ethics and vjing

[numbskull]

hey all,

i had this question long time ago but no one in my country could give me a direct answer.

i want to know if usin scenes or visuals from dvds (movies, concerts, etc...) are ethically allowed?

thanks,

[Bokonon]

Thats a question for you to answer, that being the nature of ethics.

My personal ethics say yes, but follow the 11th commandment at all times. (don't get caught).

The strict legal stance will change from place to place, but the licenses will generally say no reporduction etc. without permission - in the UK this can be aquired (I think) like music on a blanket license, however, the legal issues will arise when you get to the bit in the license which says all about making changes to the content, which will probably be non-negotiable.

[bryandod]

There has been alot of debate about Sampling on this forum. You will not be able to get a consensus on this topic here. I personally choose to use samples in my sets, but not many and usually they are highly manipulated.

[Anyone]

if you're not making a profit from it,
then its unlikely any bad vibes will come your way...

[holly]

I did my first 100% sampled set recently at EyeWash. But it was a very deliberate "culture media" set. It was about featuring the samples, not disguising them. There was no fx, just scratching and time manipulation.

People liked it. (didn't make a profit... it was an art show.) No one made a fuss about samples, as that was obviously the whole point. Not sure I'd do it at a clubby-party where a cultural theme might be wasted, but it worked as art and was interesting thing to try. Someone started shouting out the sources they recognized (pretty obscure genres) and I thought it just made it more fun. Like a game show, har har.

If you're going to sample, go ahead and sample. Don't really see the point of finding a sample and then effecting it to the point it can't be recognized. Not saying that's SO bad unless you're just trying to pad your loops with someone else's mix or something.... The difference in showing off an iconic sample verses trying to take credit for it should be obvious. Culture deserves commentary and remix, but just stealing someone else's art to pad your show doesn't say much about you or what you think. Most of your artist peers would think that is pretty lame. Content from samples is easy to make, commentary from samples is a little harder.

So why be all sneaky about it? If a sample is cool then let it shine and be cool (or polish it until it's more stylish like Warhol's celebrity paintings). There is something to it that you find interesting or beautiful or ugly or meaningful.... If you need to obscure it under heavy fx it probably wasn't that cool to begin with.

[SteveG]

Take a look at the latest interview here with Exceeda....check out the sampling here if your worried :)

http://www.djsounds.com/

[Rovastar]

Take a look at the latest interview here with Exceeda....check out the sampling here if your worried :)

http://www.djsounds.com/

Where are the damn corp lawyers when you need them? Some people need a good sueing.........

[SteveG]

That's entertainment :) I think that sampling like this is accepted as part of modern day life and it's acceptance came with the internet, Youtube etc etc. If Hollywood employs VJ's to re-mix film trailers it shows that they find it entertaining, acceptable and useful. In a round about way they even encourage it. As long as nobody is getting rich over it;) And as Exceeda quickly pointed out any clips for release on any DVD have had licenses applied for and granted.

[numbskull]

well my vjing is always kinda underground sometimes (vjing for psytrance events), but our scene is gettin bigger and bigger(but hopefully will not gonna go commercial) and psytrance needs some trippy scenes behind the fx(heavy,light or none)
in our last gig i emphasized-besides my own animations and visuals- on movies (simple small scenes and cuts from different movies; japanese ringu, casshern, old school animations found at my universties library, etc...)

i was asked recently to give a sample or showreel for a radio station (slash event organizer for international DJs)... so am askin u guys (international VJ community) if am i allowed to show this same set as a showreel or sample to the station?

PS: i never used others samples(which i didnt know that i could, so in the upcomin gig i will use ur own and send u feedbacks bout it)

respect and thanks for helpin me,

[numbskull]

ahh and one thing i added to my visuals was parts of the visual mix found on (sasha and john digweed's DELTA HEAVY dvd)

[dvjprotohippy]

I don't really see a problem with it either. We love to sample old movie clips to effect, scratch and manipulate in different ways. Like Holly said, some people get a kick out of recognizing certain samples. We recently did a corporate gig here in the Alamo city, and used a bunch of old spaghetti westerns and such to give it an "Old West" feel. We were launching a mexican beer, so it made it a little more fun for everyone there. Sampling is cool, just straight up ripping off people's performances is not. I have been to parties where the "VJ" was just some kid running old Moonshine Mixes (the old A/V Mix series they did), claiming that it was his own (Hard to miss the V2 logo, or some of the other ones as well........) That is wrong, now had that kid just sampled a few spots, and mixed in his own material, it would be a different story.

