Remix Culture is fundamentally at odds with older media institutions and practices

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, ‘remix culture’ was coined by Lawrence ‘Larry’ Lessig, an American academic and political activist (Wikipedia 2010). In a nutshell, remix culture which is all about taking something that exists and making it into something new (Stepenak 2009). This can come in the form of remixed music, art, video and more. The biggest issue with remix culture, is that it seems to go against copyright laws and older media institutions and practices. Larry Lessig believes however that this is untrue, and that copyright and remix can coexist.

There are laws such as Uses of Fair Practices which seek to protect artists which remix existing work. In all honesty, I find attempting to read long clauses which say the same thing over and over in different ways impossible, so naturally I googled until I found a clear and concise answer. Essentially there are two main questions that need to be asked when looking at a work that uses an existing piece of material;

• Did the unlicensed use “transform” the material taken from the copyrighted work by using it for a different purpose than that of the original, or did it just repeat the work for the same intent and value as the original?
• Was the material taken appropriate in kind and amount, considering the nature of the copyrighted work and of the use?

If the answer to the first question is yes it was used for a different purpose, and to the second question yes it was taken appropriately in kind and amount, it means that the work is considered compliant with the Uses of Fair practices. However, many people believe that this is still considered stealing from the original artist, or that it is necessary to get approval and provide royalties to the original artist. There is a fine line here which demonstrates that Remix Culture is fundamentally at odds with older media institutions and practices because there will always be people who are arguing the toss. Even the legislation in place is debatable which creates nightmares for everyone- the people and artists involved, and the judges who must make a decision. The legislation is meant to work in accordance with existing copyright laws, however you may ask how it is possible to protect the original artists, as well as those wanting to remix. Many people will say that remixing shouldn’t be allowed because it isn’t original, but that is ridiculous. To even think of a way to remix something to show it in a new and interesting way is original in itself. And there are SO many interesting examples of remixes which take one thing and make it mean something different, make it better… in ways that are so creative and original that it astounds me. Perhaps that is why artists get so antsy about people remixing their work, because they fear that someone may make a better version than their original! Here you can see a video that explains Uses of Fair Practices.

Here is an example of how remix culture is at odds with older media institutions practices. This example however is very intriguing because it was not made with remixing in mind…its more of an example of copyrighting gone mad! A woman took a video of her 13 month old son who had just learnt to walk, dancing with the Prince song ‘Lets go crazy’ on in the background. Watch the video below and see what you think.

The most ridiculous thing is that this video was not an intended remix of the Prince song, it just happened to be on in the background. She was not trying to produce a free version of his song for the public and she would definitely have not thought about the copyright laws for having a song playing in the background, especially when she uploaded it for her family and friends only. The video had fewer than 50 views when the mother got an email from youtube saying that her video had been taken down due to copyright infringements. Is that ridiculous or what?!? Obviously now after much media attention, the video has been reinstated on youtube and the mother is now taking Prince to court (Francescani 2007). This to me is a prime example of copyright gone crazy. Ok, so I can understand that artists may get paranoid that their work may be ripped off and sold, obviously music piracy is a big problem, but come on, really…a home video? This also highlights the issue of remixing and poses the question; where do we draw the line? The legislation seems to be quite vague and relies on subjectivity and opinion in deciding whether works comply to Uses of Fair Practices. Perhaps the greatest challenge is to make the copyright and Uses of Fair Practices work hand in hand and make sense!

Lessig has taught me that remix culture is an inevitable part of society today. The internet and new technologies ensured that it was always going to happen, and most people love and enjoy it. Lessig says that Beyonce’s October 2008 performance video of Single Ladies got 1.7 million views on YouTube in original form, but a Saturday Night Live parody-remix produced a month later got even more attention, some 3.2 million views (Stepanek 2009). Many remixes are parodies and satires, such as the SNL Single Ladies remix. Is this to say that many satirical movies are breaching copyright? Satirical movies such as Not Another Teen Movie are based around remixing existing movies, and this is the only thing that makes the movie humorous; people understand the references!

