I didn't even know if that was an actual possibility. So when we were told that these helpful people were going to come to our school and do a cooking demonstration for us, I of course chose to go to that; the subject of which, being my primary focus for the project. The women were lovely, entertaining, and light hearted. The beginning of the interview was fairly standard. We watched and asked questions while they cooked. Then the woman who spoke better english began elaborating on her time spent in the jungle. Her story was incredible. I wanted to structure my little documentary in a way that gave the viewer the basic information and then delved a bit deeper into her personal story. I am very pleased with the end result.

Depth and Perception

RULES

(US COPYRIGHT LAWS)

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

The nature of the copyrighted work

The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

REASONS

We like to reproduce, share, build off of, and remix works of art. Wikipedia gives some broken down examples of why we do this musically.

▪ to give a formerly popular song a second chance at radio and club play

▪ to create a stereo or surround sound version of a song where none was previously available

▪ to improve the fidelity of an older song for which the original master recording has been lost or degraded

▪ to alter a song to suit a specific music genre or radio format

· to alter a song for artistic purposes

So, all of these reasons seem fair, and make sense, right? Well if there is such controversy over copyright laws there is obviously still an issue. Artists and regular people are being prosecuted for sharing or appropriating music, movies, and images.

"If you make a mix CD for a friend or play DVDs at a house party. Each will lead you into a facial violation of the Copyright law, and in today's world, it's almost unavoidable." - Tim Wu

So if it's unavoidable how do we deal with it?

In this quote the Disney remix artist Pogo talks about his choice to continue to make art despite a nearly inevitable lawsuit.

"The sad reality is, Swashbuckle was contracted work. I’d literally have to start saving the money that Disney would sue me before making the decision to upload it. But who knows? It might just come to that. My music is my mark in this world. If I have to pay to watch it entertain millions of people, then so be it. What's really odd is that the blog post indicates that he had to take down his "classic" Disney movie remixes while he was working at Disney, but now that his contract is up, he's free to put them back up."

This is an example of his work

This is just one more example of electronic musical creation. Like a much further form of the band Atomic Tom who used their iphones as instruments after they were stolen.

A very interesting and innovative way of going around corporate regulation is to personally monitor your art. Issa, a musician, left Warner Brothers to control her own music. Her website is donation based. Her fans pay whatever they want for her music, and it averages to be more than what companies like itunes and Amazon charge, though nothing is technically required. Also in exchange for a download the user can do a good deed. Fans can also donate money to pay for a day in a recording studio, which is normally what record labels do. Through Issa's goodwill approach she actually makes a fair amount of money, and fans say they feel more connected to her. They trust her, and she trusts them. She has managed to breech the cold impersonal electronic distance made farther with its heavy capitalistic inclination, and touches her fans all over the world.

Another way of dealing with copyright laws is crusading for change like renowned lawyer, and anti copyright activist Larry Lessig. (From Tim's Wu's article "Tolerated Use: The Copyright Problem")

"Why should we tolerate tolerated use?" His point: If you care about free expression and the core reasons for our copyright law—i.e., protecting the artists—why would you put up with a system that makes something like fan art illegal and then tries to ignore the problem? Surely the right answer is to fight for reform of the copyright law: Have the law declare clearly that most noncommercial activities, like fan sites and remixes, are simply beyond the reach of the law."

There is also a way that the little man gets around it. In this blog you have seen the terms “fair use” and “tolerated use”. This means that if the copyrighted material is being used in a non-commercial way to educate the public, while fitting a number of other criteria, then you might get away with using it. This kind of material is like the material in; “The Story of Cosmetics” (though that is original material) Another

example is the video segment, “Right Wing Radio Duck.” A video segment that uses a Donald Duck cartoon and pairs it with the rantings of Glenn Beck. His response is infuriation at the fact t

hat free use allows this to happen, and that the copyright association considers this an informative piece. The fact of the matter is that they do, and because of that people can get their art access to the public.

Is this all sounding a little vague and confusing luckily there are many sources in circulation that are created to help the independent artist from getting slapped with a law suit that may cost as much as they make in years. This is one in a comprehensive comic book form.

Actually copyright laws are so confusing, especially in the increasingly common extenuating circumstances of film and television media in

correlation to websites like YouTube, that it isn’t always even enforced. Tim Wu describes it like this. “The paradox is that the current law is so expansive and extreme that the very firms that first sought it cannot even make use of it.”

What he is talking about is the battle for control within the corporations that control film and television. There is a constant struggle with the legal and marketing divisions. Legal is fighting for control while marketing has realized that fansites and millions of people reposting and watching clips from their shows all over the internet is amazing advertisement.