[Motionreactor]

The simple answer is. If you are prepared to manage your clip library by tracking copyright for each individually sampled video and working within a massively complex set of local and international laws then by all means sample. Otherwise, don't...

[numbskull]

seems that ur replies are kinda varying on location basis or so, so as i can understand that it all depends on what country u live in and where are u goin to play it

respect,

[holly]

Laws are different in different countries. Playing video samples at a live show has never (in my knowledge) ever caused any legal problems. Things like social commentary, recontextualization, and satire are protected in the US. The real issues are TRADEMARK where the laws are much less ambiguous, and PUBLISHING where actual copyright violation could be prosecuted.

Look at the Youtube lawsuits. What is being pursued is whole episodes of tv shows. What is NOT being pursued is the satirical mashups (starwars crossed with sesame street, etc) even though these mashups use actual uneffected footage from the original sources.

Do some research and look for ACTUAL artists who've been involved in ACTUAL legal cases over copyright. It does happen, but it almost always happens because they stole from another artist!

I say this everytime but it's worth saying again: Warhol LOST every copyright battle against other artists when he stole art to make more art (photographs of flowers ripped from magazines to make his silk screen paintings of flowers, for example). He WON the copyright battle against Campbell's Soup because there is no competition between soup and art (however, it is generally believed that had Campbells sued for trademark violation they would have won because he flaunted their trademark).

These two lawsuits involving the same artist (Warhol was clearly not afraid of violating copyrights) illustrates everything you need to know. When he "sampled" the flowers he put them through a major mechanical process (think filters and fx) to make them into silkscreens and then used their shape to create paintings totally different from the original photographs, but it doesn't matter. Art=art, therefore he is taking unfair advantage within his industry which is illegal. In contrast, Campbell's Soup was a well-known cultural icon, very recognizable, and the point of the soup can paintings was not to obscure the labels under fx but to clearly represent the cans in a painting. This was NOT a copyright violation because soup≠art. There is no competition between the art and food industries.

In VJ terms: stealing from an audio-visual mix to make another audio-visual mix is a copyright violation. Proceed at your own legal risk and reputation.... Stealing from a Hollywood movie to make an audio-visual mix is recontextualization, and if you can manage to have even the barest shadow of social commentary you should be fine (at least until you try to publish it, then you need more than a shadow).

[john01]

We recently did a corporate gig here in the Alamo city, and used a bunch of old spaghetti westerns and such to give it an "Old West" feel. We were launching a mexican beer, so it made it a little more fun for everyone there.

If you are doing a product launch you should pay for the copyright.

In this situation I would have made some clips myself, playing cowboys would be quite fun.

I think the problem of sampling culture is that it is killing creativity. We no longer stretch ourselves. If you had recreated a classic scene you would have learnt techniques which you could have gone on to use to create something original. On top of that you would have been able to add a contemporary twist to the myth.

I used to sample, and there are clips I love because they mean something to me, Robert Donat from The 39 Steps looking totally handsome represents something quintessential to me. However more and more I want to create original material, and to shoot it with the end product in mind. If we only sample the creative process becomes a selection process.

So I wouldn't really worry about the ethics of copyright, and how they vary from place to place, I would worry about the lack of originality.

[VGA]

hey yeah i am gonna go out and recreate all the footage I just ripped off a pile of DVD's I got from the pound shop.

lets see, vintage aircraft flying over the uk countryside.
right, all I need are some vintage aeroplanes and a camera crew and the right weather and oh yeah some of that nice kodak film stock from the seventies cuz thats what it was telecined from in the first place and blah blah blah

fuck originality I want nice visuals.

[john01]

What you have just said is an admission that you feel you cannot create something original and nice, I think you can.

I live next to an airport for light aircraft, if you want I'll go out and shoot them taking off, there are some choppers too. I've started exchanging footage with another guy on this board, I'm getting some clips ready right now.

I think for older stuff my morality check is whether or not I think the guy who actually shot the stuff would appreciate it being used now.

[Rovastar]

In VJ terms: stealing from an audio-visual mix to make another audio-visual mix is a copyright violation. Proceed at your own legal risk and reputation.... Stealing from a Hollywood movie to make an audio-visual mix is recontextualization, and if you can manage to have even the barest shadow of social commentary you should be fine (at least until you try to publish it, then you need more than a shadow).

