Remix Mega-Mix for Digital Rhetoric and Writing

September 30, 2014

Today:REMIX

Remix is Like…

Remix is the act of taking one or more cultural artifacts-- visual, video, audio, and/or alphabetic texts- and deliberately mixing elements together to create something new that often specifically mimics one or more of the sources. Many remixes are meant to be satirical or overtly political, though satire is not essential.

Different Similar Things

There’s often a mistaken conflation between the idea of remix and the idea of remediation. Arising from the work of Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin, remediation is transferring something from one media to another.

Selber & Johnson-Eilola

There’s also a third element in this discussion, explicated by Selber and Johnson-Eilola: the assemblage. An assemblage is a text made from original and pre-existing parts. So… almost everything is a type of assemblage.

“…the assemblages do not distinguish primarily between which parts are supposed to be original and which have been found and gathered somewhere else; assemblages are interested in what works, what has social effects. The distinction between original and existing fragments in a text is, if not meaningless, at least secondary.” p. 380

Examples of Remixes (and hence assemblages)

"This architecture demands... the right to remix culture."

Enter DJ Danger Mouse. He felt that the Beatles’ White Album and Jay-Z’s Black Album went together.So he created “the Grey Album”

To YouTube!

Remix: from The Daily Show

+ =

Remix: from Marvel Comics

+ =

Remix: from random net site

+

=

1) Who “owns” a particular piece of art2) What can we use and what can’t we use? 3) What IS Fair Use? 4) What is Creative Commons? 5) How do we avoid having to try a justification like

this?

Points to Ponder

Key issue: IP lawThe question here becomes “whose intellectual property are these things?”

Are those mine? I “made” them, but I didn’t make them from a blank slate. Am I allowed to just borrow that stuff?

Let’s ask a lawyer!

Lessig:• “We need to hear less from lawyers and lobbyists

and more from artists [about who owns culture].”• " This is a relationship

between technology and ownership, which is translated to digital technology and copyright.”

Pirate Technologies

player piano – “pirated” sheet music radio– “pirated” records cable TV– “pirated” network TV betamax– “pirated” TV and movies

But as these were regulated, the law always waited to see “the potential of the technology.”

We Didn’t Start the Fire…• “...this is not the first time radical new technologies

have appeared and changed the way that culture gets made and distributed. This is a constant theme...”

• But… The law favored the pirate in those old cases. It is now "fit the technology to the law" and not "fit the law to the technology."

PARENTAL ADVISORY: EXPLICIT HOVWho does this music BELONG to?

Another ExampleThe New Yorker ran a piece on Danger Mouse and the idea of mash-ups. This gives us yet another term for “remix”“Mashups find new uses for current digital technology, a new iteration of the cause-and-effect relationship behind almost every change in pop-music aesthetics: the gear changes, and then the music does.”

A Stroke of Genius

“In October of 2001, a d.j. named Roy Kerr, calling himself the Freelance Hellraiser, sent Temple-Morris [a mash-up show duo] a mashup called “A Stroke of Genius,” laying Christina Aguilera’s vocal from “Genie in a Bottle,” a lubricious pop song, over the music from the Strokes’ “Hard to Explain,” a brittle, honking guitar song. “

Intellectual Property

Let’s delve just a bit deeper into the idea of intellectual property law. It’s based on trademarks and copyright.

TRADEMARK

Copyright:

Copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time. Generally, it is "the right to copy", but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other related rights. *

*from Wikipedia

So let’s consider…

So…What do we think of this Twitter account?

More importantly, from a class perspective, is it legally okay? Is it ethical?

Please note that Dr. Phill finds this site problematic and reprehensible, but it exists and we’re studying the real digital world, not Dr. Phill’s ideal version of the digital world. Dr. Phill does not condone such activities.

This……s is an issue of network distribution and the rights to images.

Do the young women being pictured here give their consent? Can we tell? Can we assume? How might we find out?

Does it matter? How would you feel being pictured here?

A second thing to ponder…

… is the real implications of the idea of “fair use.”

Fair use has often been the wildcard in discussions of intellectual property. But is it really the shield/umbrella-ella-ella-eh-eh-eh we think it is? (yes, I just stole from Rhianna)

Factor 1: Purpose/CharacterThe first factor is regarding whether the use in question helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of personal profit. To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. A key consideration is the extent to which the use is interpreted as transformative, as opposed to merely derivative. * *from Wikipedia– via the link on the previous slide

Factor 2: Nature of WorkFair use analyses consider certain aspects of the work to be relevant, such as whether it is fictional or non-fictional.To prevent the private ownership of work that rightfully belongs in the public domain, facts and ideas are separate from copyright—only their particular expression or fixation merits such protection. On the other hand, the social usefulness of freely available information can weigh against the appropriateness of copyright for certain fixations.*

*again

Factor 3: Amount/Substance

The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, ex: a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use. *

*from Wikipedia– via the link on the previous slide

Factor 4: Effect on work’s value

The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his or her original work. *

*again

Let’s play…

ISTHISFAIRUSE?

NO.Shepherd Fairey got

sued for this, because he profited.

For me, yes. I didn’t steal enough of Shepard’s style.

For you, no, unless you asked Facebook for permission to

use my picture, because while I own the likeness, I don’t

own THAT shot.

Yes.Due to fair use. I designed

this as part of a class lecture, so it’s protected. It’s very light satire, and I have no plan to use it for anything

other than a joke in lectures and on Facebook.

Yes.This piece is satire. Satire,

particularly in print journalism, has always been

protected as a first amendment right.

Technically no.This uses a copyrighted poster

with elements of a copyrighted Comedy Central

program.We are about to hit the big

“but” though.

http://www.hitfix.com/news/deadmau5-fires-back-at-disney-over-copyright-infringement

TBD.Let’s see how it all plays

out.

Remember, though: IP law is sort of like speeding. You are

only illegally speeding if someone observes and records it. Likewise, you must be sued (or sent a

Cease and Desist) to have officially broken IP law.

Time permitting: remix a Pony

For Thursday:read: Sorapure, who will summarize

and recast the work of Lev Manovich.

We will talk midterm and check in on current work.