"The Last Refuge of Scoundrels"

Until this week, my knowledge of Fair Use and copyright laws in art was pretty much limited to Shepard Fairey. I'm familiar with Fairey as a mediocre street artist who got a moment of fame, sold out, and turned his street art into a brand of clothing which you can now purchase in department stores. For most people, he's that guy who was accused of copyright infringement by the Associated Press after he used a photo they own for Hope, a poster of Obama. Now, thanks to this project and some literature from Stanford University Libraries I've got a little info on Fair Use and Copyright. 

It looks like I'm not going to get sued. For starters, the purpose of my video is definitely not the same as the purpose of all the videos from which I used footage. It's got a different meaning and a different aesthetic, though I didn't dramatically alter much of the footage. I added some from one video to the visuals of another, I sped some clips up, and I stuck them all into a video critiquing their original intent. Second, I don't think I took anything that was really "the heart" of another work. There's really only one clip where they could even be argued, but I'm not too worried about it. And lastly, I have no plans to ever make a cent of of this video. I will not profit financially, and I don't think I'm a significant risk for the giant corporations who made the original videos. My one minute video might be seen by tens of people, but it's not got to have a lasting financial impact on Fox News, even though I'm clearly critiquing them.  

Though it looks like I'm in the clear in terms of copyright infringement, my other readings did bring up some interesting points. Negativland things that "appropriating from this media assault represents a kind of liberation from our status as helpless sponges," and I think I agree. We are overwhelmed by media all the time, but its goal is not to help us form opinions. Instead, media is giving us opinions which we are encouraged to latch on to without thought. Appropriating from media allows us to question what we've been given and to think through it. Lawrence Lessig also talks about "remixing," and it's similarities to writing. No one would dream of writing to the estate of an author to use one sentence, but in video or sound, it's a necessity. He does discuss the important differences, the concern that people are 'copying' other work instead of creating their own, and the general culture that exists surrounding remixing. And in "Cut: Film as Found Object in Contemporary Video," which Lessig wrote for an exhibition at the Milwaukee Art Museum, he writes about the growth of media and the growth of copyright. Copyright was intended to protect certain items, it required an author to get a copyright, but now anything produced is automatically copyrighted for a hundred years. It's changed the face and purpose of copyrights, and made appropriate much more difficult because of the vast number of copyrighted things. But neither he nor I see what the big deal is. People have been appropriating for ages, it's not a new idea. There are no "new" ideas, there are only reworked ideas.

And since I'm now knowledgeable about copyrights and Final Cut Pro, I had no trouble falling into the Youtube trap. I think my video is sort of missing out on the art bit, but leans heavily on the collage of random clips bit. I'm sure there are 15 years-olds out there who wish they could make videos about their celebrity crushes that are as good as my video about stereotypes on tv. Take a look, get back to me, and I'll try again next week.