It is well known to most people in the United States that we are suing people. So, of course the remix culture presents issues that are in conflict with pre-existing laws and rules.
The following are the definitions necessary to understand the areas of disagreement:
Open Source: “Describes practices in production and development that promote access to the end products source materials.”
Open Content: “Describes any kind of creative work or content, published under a license that explicitly allows copying and modifying of its information by anyone- it facilitates the democratization of knowledge.”
Copyright: “It is a set of exclusive rights granted to the author of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt work.”
Copyleft: (play on words) “Describes the practice of using copy right law. It is a general method for making a program or other work free- and all extended versions are free as well”
Intellectual Property: “It is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which property rights are recognized- and the corresponding fields of law. Under IP law, owners are granted exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary and artistic works, discoveries and inventions: and words phrases, symbols and designs. This includes, copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets.
I think Lawrence Lessig’s article addresses many of the questions regarding open source, open content, copyright and copyleft. I agree with his ideas that digital technology has made it easy to remix and reconstruct existing art and that it is itself, a creative endeavor. Like Lessig I believe that amateur remix free from regulation encourages inventiveness and innovation. Some of the rigid copy right laws need to be modified and changed in this new technological society. Intellectual property becomes somewhat blurred as well, and again in need of amendment and revision. However, it seems if an amateur remixed an original copy and started making money on this art work that the original creator should be monetarily compensated because the amateur is no longer an amateur. In the big picture,there also has to be a balance between protecting ones “original” creative output versus the “collective” freely accessible use of original work.
Recently, in my Contemporary Art class, I presented the works of a really gifted an amazing photographer, Florian Maier-Aiken. This artist photographed a nighttime view of Robert Smithson’s famous Utah earthwork, Spiral Jetty. He altered and remixed the original work of art by using black and white film, and directed the lighting of the full moon and flash bulbs. The work was clearly that of Smithson but by the reconfiguring and recontextualizing of Maier-Aiken, his picture became a unique work of art. While I was doing this project much of what we had talked about in this class came to mind. In the words of Paul Miller, AKA Spooky that Subliminal Kid, “Who owns memory?” I remember the anecdote referring to St. Columba and Finnian, where the King said, “the calf belonged to the cow, so the copy belongs to the original.” Personally, I think that photography is a little more difficult to use as an example than a digital art remix, but it philosophically is still in the same arena. Should Florian Maier-Aiken give some of his proceeds to Smithson? He is not an amateur and he is making money on Smithson’s work of art. In this case, I think One Day at the Spiral Jetty by Maier-Aiken is unique and stands on it’s own merit. Nevertheless, this type of situation makes us question a variety of ethical issues associated with the remix culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment