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.