Here is an artwork by Shepard Fairey and it is easy to understand why the image is powerful; because it is a remix of a common image. He is using the original image for a different purpose, and it is clear that is the basic layout and general shape that he is using, so it is in moderation, thus it complies with Uses of Fair Practices. It is a good example of how remixing old images and making them new enhances the message being conveyed because the audience understands the point of reference.

Shepard Fairey is an American post modern artist who has recently caused a stir due to copyright issues. He has been likened to Andy Warhol with his “Warhol-like blurring of popular culture and fine art”. Fairey has been arrested 15 times over plagiarism, graffiti and similar charges. His artwork which is a remix of Obama’s presidential campaign photo taken by Mannie Garcia has caused him to be sued for plagiarism by the Associated Press.

Fairey’s image is significantly different to the original (and much more interesting). Here, again, the biggest issue is one of opinion. I think in many cases there will be a 50-50 split on what people believe, however someone is going to have to make the final decision, and there is a 50-50 chance on which way it might go. It is for this reason that it is imperative to close the divide between remix culture and older media institutions and make legislation that is clear and brings both copyright and remix culture together. I think that the biggest issue will be convincing the people that are more traditional in their views of media and art that remix culture is the way of the future, and there is no way to stop it, so we might as well make it fair for everyone. Fairey’s work brings to mind a very interesting question; what about Warhol’s work? Andy Warhol is a prime example of remix culture and his artwork is considered to be incredible despite the fact that many of the images he uses are not original. Do anti remix culturists (thought I’d try to coin my own phrase) believe that Warhol’s work is unoriginal and infringing on copyright??

Another example of differing views and opinions in this field is when two DJs, one from Perth and one from San Francisco remixed Green Day’s American Idiot with artists such as Eminem and Aerosmith to create ‘American Edit’. It was released online for free and they soon received a notice of copyright breach from Green Day’s record label. People were outraged and Green Day even came out and said that they liked it and were flattered (Martin). Here it shows that there are fundamental differences in opinion, especially between the people that are hired to look for copyright breaches, and the original artists. It is clear that Green Day who are presumably fairly up to date with new technologies and the phenomenon of remix culture appreciated American Edit as a new and different product. The record label however are clearly living in a traditional media world where all remix culture is infringing copyright. I understand that it is these people’s jobs to protect their artists, and of course there are many instances where people do try to rip off other people’s work. However there needs to be changes to legislation to bring traditionalists up to speed.

Of course there is the opposite side of the story which many people believe; that remix culture is not original and is stealing from the original artist. Simon Lake is the CEO of a not-for-profit organisation that collects royalties for artists, and he has some strong views on remix culture. Lake says “to say copyright stifles creativity is ridiculous. If you put those two things together, copyright is the end process, it’s what protects creativity. And to suggest that copying is creating is ridiculous.” Lake portrays the view of many anti remix culturists that remixing is not original, and of course this is another example of opposing opinions. Peter Carstairs a filmmaker shares Lake’s views, he says “copyright doesn’t stifle creativity, it stifles your ability to use other people’s work… It forces you to be more creative”. Personally, I find his last statement to be the most interesting, “It forces you to be more creative”. To me it implies that he accepts that remixing is creative, but making something that has never been done before is more creative. I’m sure he didn’t mean it that way but that’s what it says to me. I think it’s impossible for anyone to say whether something is creative or not…again it all comes back to opinion!

I think it is ridiculous to say that remix works are not original, because the first people to remix an original work are creative because they are the first to think of doing it! The people that remix the original work again are also creative because they think of a creative and new way to do it. I won’t lie, there are a few things that have been remixed too many times and I don’t find it creative anymore; a prime example is the youtube clips of the Hitler movie that have been dubbed who knows how many times. To me, that is no longer creative, but who am I to say!

Remix Culture is fundamentally at odds with older media institutions and practices because legislation is vague and is very much left up to subjectivity in times of conflict. It is left up to opinion in so many ways that the lines are very blurred. There will always be an argument over what is fair for original artists and remix arts, but a compromise must be made to keep with the technological advancements of today.

Brienna Anderson