As you were talking about actual cases Holly where is it said that stealing/re-contextualization is ok by using Hollywood movies?
Like much of the law (and this thread was about ethics rather than law but I'll get to that later) in this area it is untested let alone unproven.
I would still say legally it is all in the hands of the original copyright holders. The nearest we have to this is music samples and there 99% of the time the original owners have the rights to if they choose to control it they can do and get paid accordingly. The precedents haven't been set yet AFAIK as to what is allowed and what payment plans are need to authorise such samples.

I get really worried when I see advice like "it will be ok to use Hollywood stuff" Practically yes as they unlikely to be bothered to sue. It may be ok but legally I see nothing but negative and problematic situations for using it.

Generally if you ask the question "can I put this on a DVD and sell it?" will answer your legal questions. As it makes no difference in the law if you are using it for profit or not and I would argue that most VJs is doing "paid" work with getting some payment (whether something in kind or hard cash). It is just in a live setting you have more flexibility and the profit you make are less and therefore less likelihood of legal action.

So "can I put xyz Hollywood movie sample on a DVD that I sell?" and I think most would agree the answer is no. A live setting make no difference legally.

Ethically this is a different question and a lot more subjective than the law which often represents the peoples ethical stance on many things with attempts at guidelines of what is ok or not ok.

Ethically some see it is the big company (although I have yet to see even attempts at definitions at what is fair game a film company with Warner Bros, a small animation studio like Aardman Animations or ripping something from a website where you have little idea how big or small a company is or any pressed DVD like Eyewash) and ok to do with what you will. Others see any work you take as breaking the rules ethically. I see what special effects, etc they make in movies as creative work that someone did and would not dream of cut and pasting them into a set I did.

Ethics are a complex business and there is no "right" answer especially in such grey areas like this.

[john01]

I don't know about everywhere else but there are copyright laws on fonts here. Basically you have to buy the font for the machine the work is produced on. Remember Japanese has several thousand kanji that have to be created, it's a huge task to create a font, and they deserve some payment for their labour.

This is a bit of a pain at times, means that if you are doing an offline edit followed by an online edit you need to check the online studio has the font on their machine before you get client approval, technically it is a breach of copyright to take along your copy and install it on their machine.

[VGA]

No, what I said is there is a whole world of video, film, 3d art, photos, paintings, vector art, etc which is SOURCE MATERIAL for turning into new and exciting visuals for all manner of applications.

If I want some fat 50 year old monkeys flying chipmunks I can go shoot them myself, but what I cannot shoot is the hindenburg zeppelin flying over new york prior to its untimely demise.

I can't shoot footage from the past, I can't recreate it, but I want to use it.
I used to be a professional 3d modeller and animator. Because now I source a model (bought from turbosquid, or free from the web, or ripped right out of a video game) rather than model it myself, does that make me any less of an artist?
I could make it if I wanted to, but what would be the point.
Someone else has done that, saving me hundreds of hours.
Now I am taking it and reusing it for something else.
I am a scavenger, hoarder and hacker.
Morality? What I do with stuff is so far removed from the original intention that it falls squarly under the old fair use thingy.

Now I am gonna go eat a cheese sandwich.
Oh shit, its not original! someone else came up with the concept of bread, someone else made the bread. Cows! I am gonna have to evolve my own species of dairy animal next.

[Rovastar]

I used to be a professional 3d modeller and animator. Because now I source a model (bought from turbosquid, or free from the web, or ripped right out of a video game) rather than model it myself, does that make me any less of an artist?


In a word Yes.

Do you think it makes you MORE of an artist by ripping a model?

You imply it does as you think you are not less of an artist you must think of yourself equal or more then those that create the material you use.

It takes seconds to rip and you know how long it takes to create something.

[john01]

I think copy culture is killing ideas

The process of creation is often where the ideas come from, without it we get identikit products

[fluchtpunkt]

i want to know if usin scenes or visuals from dvds (movies, concerts, etc...) are ethically allowed?

thanks,

the answer to the ethicallity you will indeed have to find yourself.

there are a lot of 'samplers' out there as well as quite a few people who strongly object to such practices. i think we can safely assume that neither group is likely to disapear.

[VGA]

Yes, Rova, it takes a long time to make a 3d model.
So why make it if it exists?
Why does a 3d pipeline comprise conceptual artists, artists, modellers, riggers, animators, rendermonkeys, compositors? not too mention programmers, scripters, managers, producers etc etc.
it is a big job. so is video production
as a one man show, trying to to everything yourself is just fucking stupid.

copying stuff is killing originality?

another rather silly catch all statement.

go back to what Holly said about Warhol.
don't listen to any hip hop, god forbid you should hear something with an amen break in it. go make your own clothes, talk your own language, evolve your own fucking form of life.

