I went to a presentation called "CopyRight Mashed-Up and Remixed"--twice! Once at an MLA conference and then again at the Midwest Library Technology Conference. Fortunately the presenters allowed their content to be made available in the Digital Commons, otherwise I would not have been able to remember
1. The presenters names to give them proper credit
2. The name of the sampling artist
3. The name of the film/manifesto
4. much of anything else due to my hastily scrawled notes during the presentation
So for the edification and education of all, here is a link to it:
Copyright Mashed-Up and Remixed by
Jessica McIntyre, Minneapolis Institute of Arts2
Lyndi Finifrock, Bethel University3
Betsy Dadabo, Bethel University4
While I am not completely sold on the notion of "sampling is considered an original work", and whether this is "building a new democracy and culture" (13:13). I'm dismayed by the notion that there are no more original thoughts left unless we sample something that has already been created. They haven't been hanging out with any imaginative 9 year-olds lately. The stories and art and songs my kid comes up with--it gives me hope that creativity isn't dead.
I was struck by the disparity between Fair Use of print sources and Fair Use of video/moving images/music. Let an essayist quote and cite an article from another author--that is covered by Fair Use. But let an artist "quote" a few notes of a song, or a few frames of video that is grounds for a federal lawsuit (2:37).
And by how 2 conglomerates RIAA and MPAA have such a lock on our popular culture. When there was not as much money to be made, did artists/publishers mind so much if another artist copied their song?