Stealing or recontextulization?

[vjTranceKoder]

born out of this thread: http://www.vjforums.com/showthread.php?p=118911&posted=1#post118911
I am pleased to begin a little discussion on copywrite use VS recontextuilzation. Here is a copy and paste from the other thread so we dont get too far off topic:
We just finished our demo reel. It has footage from other VJs in it...wonder if I'm cheeky? If you are well versed in video and cinema you should be able to pick up pretty easily on my "sampling". Is it recontextualization??
http://myspace.com/ioaudiovisual
(:-offtopic I don't know how to do pop-up movies on mysapce, can someone help me with this? They alll load at once)
Even the music includes samples from major films...can you find them?


PS Props to bryandod for his excellent CO timelapse footage and lake george stuff. Also big ups to all the VJs out there hooking us up with free to mix flash elements!:hippy:

[vjpixylight]

really the question is, What constitutes a "Showreel"?
in the other thread it was quite obvious that other VJ's Branded showreels were used in a mix, and then claimed as a "Showreel"..
With the post you posed, it asks the question, and broadens the scope of 'what is a VJ showreel, and when does the combination of other VJ's material into a mix become something different, and therefore recontextualized..

If we can agree that recontextualize is 'the positioning of familiar images, words, or ideas in relationship to things with which they are not usually associated, thus creating or suggesting a new meaning for them', then
by this definition, remixing another VJ's work really isn't recontextualizing it.(because it uses the same medium of expression)

Seems to me, to recontextualize art, it must move from one medium to another medium(say from canvas to screen) and then add to what emotion of the original work creates with a new/different emotion.
Strangly enuf recontextualizing art with shock value might do this, but sometimes to the deteriment of the original work.

Then there is the question, where does exploiting other VJ's showreels become illegal?
Is there money being made from the exploited showreels(is it bootlegged and sold in china?)

this also brings to mind 'out of context' propaganda which is used to mislead...Does recontextualizing media do this as well?

[DrEskaton]

recontextualising is irrelevant to the issue.

when you are talking about another vj's work that they have made with time and effort the issue is solely Permission, I don't care if it's show real or live, you are benefiting from someone elses work.

if you like another vj's work so much you want to use it, why not just email them and offer them some of your clips as a trade?

[vjTranceKoder]

whats up doc?
Recontextulizing is exactly the issue Im trying to discuss here. I wanted to break from the other thread so we could discuss it here. I dont question whether it was right for the guy mikkel to use the otehr VJs reel, that was ridiculous IMO. I could hardly believe that mikkel guy is trying to pass off others work as his own. My question is where is the line when it comes to sampling....not just another VJ's work but movies etc. IMO you can mash clips beyond recognition and they become original. Like a movie sample, or better yet a sample you get from a friend.
I feel as if Im answering my own questions here. I just wanted to get some feedback. Maybe it is pointless as so many of these discussions become.
Question:
What about Andy Warhol and the Campbell soup label...is that not infringment?
I heard a good book to read on this is The Letter U and the Number 2
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.01/negativland_pr.html
excerpt:"Two grim realizations dawned on the band members: The first was that the law, as interpreted, did not legitimize their aural collage as art. The second was that business interests within the music industry, relying on the economic expense of legal battles, had the capability to squelch small artists who sought to challenge the legal status quo. From the start, Island's argument had been one of economics: Negativland was attempting to profit from U2's popularity, and the group had timed its decoy release to coincide with an upcoming U2 release (previously Joshua Tree had sold more than 6 million copies in the US). And Negativland couldn't afford to prove themselves innocent."
Seems like a bad idea in general to use copywrited material in any sense after reading this article.
Another excerpt: " Appropriated art is commonplace in other milieus - Rauschenberg and Warhol made great use of it in the fine arts, and borrowed melodies are common in folk music - but it has yet to be acknowledged in contemporary musical forms."
Here is the kicker:
"Jeff Selman, an attorney who, through California Lawyers for the Arts, began to assist Negativland after the settlement, says it another way: "Whether or not someone would look at a visual or musical collage and say 'Yes, that's an allowable fair use' hasn't been tested. It's a fine-line distinction between what's pirating and what's fair use. But everybody may be trying to draw fine lines where they can't be drawn." He points back to the central argument in the whole case: "It comes down to an issue of money.""
is there hope?: ""But this time," adds Grigg, "if they do, we can find free legal help to fight it and, if we know what we're doing, probably win. All of the lawyers who looked at U2 said later that if we had fought it, we could have set a precedent for fair use. That's the greatest tragedy: if we'd have known, we could have changed things for everybody.""
"To order Fair Use: The story of the Letter U and the Number 2, book and CD, contact Negativmailorderland: +1 (201) 420 0238, fax +1 (201) 420 6494."