[holly]

I think copy culture is killing ideas

The process of creation is often where the ideas come from, without it we get identikit products
That's a really wide statement that doesn't hold up when you go into specifics and real world examples. In my EyeWash set I didn't sample anything after 1969 (no legal reason for it, just the looks I wanted to show), most was from much earlier. I found obscure pairings and trios that worked thematically together. All of the footage was visually excellent, featuring techniques and skills that do not exist today. A large portion of the show was in black&white or early technicolor, qualities of media that are rare today -- probably a first at a VJ salon which has featured over 100+ video artists.

This was not "copy culture", it was "recovered culture". Very few people had seen any of the footage before, and suddenly seeing it next to similar footage and similar ideas makes you realize there was a whole movement and zeitgeist that was at work. There's value in awareness. People could learn a little history.

Plenty of great ideas have been lost in the constant urge for "new" and "next", not to mention prejudiced dogma that says "my way is right, and any other way wrong". Retro is as valid a culture as any other, also because it distills a cultural movement over time so you have the opportunity to put creative genius from different times and places so the look is actually reinforced -- even though history never quite happened that way....

There was a nice essay on NEO verses RETRO and how they are different interpretations on the past (but I couldn't be bothered to find it since it's unlikely anyone would read it). Retro is more like a cut-up of defining parts, while Neo is revisionist and allows contemporary ideas outside the style.... Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is retro, Mars Attacks!is neo.... Neither is a MORE valid interpretation than the other, as they each have their use.

This is assuming you're not just looping random crap from the internet. I've never thought that was worth mentioning, but I *do* realize that is what we're really talking about here....

If you HAVE to steal other people's content because you can't make your own, then maybe you could learn how to make some content? It's not that hard really. Might surprise yourself.

Rova, I can just as easily say that your opinions are also invalid because they have not been proven by the courts. Have a read at copyright laws and it is spelled out what they are meant to protect: FAIR COMPETITION. Proving unfair competition is the burden of the prosecutors. The US law is very careful to include the idea that copyrights END and society and culture can superceed. Of course there are practical limits. Publishing a dvd of remixed movies *is* probably going to be competition against the movies on dvd. If they can be sold on the same media in the same store that is competition.... Most people's "sampling" and copyright (mis)information comes from the music industry where song=song (always direct competition, no way around it), and where publishing and licensing agreements pre-date recorded media.

As I already said, have a search for previous artists who've been sued for copyright. You can draw your own conclusions based on real court cases rather than imagination and bravura -- although facts have little merit in forumland.

[xangadix]

Isn't the whole ownership debate in the end in the hands of the owner?! Most people are thrilled to have their footage exposed; painters, young film makers, 3d moddelers in their off-hours etc. etc.
If you come up to them and say; "let's get a can of beer and a computer and we're gonna beam your shit in clubs!" Most people say yeah! great idea! and just DO it.

When you never met the people you are sampling from, think about if they liked it to be sampled. So let's say I was Don Johnson, I walk into a club in Amsterdam and somebody would be playing the intro to the old miami vice because it fits with the "retrosexual atmosphere" of the evening. Would he mind? I don't think so. He would be boozed up smiling to his friends and have a beer. I really do. He probably thinks it's going to sell him more dvds. If I was to publish it (as holly said) on DVD it's a different ball game.

I really think that most copyright owners wouldn't mind being referred to in a live show.

So back to the footage of the airplanes over England. You actually can make that. There is excellent stock footage of the english landscape; just model in a couple of planes and there you go.
But if you want that specific shot of airplanes, then I would think about if it was for a live show or how much you really need it ;)

Still, nobody touches my three Aranovsky samples :not worth

[john01]

That's a really wide statement that doesn't hold up when you go into specifics and real world examples. In my EyeWash set I didn't sample anything after 1969

I'd say walk into a club and you'll see & hear plenty of real world examples.

Certainly there is a lot we can learn from the past, and recontextualising is a valid creative contribution, art has always progressed in this way. However in the past the analogue process demanded a degree of forethought, now people tend to try something, almost at random and see what comes out the other end. So the creative process has become a process of selection from a variety of options. Taste has replaced vision.

Command Z

Think I'll change my VJ name to The Selector

[holly]

However in the past the analogue process demanded a degree of forethought, now people tend to try something, almost at random and see what comes out the other end. So the creative process has become a process of selection from a variety of options. Taste has replaced vision.