When this first started happening corporations would immediately serve copyright infringers with a cease and desist letter, but once they realized that the work is promoting theirs, then they usually allow it. This has been the case with NBC and YouTube, Warner Bros. and Harry Potter fansites, and countless other cases. Now we actually have

sites like Hulu which allow for free unlimited streaming. As long as the use of their product is considered to be harmless, among other criteria, then it will most likely be left alone. Tim Wu summarizes the dangerous game that artists and corporations are playing with each other, "Remember, copyright is important, and you're breaking the law and you may face massive fines. But on the otherhand, your site is totally great, so keep going!"As you can see there is no black or white answer, and there are many constantly changing, innovative, or stringent, ways to deal with copyright laws. It is not always a noose around the throat of an artist.

Best Played Loud

This is my traditional vs. contemporary video project, and in order to get the full effect of the music, it's best heard on headphones.

I took a band that I find powerful and versatile. The Black Keys have a strong driving force in their music. I knew that music like this had to have deep roots, and I wanted to find out where.

I took an interview from the NPR program "Fresh Air", cut it, and used it as narration over videos clips, their music, and the music that influenced The Black Keys and give them their distinctive sound.

I was also interested in how The Black Keys have a very

marketable sound. They have upwards to 20 commercial credits, inclu

ding movies, and television theme songs. I wanted to see how they felt about this as serious musicians and disprove the idea that many people hold. These people don't consider themselves musical snobs, but they are, which is why The Black Keys had such trepidation about becoming commercialized. I wanted to show how this has benefited the band, and how they maintain

their musicianship. I also simply wanted to tell their story.

I had a very clear outline of what I wanted to do, and though it took a lot of footwork, I am happy with the video that was produced.

Click here to watch the video on YouTube

MINE!

Copyright once started as a means to keep artists and engineers inventive and protective. It's roots go far past the industrial revolution all the way to the Writ of Anna, but it seems to have found its rebirth in the American music industry in the early 1990's. In an era in the midst of a capitalist swing that only got higher it is no wonder that Copyright has left its roots as a protective creative tool, and become an industrial capitalist safehold.

Art undoubtedly pulls from its surroundings. Anyone who has ever written anything has surely received the advice, "Write what you know." And in writing, it's alright to do that. As lo

ng as you cite the source. Sadly in any other medium citing the source can cost you thousands of dollars, if you do it legally or illegally. Disney, for example, remade stories like Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, the list is extensive. But if you were to remake one of those films, Disney would sue you for all you've got. And they'll keep suing you years from now. More like 95 years from now. When Walt Disney died the executives from Disney asked if they could extend the time on their Copyright. You can see how this can creatively stunt artists who want to use these ideas because they are such an ingrained part of our culture. These examples don't show the idea of Copyrighting in a good light. Think about this, when Copyright laws were first instituted in America they only lasted for 14 years.

So it sounds like the companies who hold the rights and the lawyers associated with this material have all of the power?

Wrong. We live in an enormously large, connected, and aware world. The problem for these companies is that we as individuals are now aware of others as individuals, not just groups of others. With the use of datavisualization, like this picture

"Britain from Above" we can see how other people come, go, and interact. They are more than just numbers. With tools like Social Bookmarking, we can see things that other people consider important enough to save. We can see their notes on the items; even how they choose to categorize them.

At this point we are using the electronic world to do the most base of animal skills. Communicate. It should not surprise anyone that we use it for EVERYTHING else. technology heats up our food for us, bombs countries, drives us from a to b. In a sense, it saves us from our inadequacies. Technology is also revolutionizing every art form.

As an actor you hear that the theatre is dead. A lot. But artists have found a way to save, a

"dying" art. Performances involving multimedia are increasingly popular. We are ready to be stimulated in this way, and theatre artists know that. The options with new technology are also endless, and the results are exciting. Manovich states the point concisely when he says, "Complete with setting and actors. In a historical loop, the computer has returned to its origins. No longer just and Analytical Engine, suitable only for crunching numbers, it has become Jacquard's loom - a media synthesizer and manipulator." Without this philosophy for technology we would never have such creations as the character of Gollum in

the Lord of the Ring series.

The same can also be said for music.

Remixes and mashups are now a dime a dozen, and with the electronic person to person connectivity network file sharing and illegal downloading is nearly uncontrollable despite corporate efforts. But make no mistake, there are very strong efforts put into preventing ALL of this.

The future is not completely bleak though. there are crusaders against the domineering copyright laws over media. Lawrence Lessig is a lawyer crusading for more lenient laws on the subject of copyright. He says, "This war too has an important objective. Copyright is, in my view at least, critically important to a healthy culture. Properly balancer, it is essential to inspiring certain forms of creativity. Without it, we would have a much poorer culture. With it, at least properly balanced, we create the incentives to produce great new works that otherwise would not be produced." Lessig is totally right. In Jonathan Lethem's article on plagiarism, he talks about the question of appropriation and if Nabokov stole von Lichberg's "Lolita" written 40 years earlier. This is certainly a pertinent questions but please watch this video, and consider the arguments presented in conjuncture to the material in this video. Did these 13 artists shamelessly steal from Pachelbel or is it just creative evolution through technology?