attitudes to copyright

[USE]

since there seems to be diverse range of opinions on thi site relating to using copyrighted materials for shows, i thought a little poll would be interesting

[holly]

well, obviously there are so many other reasons/excuses to sample. Here's 2 off the top of my head (that I've heard here or used myself):

"Since this crappy commercial culture is forced on us, I have no choice but to force it onto other people!" (the "abused child becomes the abuser" excuse)

and "Punters need to be educated!" (Homage. Could also be Political or Satirical. -- tends to imply that you are not FXing it into obscurity, nor claiming re-contextualization. It is what it is and that's the point.)

For me (yawn, here she goes) I'd rather *see* the sample, not just fx. If someone has taken a sample and obscured it so much as to be completely unrecognizable, wouldn't almost any random input be as valid? I saw a digital print in a museum that was the movie Titanic and the gist of it was each frame was averaged for color and then that color was used for each pixel, so the "painting" started out light colors and fleshtones at the top, then became dark blue as the ship sank in the night. As a painting it was ehh, nothing amazing. As a process it was ok, but other movies might have prettier results. I'd like to see Gone With the Wind used as a source since it would have more technicolor reds and fire.... In the end it didn't have a huge impact as a work of art or as a process. It seemed a bit like an overblown screensaver that chews on a desktop image for a while. Didn't really take me anywhere on its own, and didn't really put the source in a new light.

Almost anything can be seen through a toy prism with amusing results, for a few minutes anyway. Random is ok..., I'd like to think there's some thought behind what you sample (more than just "Dude, that's trippy").
http://www.toysandmore.com.au/images/p0006777C.GIF

I think some of the most boring things I've seen are the "Juxtiposition" sets where its just random shit: crashtest dummies, an eyeball, a dancing girl, more crashtest dummies, an eyeball, etc. I'd rather watch swirlies than pointless random shit, but I sometimes like film remixes as its sort of a cubist take on the original movie.

[Rovastar]

"Since this crappy commercial culture is forced on us, I have no choice but to force it onto other people!" (the "abused child becomes the abuser" excuse)


LOL what a rubbish excuse.

I just replaced "commerical" with "sex" and worried that someone would try that defence in a rape case.:eek:

[fata alex]

thats a frightening point rovastar, very well made.
i kind of feel like i half agree with all the poll options, depending on the source material, the event/intent and who im talking to:scared:

[USE]

i kind of feel like i half agree with all the poll options, depending on the source material, the event/intent and who im talking to:scared:

yea, innit. 103 views and 3 posts. people dont want to drop themselves in it. shows the extent the powers that be have infiltrated and regulated the internet. wasn't always like this i gather. still, BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU.:sigh:

[SteveG]

Sampling as long as done well can be a great form of advertising;) I've yet to meet a VJ who doesn't or hasn't done it in their past. It's what VJ'ing is all about isn't it:)

[USE]

Sampling as long as done well can be a great form of advertising;) I've yet to meet a VJ who doesn't or hasn't done it in their past. It's what VJ'ing is all about isn't it:)

yer. considering how cagey everyone is on this site about it, you would have thought it hardly happens...i only put this post up to show that this was the case. i knew no-one would answer much.

"if they sample it, sue em" doesnt seem like a very progressive stance as far as i can see. maybe im misinterpreting the meaning.

one of te most prominant vj crews there is, coldcut, are blatant pirates, but they seem to get away with pretty high profile gigs and i cant imagine they have to pay for their cuts. as you said its an incredibly valuable marketing tool: if a film gets a sample, or a music vid, or tv program, computer game whatever, they will benefit from being related to such cutting edge art.

it strange that some companies will buy you alll the kit in the world if you play their clips, and some pretend to be offended you've "stolen" them. i spose it depends on the brand and how its used.

[deepvisual]

many copyright laws date from the invention of the printing press.
back when we were still burning witches .

the current situation is just plain stupid, but so many institutions stand to get a nice income by keeping things as they are or indeed making them worse...

there is an argument that if you set up a limited company purely for the purpose of doing ' breach of copyright' performance, you could just fold if you did eventually get sued by walt disney et al.... after all, there is little point in them sueing someone who has no assets..

but then i guess they would just sue the promoter, the band, the cloakroom attendant...

[USE]

many copyright laws date from the invention of the printing press.
back when we were still burning witches .

the current situation is just plain stupid, but so many institutions stand to get a nice income by keeping things as they are or indeed making them worse...

there is an argument that if you set up a limited company purely for the purpose of doing ' breach of copyright' performance, you could just fold if you did eventually get sued by walt disney et al.... after all, there is little point in them sueing someone who has no assets..

but then i guess they would just sue the promoter, the band, the cloakroom attendant...

hasnt happened yet..has it? i think that disney know that coldcut are keeping them relevant. and that goes for most visual sampling.

the music world has come to agreements on the use of sampling, and has admitted that it happens, and its not the end of the world *altho if you use an expensive sample, you wont see much profit from the song, it seems). seems ridiculous that the movie industry doesnt acknowledge they are gettign ripped and loving it, cos the nightclub audience is a lucrative audience indeed.

dot knw how it benefits he-man, etre et avoir, trapdoor and the more obscure sampled pieces, but im sure the creators would have a grin. its not like theyre losing money.

[deepvisual]

oh but it has happened...

Duran Duran were seriously sued for using a short clip from barbarella at a live performance.

the only reason Vjs aren't in and out of the courts is because they aren't rich enough to make it worthwhile. as soon as it becomes worth their while, the sharks will begin to circle.

[USE]

i was chatting to another vj about this the other day, i asked him if he worried about people noticing the clips. he said "mate if they noticed anything, id be chuffed to bits. no one gives a shit about what some club vj puts up". i spose thats the bottom line.

interesting about duranduran btw, i spose thats how big you'd have to be to get noticed by the lawyers...

[deepvisual]

..... i spose thats how big you'd have to be to get noticed by the lawyers...


wait and see. all it needs is for the industry to decide to make an example of someone, just like they did with all those teenage kids downloading MP3s..

and if that happens and you aren:t trading as a ltd co, they will take away your sofa and your goldfish.... not just your projection kit.

[USE]

if you arent registered and your cash in hand, how woudl anyone be able to prove you ever played?

[deepvisual]

well, of course its unlikely that someone playing in a club in brighton will have to worry, but people getting a lot of publicity - i wont mention any names but almost all 'name' VJs and a/v acts are bending the rules- they wont be so hard to find

[USE]

vjs are definitely being more and more noticed these days. i spose its only a matter of time...ive been concientiously trying to build up my own content, so hopefully by the time im on the radar i wont need to use anyone elses clips. takign the bits that work from films and doing my own take on them, cultural referencing withotu the pillage. plus i keep emailing people like adam and jo to see if the'll give me dispensations to use their shows, but a) they rarely own their own shows and b) i have to be careful im not just dropping myself in the shit.

i guess its just fingers crossed untill someone gets pwned by the law and then we will all have to duck.

[unjulation]

yer. considering how cagey everyone is on this site about it, you would have thought it hardly happens...i only put this post up to show that this was the case. i knew no-one would answer much.

this is probably because this particular topic of conversation has been done to death hear on the forums over the last 4 or 5 years -

there is only so meny times that i can be arsed to roll out the same old arguments without geting bord silly -

try doing a serch the copyright topic comes up at least once a year

[VGA]

>> i thought a little poll would be interesting

For who? You, us or big brother? I knew it - your working for the man now.
Don't trust USE everyone - he wears slip on shoes.

Anyway, I sample video, it's part of what I do.
Sometimes I play it straight.
Sometimes its mashed.
Sometimes I take one element, one moving part of the image, and place it somewhere else.
Sometimes other things happen.

>> I'd like to think there's some thought behind what you sample.

Hell so would I. If its beautiful, engaging, amusing, sexy, or just pure visual ahh it gets ripped, chopped and looped.

>> I just replaced "erudite" with "eristical" and worried that someone would try that defence in a sampling case



>> Duran Duran were seriously sued for using a short clip from barbarella at a live performance.

Thats because they are Duran Duran, rich and a fucking embarrassement to humanity.
I don't see Yoda (http://www.skynoise.net/2006/08/17/dj-yoda-projects/)in the docks.


Ever heard of the musical genre of Hip Hop?
Guess what happened to that? They won some battles and lost others.
Listen to The Avalanches first album then download the real version off the net. Winners on both sides.

What does 'Amen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj0vfU0vFSs)' mean to you?

Well nice chatting but I must be off, I'm busy recontextualising sampled motion video darlings, juxtaposing "L'age D'or (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcasqBRzeeA)" with "Chorlton and the Wheelies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPUt5PV9EQ0)".

It's all very noughties.
There is a battle coming!
I'm off for egg and chips.
God that last paragraph seemed a bit hacked together didn't it.

[Kyle]

I sample from other vjs and use content from my site and content that i make. I am happy with that.....having to sample Hollywood flicks isn't really my bag. When i first started vjing i thought screen savers were cool and VHS manga movies were awesome, I was young and naive. But, it wasn't satisfying artistically. When i picked up the camera and started shooting footage thats where the satisfaction is. Make your own stuff and project it, but even that can get boring so using stuff from other vjs makes a good set. Take Analog Recycling for example. Great clips that the world needs to see.