[DrEskaton]

yeah sure I'd agree with your definition of recontexualising... but I think you confused the issue by stating that you have other vj's loops in your own showreel. Not sure why you brought that up. I assume they are loops that other vj's have offered for download or otherwise given to you?

recontextualise from movies, tvs, commercials, documentaries all you want....

[vjTranceKoder]

your right, my posts are a bit confusing...the clips I used in the Mystic video are either my own or were given to me by other VJs with the permission to use them. The second video I made "Alameda" has hollywood copywrited scenes which is where I belive I've crossed the line. Normally I wouldn't want to rely on those clips, but I had to get these video out by a deadline and had no other footage that seemed to fit. Luckly I can go back and re-create, but I do love the mixes with samples, although they will never be commercially viable:(
:grouphug: Starting to become more clear...

[vjpixylight]

"what's up doc" is already copyLEFTed;)

There is this cat, VJ Rabbi, that ponders this very question here (http://www.djrabbi.com/vjrabbi.mov)

[Stuart]

so, is scratching a track one lifted from somewhere else really what qaulifies as recontextualizing? I'm not sure I get how the coffee cup shatter was 'recontextualized.' I just wanna make sure I've got my terms square here.

All of that aside, I think it's important to understand what a VJs job is and what a VJ is trying to say when they put up a showreel. Clearly many VJs are remixing and scratching found footage. A promoter probably does not care overly much, just wants to see if a person has the chops to match music to image. If you are that type of VJ what else are you gonna do to promote yourself? You need to accurately represent to your potential client what your show is going to look like. Just as if you are a DJ handing around demos to get gigs. Now, try to sell that demo without permission for what you have 'found' and your in a world of hurt legally. Just ask vanilla ice. Try to pass off that demo and claim it's your own stuff and clearly your community gets bent.

So, intent seems a key issue. What is the purpose of your showreel and are you honest when you represent it?

[vjpixylight]

so, is scratching a track one lifted from somewhere else really what qaulifies as recontextualizing? I'm not sure I get how the coffee cup shatter was 'recontextualized.' I just wanna make sure I've got my terms square here.

So, intent seems a key issue. What is the purpose of your showreel and are you honest when you represent it?

let us explore it, shall we.
The cup(in question) was filmed in slow motion falling and shattering.It was made for a dramatic piece in a daytime soap opera. Thats the original piece.
Now then, Johnny Prat comes along and wants to see what that cup shattering looks like in reverse. He throws the clip in his video editing program, puts the reverse on it, and voila rebirth..
Now then VJJV comes along and likes the sound of the cup shattering, but wants the sound to played with the reversed clip that ole JP threw him, because he just a cool cat.
Now we have a cup, shattered into pieces, coming back too it's orginal stature, with the opposite sound than one would not expect to hear, when watching a cup reconsitute.
That is what you might call recontextualizing the original object of art, too create something complete unexpected from the original context of the clip ;)...

[devonmiles]

I thought showreels are intended to get jobs?
promoters ask for references and examples of your work. you pass the url of your website.
unlike the usual performance in a club a showreel shows the best of your own in short. your creativity, your effort, your countless hours spend on clips.
in a live performance you might use clips by someone else because this special clips fit better than yours, you had not enough time to produce your own.
the showreel is something like your business card. your ID. you dont want it to look like someone elses. a good example can be found in "american psycho" when bateman gets so mad about paul allens top notch business cards, that he killed him afterwards.
same applies on trancecoders reel. recontextualisation means, if you take content that is not yours originaly, the way you recontextualize has to be original. I am 99% sure that you, transcoder, watched the samples you intended to use and brainstormed heavily how you are going to use them. what to do with them. how to make them not look like generic sample shit stolen from the web. you add thought to it.
thats what I miss with mikkels showreel. its just random layered stuff taken from every source available.

as soon as mikkel gets invited to the bigchill because john loves this "cart race sequence", things gonna seriously nasty.

