Thursday, April 17, 2008
Copyrights and the Public Good
Many of the landmark new inventions that are still relevant in my lifetime (e.g. VCR, FM Radio,and copy machines) are a product of someone sampling existing research and trying to either make it more efficient or to reinvent it somehow. I believe that music and more specifically DJ beats are no different. By exaggerating inflating the power of current copyright law, we make thieves out of the creative class. Even some of the most famous pieces of art were influenced by popular icons of their respective times. Take Andy Warhol's "Campbell's Soup" piece. Do you think that the estate of Andy Warhol should have to pay royalties to Campell's Soup or to Marilyn Monroe since he used their images in his artwork. What contemporary copyright law needs to understand is that there is a big difference between blatantly ripping off someones idea and sampling it to make it better. By making it illegal to sample existing art, the courts hinder one of the oldest influences to art as we know it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think all of the inventions you listed are different. A VCR is for a personal use (i.e. you don't have screenings of things you've recorded. Artists let radio stations use there songs for free publicity. Copy machines are a bit hairy. Many teachers copy things that are copyright protected. Many theater organizations make copies of one script so they only need to buy one. But companies make copies of reports so many people can keep track of it. Most of these things aren't ways to make money, but a way of no paying for something.
DJs get paid by the hour and they sample, so technically they are making money on something that is copyrighted. I still think that they aren't really breaking laws because their intentions aren't malicious or to make money specifically on the piece they are sampling.
To answer your question: No the estate Andy Warhol shouldn't pay Cambell's or Marilyn Monroe because it is art, and I'm sure that if they Cambell's or the estate of Marilyn Monroe had a problem they would have brought it up.
Good question, I agree with Justin for the most part.
I think the Warhol paintings brought another level to MM and the Campbell's soup can. It turned them into true icons of American pop culture whereas sampling basically does just that. It copies sounds and makes a profit from other people's art.
I'm not opposed to the idea of sampling but only if the sampled sound is the muse. Where the sound is taken for the basic part of the sound and then completely transformed into something not even recognizable. If the sampled sound is just something that was meant to inspire but takes on something completely different at the hands of the artist then I find it a bit more acceptable than when it is just an original sound or track with layers of other things on top of it.
Post a Comment