[USE]

this is probably because this particular topic of conversation has been done to death hear on the forums over the last 4 or 5 years -

there is only so meny times that i can be arsed to roll out the same old arguments without geting bord silly -

try doing a serch the copyright topic comes up at least once a year

fair does. i jusr wanted to see where the bias came in, as some people on here have been quite sanctimonious about not using anyone clips but their own, which i respect, but doing something and trying to force everyone to do teh same are two different things. also people on this site are very law-concious it seems to me, much more so than i'd expect from a board on a (realitively) underground artform.

ive had a search and didnt find what i was looking for. sorry to bore you with old topics. these things change over time though.

[videoswitchboard]

this is probably because this particular topic of conversation has been done to death hear on the forums over the last 4 or 5 years -

there is only so meny times that i can be arsed to roll out the same old arguments without geting bord silly -

try doing a serch the copyright topic comes up at least once a year

Absolutely true.

but given that most VJF members are usually active for a couple of years then disapear, i think it's interesting to be able to hear new members' view of the old same issue.

It would be usefull if those that have been around for longer could post links to this previously discussed subject (i know that's what the search function is here for but it doesn't account for perceived validity of a given thread).

I, for one, remember this thread (http://www.vjforums.com/showthread.php?t=13483) as being a particularly worthy one in recent times.

My own opinion on the issue changes all the time- with every new gig or project, and i like to hear new takes on the same idea.

It would also be good if somebody had collected not only threads (that often degenerate in flaming wars) but more complete writing efforts such as essays (VJtheory?), published newspaper/magazine extracts, academic paper and book extracts.

I'm dying to put up a scan of the rather good "Sampling" essay by The Light Surgeon's Chris Allen from D-Fuse's VJ Book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/VJ-Audio-visual-Art-Culture/dp/1856694909), but i hear there might be an online version of the full contributors' interviews at some point in the new year...so maybe wait for this one... anyone read it yet?


VGA: go for it mate!:bunny: :poke: :bunny: :poke:


dav

[Kyle]

Absolutely true.

I, for one, remember this thread (http://www.vjforums.com/showthread.php?t=13483) as being a particularly worthy one in recent times.



me too that was a juicy thread.

[unjulation]

basickly there is a split between peeps who do there own stuf and peeps who rip -

the ones who do there own stuf fear the ones who rip because they fear that there stuf is going to be taken without any payment

too bloody right you numptys - if you8 can rip it steal it thats what i say

[unjulation]

have 11 pages of copyright related gubims - http://www.vjforums.com/search.php?searchid=182018

and thats only useing "copyright" as a serch word

[SteveG]

Just get one of these....with a mod or 3 :)

http://img485.imageshack.us/img485/8843/stealthge0.jpg

[videoswitchboard]

basickly there is a split between peeps who do there own stuf and peeps who rip -

the ones who do there own stuf fear the ones who rip because they fear that there stuf is going to be taken without any payment

too bloody right you numptys - if you8 can rip it steal it thats what i say


closed debate then? mr. VJC editor?

:nono:

[unjulation]

of corse not just a coment upon why no one on the forum can b arsed to reply to the post.................thats all -

haveing said that.............

[Rovastar]

Here is one of my favs about copyright in recent times.

http://www.vjforums.com/showthread.php?t=14844

Makes me both laugh and cry when thinking about it........

[Rovastar]

I sample from other vjs

I presume with their permission and not just cut up demo reels?

[USE]

me too that was a juicy thread.

innit. cheers for pointing that out dav. hadn't read that one...

[Rovastar]

"if they sample it, sue em" doesnt seem like a very progressive stance as far as i can see. maybe im misinterpreting the meaning.

one of the most prominent vj crews there is, coldcut, are blatant pirates, but they seem to get away with pretty high profile gigs and i cant imagine they have to pay for their cuts. as you said its an incredibly valuable marketing tool: if a film gets a sample, or a music vid, or tv program, computer game whatever, they will benefit from being related to such cutting edge art.


My tagline "if they sample it, sue em" was a direct response to my mate VJ Mondo's one of "if it moves, sample it"

And it refers to usage with permission. If a multinational used my stuff in a TV advert uses my stuff without permission then yes it I would sue. Even for our specifically designed stuff for these clients they are clauses in there for distribution usage. Do you not use such clauses?

The irony is that big samplers like Jive Bunny sorry I mean Electric Method would do the same with their sampled creations.

Personally I think that if people like Coldcut finally and deservedly got sued of their more blatant stuff (they will get defensive if accused of using other VJs work) then it would help the industry. Crazy as it sounds but more respect would come to these that create their own footage where the informed "press" seem to back the illegal usage and justify it really, like you are. If XYZ use it then I can it is ok.
?Progressive stance? yes it is progressive for those that make all their own footage. If you made all your own quality footage you would understand.

"as you said its an incredibly valuable marketing tool: if a film gets a sample, or a music vid, or tv program, computer game whatever,"

What is whatever? Other VJs/visuals arts work you use without permission.

Marketing is only a tool if you actually want it. Brand imagery used in the "wrong way" can damage the brand.

There is no way on earth I could get away with using uncleared footage of any type with my software. Too much exposure, too risky and morally I just don't think it is right.

[Rovastar]

Also if a "big" act got sued then there would be a precedent set. They probably would have to pay damages and it would become like the music industry where many samples are "paid" for. I do think it will help create a legit sample culture. I am not against sampling just keeping it legit. Copyright is here to help us not hinder us.

[USE]

do you accept that what samplers do is a valid artform, but is seperate and different to what you do? it seems like u just want to see coldcut bankrupt cos you resent their fame at something you dont respect.

i think we agree that if you make all your own clips and mix em, then there are more skills put into the performance than if you just had a mix, but i beleive you shouldbe free to rip apart any bit of video you can lay your hands on and have a play, cos why not? it seems ridiculous to me that nike can show everyone in this country how good their shoes look several times a day, but if i rip their advert and juxtapose it with some poor indonesian children they've oppressed and display that in public i can get sued.

its a question of freedom of speech. if the only people who are allowed to display video are the people who can afford it, then we end up with a very pro-buisness and very anti-individual artform.

[vjair]

some of the content i use is by other people (although its less as time goes on), which i pay for, but nowadays i generally make all my content.

for me, its very important to respect the wishes of the original artist and if they dont want it re-used in another way, then i dont. i also get much more satifaction knowing that what i use is mine, it is afterall what makes the shows i do unique to myself.

i dont in anyway support the feling that "a few well stolen clips wont hurt anyone" in my opinion, attitudes like this only harm a scene as soon it becomes the norm and discorages external support as it can be seen as lazy.

[USE]

personally i think it depends who you stole em off. if its some film or tv show which you wanted a few seconds of, its not like you are doing the filmmakers out of money, so whats the beef? if you are stealing clips of vjs, thats another kettle of fish, cos its an ongoing part of theri livelyhood.

[Kyle]

I presume with their permission and not just cut up demo reels?


hehehe funny, hanging out here in the forums has taught me about respect for others work. Over the years I have seen many discussions on the matter. I would never steal from demo reels but sample from fellow "Friend" VJs. I trade loops like baseball cards, got any loops for me?

[USE]

hehehe funny, hanging out here in the forums has taught me about respect for others work. Over the years I have seen many discussions on the matter. I would never steal from demo reels but sample from fellow "Friend" VJs. I trade loops like baseball cards, got any loops for me?

does anyone know what happened to vj cutup's exchange? i just get "untitled document" when i go there now, i was about to put some clipz up.

if not, where's good to stash em?

[Rovastar]

do you accept that what samplers do is a valid artform, but is seperate and different to what you do? it seems like u just want to see coldcut bankrupt cos you resent their fame at something you dont respect.

i think we agree that if you make all your own clips and mix em, then there are more skills put into the performance than if you just had a mix, but i beleive you shouldbe free to rip apart any bit of video you can lay your hands on and have a play, cos why not?

I admit I am not a great fan of samplers. It is easy way of obtaining footage which is a hell of a lot less effort than making it yourself. Yet a disproportionate amount of acclaim is bestowed upon the pro samplers. I don't understand it or think it is a good advert for VJing or creativity (making your own stuff).

Also I very rarely see samplers do it well, or be inventive in what they do, break now boundaries with techniques, etc. In music samples are used in conjunction with much other stuff. It is very rare that a track will be made up of just pure samples with no created content by the producer - ok I am sure they will be some but what percentage 1%, 0.1%, 0.01%, 0.00001% of all music. What percentage of music made has any samples at all it in bet it is way less than the VJs that use no sampling at all.

I surprise me that you say that if you make your own clips everyone agrees that more skills in your own stuff often in what I read the opposite is implied.

it seems ridiculous to me that nike can show everyone in this country how good their shoes look several times a day, but if i rip their advert and juxtapose it with some poor indonesian children they've oppressed and display that in public i can get sued.

its a question of freedom of speech. if the only people who are allowed to display video are the people who can afford it, then we end up with a very pro-buisness and very anti-individual artform.

I never said you were not allowed to display video. It is displaying other people?s video without permission is the problem.

I don't understanding how making all my own work makes me anti-individual. Surely the opposite is true.

[sleepytom]

<controversial point>
rovastar uses other peoples work in almost every single line of code he has ever written. He did not invent maths, nor did he invent the majority of the algorithms used in his software.
</controversial>

this ongoing circular argument is really stupid.. the reason that people like coldstaticmethod are popular is because the make good entertaining music/visuals that heavily reference popular culture. The see VJing as a parallel to DJing where by there is nothing wrong with playing popular records to get the crowd going.

fact:- its harder to become popular as a dj by playing your own creations - almost none of the currently popular live dance music acts started out with entirely selfcreated music even if they currently choose to produce it.

this is true for dance music visuals too; it is much easier to receive popular acclaim by showing video that is already popular. your selfcreated works will not be popular until hundreds of thousands of people have seen them (ie never in most cases).

IMHO the only thing that will actually improve the current situation is a venue licencing scheme for visuals as is inplace with PRS/PPL for music. If designed with proper care and attention this would enable VJs to play video samples legally and enable content creators to gain a revenue stream from such playback.

[deepvisual]

<controversial point>
rovastar uses other peoples work in almost every single line of code he has ever written. He did not invent maths, nor did he invent the majority of the algorithms used in his software.
</controversial>

agreed.
only people who make their own paint brushes, paint and paper can really claim to have created something unique.
as it is, people use all manner of tools made by someone else and still claim to be a 'creative' artist when actually they have just moved a few things around a bit.

IMHO the only thing that will actually improve the current situation is a venue licencing scheme for visuals as is inplace with PRS/PPL for music. If designed with proper care and attention this would enable VJs to play video samples legally and enable content creators to gain a revenue stream from such playback.


but really, do we need to improve things?
far better to avoid these stupid copyright laws - most of them only exist to help the rich get even richer. content creators who think they will be getting as rich as the corporations off the back of these schemes are just dreaming.

did Paul Macartney write rupert the bear? no. but he does own the copyright.
its just another commodity to be bought and sold. all this talk of creative rights is just tosh. edison didn't invent most of the things he is credited for but he did own the patents. its all about property. the rest of the argument is just a diversion.
we are in the digital age. its as easy to copy something as it is to blow your nose.

[SteveG]

What's that good saying about "Sleeping Dogs" :)

[USE]

What's that good saying about "Sleeping Dogs" :)

nevr been a fan of that saying :poke:

[Rovastar]

<controversial point>
rovastar uses other peoples work in almost every single line of code he has ever written. He did not invent maths, nor did he invent the majority of the algorithms used in his software.
</controversial>


LOL yeah and shakespeare never made anything original as many of the words he used had already been invented.

Obvioulsy no new maths discoveries or new orginal progrmas be written.

Remember folks Copyright protect *you* the orginal artist. There is much more copyrighted works held by individuals than by big corperates. All works you create yourself you have the rights too. How many forget that here is amazing.....

[sleepytom]

well exactly - their is a huge difference between "original" and "100% self created"

the sad fact of the matter rova is that copyright simply doesnt protect the individual against the corporations. It may of been intended to do so but in this modern age the laws are massively outdated and irrelevant to the way the modern world operates. The corporations like the status quo though as it enables them to consistently steal work and win cases against individuals, either by "large" out of court settlements, or by superior lawyers in court.

[holly]

Sad to see this went nowhere with nothing new being said by the same old people.

It's a pretend contraversy. Little boys playing at pirate. You get yourselves so worked up when the reality appears to be that no one (especially "big brother") cares. Don Quijote attacked windmills. What do you suppose the windmills thought about it?

[USE]

Sad to see this went nowhere with nothing new being said by the same old people.

i thought it was quite engaging. but then, this was the first thread about it i was involved in.

It's a pretend contraversy. Little boys playing at pirate. You get yourselves so worked up when the reality appears to be that no one (especially "big brother") cares. Don Quijote attacked windmills. What do you suppose the windmills thought about it?

i dont think im attacking windmills. im just genuinely worried that i could spend my life vjing only to made bankrupt by a film company or summat if and when i acheive some sort of success by mixing popular culture referenced with videos. i would love to be as certain as you are that im immune to prosecution, but the laws are there and potentially they apply to me and a lot of people on here. i just wanted to know what other people attitudes were.

i didnt think anyone would seriously be prosecuted for downloading song off each other, but they have, including children. i dont think the ruthlessness of buisness protecting its interests should be underestimated. or the willingness of teh government to back them up no matter what.

I never said you were not allowed to display video. It is displaying other people?s video without permission is the problem.

I don't understanding how making all my own work makes me anti-individual. Surely the opposite is true.

thats what im talking about. if i want to sample nike (that was the example, and i dont own the copyright) then potentially they can sure me for breach of copyright. but as an individual i think i should have a right to sample their work and portray it in a derogatory light. in that case the freedom of me as an individual is superceded by the right of teh company to protect itself. even tho what i am saying about them is actually more truthful than the image they project of themselves.

[holly]

i dont think im attacking windmills. im just genuinely worried that i could spend my life vjing only to made bankrupt by a film company or summat if and when i acheive some sort of success by mixing popular culture referenced with videos. i would love to be as certain as you are that im immune to prosecution, but the laws are there and potentially they apply to me and a lot of people on here. i just wanted to know what other people attitudes were.
I really don't mean to sound (too) condescending...:poke: But really, there's a lot of IFs in that statement. You should be so lucky to be so famous and make so much money and get that publicity.... The reality is that no VJs are on anyone's radar, so why be scared of shadows you are inventing.
:heart:
If you're really worried about the laws, you could move to the USA where free speach still seems to mean some-something and you are allowed to PARODY almost anything and get away with it (copyright-wise).

[shahar]

few words about stealing
at this very moment I actually steal your most precious asset
- your life time (the time you spend reading these lines)
I could have add many more words
but since I like you guys
I"ll stop now.

[USE]

I really don't mean to sound (too) condescending...:poke: But really, there's a lot of IFs in that statement. You should be so lucky to be so famous and make so much money and get that publicity.... :heart:

yea, you gotta have faith, tho, otherwise why do it? :drums: releived you knwo how condescending you sounded:up:

The reality is that no VJs are on anyone's radar, so why be scared of shadows you are inventing. im not scared, otherwise i wouldnt be doing it either. its just here is the best place to get as close to the truth as i can, so i am..

If you're really worried about the laws, you could move to the USA where free speach still seems to mean some-something and you are allowed to PARODY almost anything and get away with it (copyright-wise).

i think there are a few more laws that make the US a slightly less desirable place. i mean, it is the most aggressive nation state in the entire world, and the people seem to back that up. not that im havign a pop, i mean, england is a disgusting country as well, and i live here. but moving from uk to us is fryingpan into fire styles....

[videoswitchboard]

Here's an illegal sample (http://www.pointlesscreations.co.uk/jpegs/sampling.jpg) of D-Fuse's book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/VJ-Audio-visual-Art-Culture/dp/1856694909)... enjoy it while it's up.

I like Chris Allen's double double-edge sword sampling concept.

:heart:
dav

[disassembler]

Gotta love the quote (Chris Allen) "Everything is just a copy of another thing at some point or another. We're all made up of the same DNA".

This statement was made as justification for sampling.

I guess that means everyone should also get the death penalty when someone (their DNA) decides to kill someone. If your going to share the wealth, well you must share the starvation.

As long as one benefits from something, they will justify its existence, but once it backfires how easily opinions change.

Robbing someone scratches at the crust of economic exchange through intellectual property rights. Yo I just sampled your wallet, somehow its mine because we're all made of the same atoms and I'm going to reveal some deeper meaning about wallets using yours (burps up shrooms).

I mean what's yours is mine because we share DNA.

Two people can't wear the same pair of shoes at the same time, but they can step on your toes.

[deepvisual]

We're all made up of the same DNA".


I see chris was asleep during biology lessons.

amoebas are all made of the same DNA.
us humans are made of different DNA.

[Lucidhouse]

.
here we go again, anyone want to hold this Hot Potatoes?


For me it's quite clear, Art shouldn't have restrictions, the way people choose to express themselves should be free and open.
Sure there is blatant plagiarism and that just exposes the "sampler" for what they are , not very creative.
And there is the whole important financial side...using someone else's work, taking the fiscal and personal credit. [this is where the lawyers step in and make some cash for themselves}

But if it wasn't for sampling, Music and art wouldn't be what it is today and the world would be a much duller place.

examples: Folk music's life blood stems from sampling.
The Blues originated from Africa...passed down [sampled] from generation to generation, adapted and flavoured according to the individual musicians tastes.
Most Photography, Painting and sculpture stems from sampling the real world.

what am I trying to say... Well sampling per say is not a cheep and dirty art form, but the way that you sample and use the material could diminish your artwork,
so be sensitive in what you decide to sample and how you interpret it.

.

[sleepytom]

I see chris was asleep during biology lessons.

amoebas are all made of the same DNA.
us humans are made of different DNA.
err i guess you were also sleeping...

there are genetic variations in the amoeba population too.

anyway why do people always fall back to piss poor analogies when discussing sampling? on the one hand people are shitting on about DNA on the other people are jumping in at the deep end by comparing people who sample video to rapists and murderers????

please get a grip here people - even if you believe sampling to be a crime then you have to admit it is fairly minor. Even if i come round to your house to break in and steal your hard disks so i can sample your clips it is not comparable with rape or murder.

To return to science briefly perhaps it would do you all good to study a little evolution. Evolution is not only a genetic process but can be applied to the spread of ideas as social evolution. This concept requires the building of ideas on top of one another - no idea is truly original as they are all based on the collective evolution of society.

we are all influenced by others and collectively we improve by a process of copying and "sampling" of what has gone before. If we lived in a society that valued the whole more than the individual then perhaps sampling would be a legally protected method rather than a illegal artform? Personally i truly believe the world would be a better place as a whole without any form of copyright.

[SteveG]

we are all influenced by others and collectively we improve by a process of copying and "sampling" of what has gone before.

The process takes longer for Politicians :censored:

[holly]

i think there are a few more laws that make the US a slightly less desirable place. i mean, it is the most aggressive nation state in the entire world....
Well, here we go. If YOU want something you have every right to go out and TAKE it and soverign ownership be damned..., but when a country goes out and takes what it wants that is bad bad bad....

Life would be simpler if there was ONE code that worked for everyone, but really samplers will do what they want and justify it in whatever terms they choose. Countries obviously will too, so I guess we DO live by a common code.... Just think of yourself as the big bad USA and take whatever you want and distort it to your purpose and see if anyone will bother to try to stop you. A lot of people will whine, but judging by this thread they're so busy going off topic with war, rape, murder that they are unlikely to ever get their shit together to do anything about it.
:angel:
If it is a valid statement you are making then it is your obligation to say it no matter how scared you are. Not knowing your particular sample, I'd have to believe their are more important battles to fight than whatever you have against Nike(?). If you are going to stick out your neck for a cause, maybe it could be against aggressor nations rather than trendy shoe products, but eh, as an artist it is your choice and I support your right to say it by any means. Truely, why don't you do it and see. Youtube seems to be full of corporate parody, and it is based in the USA so you should be safe legally to release it there.

In the words of Oscar Wilde:
"It is better to regret something you HAVE done, than to regret something you have not."
:queenofhe

I like your new avatar!:yep:

[sleepytom]

nike are a well hated corporation for their use of sweatshop and child labour. I'd hope that someone concerned with gender politics would of known this but i guess its not actually obvious unless you choose to look.

I think your actually incorrect about the amount of freedom the US "fair use" clause gives. I know that nike have attempted to sue various organisations for use of the swoosh in parody / political clothing.

The core inequality remains the same - in a world where their is no legal-aid in civil cases (such as libel or copyright infringement) it is often enough for a corporation to threaten legal action. Even if your 100% certain you will win a court case can you afford to pay a legal team to argue your case? or can you afford the time off work to defend yourself?

[SilentEclipse]

Coldcut story, cant remember if it was Matt Black who told me this or someone else...

James brown tried to sue them for sampling his beats, in response they remixed one of his tracks and sent it to them.

Later on they received a PHAT cheque and a request for them to remix his whole album....

Sampling is bad kids..mkay

'Dont.. dont.. dont.. believe the HYPE'

[holly]

I think your actually incorrect about the amount of freedom the US "fair use" clause gives. I know that nike have attempted to sue various organisations for use of the swoosh in parody / political clothing.
There is a difference between COPYRIGHT law and TRADEMARK law. The "swoosh" is a trademark, not a copyright. In essence, if I took a quote by SleepyTom and mangled or repeated it as if it were my own words, that would be a copyright issue.... If I mangled his words and then signed his name, that would be a trademark issue.

Similarly, If I logged in to VJf as Sleepytom and said a bunch of shit he didn't like, that would be a much more serious issue than if I just repeated what he said and acted as if it were my own genius.

[Brinkman]

Don't get me wrong - I make a lot of my own content but I also use A LOT of other footage I did not create.

I compare myself to rap and hip-hop artists that sample old music to create an all new song. I am a SAMPLER first and foremost but I change the footage drastically during presentation with effects, additional layers and blend other footage in and out of whatever I am sampling.

I understand copyright laws perfectly - I just ignore them for the sake of my art.

[disassembler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPe89EqilZ4&NR

So many issues in the world.

[disassembler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wAJ4CBQshc&mode=related&search=

[disassembler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDw1fkvF73I&mode=related&search=

[disassembler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijuMWKCmgqg&mode=related&search=

[hamageddon]

So many issues in the world.

http://static.userland.com/sh4/images/schockwellenreiter/nilpferd.jpg

[sleepytom]

fuck fat people...


[image removed by elbows in april because google image search seems to be picking up the image and hammering vjforums site, causing server problems]

[disassembler]

Very sad image indeed Tom.

[USE]

http://www.actionaid.org/

and for those of you with rich mates who you dont know what to get for christmas.... http://www.oxfamunwrapped.com/

[vjpixylight]

there is always little girls that will set you all straight:Smoking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8x14cLGh5o

[vjpixylight]

and the Bill O'Reilly,s response..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjc9g1-4ytI&NR

[vjpixylight]

and more..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHBqDtXmwbY&mode=related&search=

what does this all have to do with copyright? Well I would point out wether it is copyright or free speech, someone will always have an issue with what you do or say...

[holly]

Mmmmmmmkay. This youtoob thing is spiraling into silliness, but I have to say I like sassy propaganda coming from an 8yr old wearing animal print armwarmers. Very funny!

Not much to do with fear of copyright, tho. Some of us obviously have too much free time at work....

[vjpixylight]

just pointing out that when pushing the envelope of the status quo, wether with copyright control, or parental control, there is never going to be a clearcut solution that will please all the people involved. It seems to me that those who use copyright protection to keep the status quo, actually stifle the creative process, and those who choose to question copyrights absolute authority, are the ones that get the plubicity. Shock value, wether it is an 8 year old using colorful language, or a VJ remixing a contriversial film piece, is sure to raise some eyebrows.

[vjpixylight]

Mmmmmmmkay. This youtoob thing is spiraling into silliness, but I have to say I like sassy propaganda coming from an 8yr old wearing animal print armwarmers. Very funny!

Not much to do with fear of copyright, tho. Some of us obviously have too much free time at work....

haha yea, maybe it's remicent of a young Holly back in the day:queenofheart:
The thing is, that tho the video might be a bit disconcerting for some, it does open up the dialogue about innocence and what society deems appropiate for how children behave. I think it says alot for how children can have a very adult opinion in todays world, and that children need to be heard. I liked the video myself, and it remindes me of another VJ's kid(Jane da pain) using language to get reactions(that would be the cusskid). I think that using aquired footage does the same. It is more than stealing a clip, it goes to the heart of where freedom of expression can go.

[holly]

I'm trying to see how free speech = no copyright.... I'm really trying, but it is such a stretch. Free Speech is a civil right because it is necessary to testify against tyranny and injustice, to identify and exchange as a minority, and to prevent the concept of "thought criminals" -- people whose ideas are deemed threatening to the status quo. It's NOT a civil right so you can hold your dick and sing DannyBoy in a trainstation. I mean, it's a right because it is essential for a free society.

Copyright is meant to prevent an unscrupulous publisher from distributing a work that is not in the public domain (ie, owned by somebody). It's supposed to prevent unfair competition. It is currently being used to threaten all sorts of usage in the digital age, but aside from a lot of saber rattling I don't see it crippling society -- certainly not live VJs.

We are not creating unfair competition with movie studios or broadcast television. It's apples to oranges. Recontextualization. The music industry is different because it's apples to apples, a song being used to make another song = unfair competition. Downloading free mp3s is also unfair competition (distribution). But we don't show on the movie industries radar unless we try to publish remixes that are so complete they begin to threaten sales of the original. That seems really unlikely to happen. First will be the torrents and networks that distribute the full movie (or large un-remixed chunks of it).

The day a studio sues a VJ for copyright is the day a dozen companies will try to license films to VJs. It's win-win. Meanwhile, more movie studios will offer remixes as a way to promote their films = we all have jobs. They will BEG us to remix their crap films and we will say NO! NO! I will not remix your crappy teen slasher fick at Cannes. NO! Not for less than a zillion dollars!

[vjpixylight]

it's all about commentary on a subject isn't it? Social commentary on a VJ remix of Star Wars might say that it's more than good vs. evil, by remixing Darth Vader to look like he just has a helmet complex.
Free speech can be used as commentary about what we see and think in todays popular culture, nothing less, nothing more. Art always has a way of becoming intermixed with this commentary, and those who own copyrights on their art, don't want to see any other views but there own on the subjects they present. It might expose the fact that their originality isn't very original in the first place. Now, Blatant coping and reselling of content under another name without no commentary (purely for economic gain) is neither artistic, or free speech, and should be condemned as out and out stealing. But this really doesn't apply to VJing in any way.