[vjTranceKoder]

first off I'm glad i made these videos if not just for the discussion.
Secondly, pixy you crack me up!
About the video "Alameda":
For the record the coffee cup clip is actually taken from the movie "A Brief History of Time". So is the roulette wheel clip. The coffee cup clip is something I couldn't reproduce as it requires high speed cameras. I could've found some footage similar and bought it or hired out a high speed camera (which seems expensive from what I've heard). I could also ask permission to use the clip. Is the cup recontextualized? i could easily argue both yes and no. The visual itself is unaltered save the playback rate and direction, so no it is not recontextualized (that old argument about throwing an effect on a Hollywood clip, like the invert effect, and proclaiming "it's original"!). On the other hand the clip is tempo-synced to original music which includes sounds that may be like those of a cup crashing. With the layering of the two cups there is some amount of originality or recontextualization there, but original? Well, I didn't shoot it, you tell me.

The roulette wheel is simply jogged back and forth to the tempo, no other effects. Recontextualized? hardly I'd say, but it clearly represents our ability to sync visuals live using MIDI as that clip was. Which brings me around to devon's point, yes we can reproduce about 50% of that live. We are currently working on ways to trigger pre-produced music videos while still having the ability to mix in and out seamlessly.
Lets go over some other footage in Alameda...an atom bomb, obviously not mine...comes from "Trinity and Beyond: Atomic Bomb". The car crash is a clip from "Fight Club". The head thrashing towards the end comes from "Jacobs Ladder". The 3D animated head bobbing (mirrored) is a VJ's clip whom I don't even know! (Im going to get slammed for that one!). If you look close for about 1 second at the end where the music breaks, you'll see a clip from "The Matrix" where Neo takes the red pill. You'll also see cogs from clockwork, also from "A Brief History of Time". Uh...what else...the psychedelic patterns are about 50% my own, 50% other VJ's flash movies. The space clip comes from a link I followed through VJF about a year ago. Obviously there is a big fat "Waking Life" clip in the middle along with footage from "Saving Private Ryan" shortly thereafter. hahah this is really cracking me up. I know the video "Alameda" is not commercially viable, but the whole spectrum of possible "recontextualizations" are represented. I truly believe this. To guess some of those clips for the majority would be a great challenge. No one I've shown it to so far can pick out more than 2 samples. Now you guys and gals know every one. I'm not ashamed. It is this discussion that will bring a greater understanding for us all. I will always believe that original work is necessary, but selling a DVD with some samples as you see here doesn't seem too crazy to me. But then again, what I think and what the law states are two entirely different things. Maybe it's better that way. I don't know. As long as i don't make any real money off it I shouldn't be too worried, right?

BTW "Alameda" happens to be the name of a street in our home town. Hopefully we won't have to change that too;)

enough for now.

[holly]

Hey Dallas, these are both really great! I guess I liked the softer watery one for my early morning hung-over state, but the other one rocked too.

I dunno how much I can offer to the recontextualization debate. The mixes were really good and on one level I can stop there and say that's what it's all about and there is nothing more to discuss.... I think since I'm not recognizing the samples as samples (once you started naming them I was all "ahh..., oh yeah, the tea cup...") I think it means they really aren't standing out as samples.... I've no idea if that is "right or wrong" or "better" than when samples are clear and obvious.... Like I said, the mixes are both strong and smooth and work so well with the music (and the fractally tree thing is just amazing, luv to see how you do that sometime) so to me that makes it successful. I've no idea what a judge would say, but it's a shame if work of this quality can't be released because of licensing issues.

[vjTranceKoder]

yo, Holly, thanks for the kind words. Unfortunately I think "Alameda" will have to be redone for sale...wouldn't want to piss off the big boys!:nono: