When considering intellectual property rights and the implications of big business on creative expressive means, a number of dicey questions come up regarding the legality and morality of both sides' positions on the issue. Should a person's own creative expression be considered his property? that of the company that owns his contract? and what constitutes fair or transformative use? Well, although U.S. copyright law has undergone a number of major changes throughout history, the fair use act was probably the most important distinction to creative implications of copyright law. Although there are several factors that constitute a kind of "grey area" within its main tenets, the law is fairly clear on what kind of use, profitability, and volume of sharing is allowed. The "transformative use" clause, on the other hand, is much more subjective in its definition of acceptable use.
In the case of Girl Talk, there is a major discrepancy between his "combination" technique of remixing songs and the constitution of "transformative use." His use of the songs generally does not seem to be a complete rearrangement, but rather a series of juxtapositions among several genres. The concept is intriguing, to use a full arrangement to create an original soundscape, but in strict legal terms probably not fully acceptable. He has not made an effort to purchase rights to any of the music he uses, and although he considers the rearrangements to be an original work, the copyright holders would probably not see it that way if he were making substantial money off of it. I think the lack of backlash from these companies is probably owed mostly to his model of sharing his content, which has always consisted of very cheap or free copies of his arrangements. Additionally, since he was working with a small independent record label for much of his career, there is little threat of corporate litigation between the two firms. Large companies like Warner Bros. or Sony/BMG likely realize the unsubstantial returns compared to expensive lawsuits against individuals or very small companies.
You bring up several challenging questions here. Such as, should a persons own creative expression be considered their property? I think this goes to show how unclear copyright law is, and why it is continually developing and changing. You also not how Girl Talk hasn't been in much legal trouble, but technically could be breaking the rules. I think copyright laws are very strict because nobody really knows where to draw the line.
ReplyDelete*aren't
DeleteI was drawn to your comments regarding how Girl Talk has chosen to distribute his tracks. Being that he is giving almost all of his music away for free via downloading options, how can one say he is violating copyright laws? My understanding is that I can use whatever works I please as long as I am not ultimately benefitting from the use of these works. While his music is definitely questionable along the concepts of fair and transformative use, in the whole grand scheme of things, is he wrong at all?
ReplyDeleteYou bring up some good points here. Especially the point of someones own creative expression being considered their property. I believe everyone should have a right to their creative work, whether its music or print. I also agree that Girl Talk probably hasn't gotten in legal trouble because of how little he is benefiting from selling his music. I could see problems with him trying to purchase the rights to the music because of how insanely expensive it is. Maybe his music needs a way to cite its references like we do when citing a source in an essay.
ReplyDelete