:rolleyes: You are blaming a method (sampling) for a problem that is much more basic: lack of talent. What are all these Idol competitions for if not to prove to people they are much LESS talented than they think?

I don't see an erosion of taste (:tinfoil: well... let me take that back). What I see is ubiquitous kungfu+anime video being chopped into bad arts 'n' crafts. That shows the limits of the VJ's taste and media awareness, not the limits of sampling itself.

Why do I think Rauchenberg is bleh but Warhol is great fun? Same era. Same method of "sampling" silkscreens... But their vision and focus is totally different. Since it's all just "sampling" of pop culture it should all be the same, right? Of course it isn't, and therein lies the great debate: who is a "better" artist?

Rauchenberg vs Warhol?
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/SHD/s1714_b.jpg http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/PF%5C452005/pf_1522634_b.jpg
The answer is apparently Warhol, since he is better known and just sold for a record 71 Million Dollars (http://www.javno.com/en/lifestyle/clanak.php?id=45154)!


John, your conceit seems to be that everyone can and should become a great artist. That's a utopia world, but very unlikely. How many little girls take dance class but never become ballerinas? How many little boys play with toy guns but don't become sherriff? Everyone who ever bought a record has pretended to be a DJ...!:poke:Clubs are social spaces for people to play and experiment (with sex, with drugs, with personae) before they grow up.... It's extremely unlikely that anyone becomes a great artist in a disco. There are better places to develop your art (and do drugs, and have sex) once (if) you become serious about it. Eventually clubs are limiting and boring and one-beat. They keep the music so loud because kiddies have nothing interesting to say, and that only gets worse as the night wears on. They keep it dark to boost the chances you'll get laid -- the more likely you'll come back for more. Is it any surprise people stop going out once they get in a relationship? Hmmmm.
:P

When magazines first came out (c.1900s) people thought they were the most amazing things! The first true (disposable) mass-media! They cut out the photos from advertisements and decorated their homes with them. They even put magazine ads next to their own family portraits (if they could afford to have family photos taken). I can easily imagine someone taking the time to arrange their adverts in small crowded frames on a presentation shelf or dresser. Very proud of "their" pics and happy to have the opportunity to show them off to friends!

As proof of how pervasive magazine "sampling" was back then, even the American image of Santa Claus came from magazine ads for cocafuckincola that people would use to decorate their homes for the holidays:
http://jerryandmartha.com/yourdailyart/images/sundblom2.jpg

I'm sure there were plenty of cognoscenti who thought this was the end of society, yet somehow interior decorating has survived.... Nowadays it would seem very strange to buy a frame and leave the paper photo in it. Decorating with magazine pages is so unsophisticated, but today we have the web and our laptops and a zillion bedroom wannabe VJs who are doing the same thing. It's just a matter of time before this also becomes uncouth.... Probably around the time smell-ipods become popular or whatever the next disposable media fad will be....

This has become offtopic, but the point is: VJs will continue to show random simplistic web-crap mixed with Akira until the newness of "mix 'n' mash" wears off. Those with an eye will learn faster. Those who really WANT to improve their game will rehearse and study their own recordings. Everyone else will be a casual hobbiest with a pair of scissors. Honestly, do any professional VJs stress over this copyright issue? By the time you're making money at it you've already settled on a style. Samplng is just another artistic choice. Plenty of bad art is made on computers without sampling, so perhaps we should outlaw computers as an artistic tool?
:lol2:
Having a computer doesn't make art easier anymore than the ballpoint pen made writing poetry easier. Like most things in life, what you get out of it is in direct relation to the amount of time and effort you put into it.
:cheers:

[numbskull]

thats weird i didnt beleive of it as that much of a subject, but seems that everyone's fallin into this dilemma

anyways i tottaly agree with VGA with the modelling and recontextualization, since am a modeller and animator too and i see wat we face daily... the world is in continuous evolution and to follow, artists shud stand beside each other, so wat others model or sample and we use just for us to be more and more creative under the influence of havin more time for our own visions is wat helps in this evolution.

sampling from different movies, i beleive this shouldn't be sued or takin a grudge for, since not only its givin credit for the director or moviemakers ut even it helps more when addin it to ur animations and samples....

wats better than seein a raver or the one whos watchin my visuals with the different movie samples (like aronofsky's fast cuts, added to some light fx) tryin to recognise wat hes seein -though happy that hes familiar with wat hes trippin on- and moving on the synchronized beats to that visuals...

and wats better in savin time for doin a better work when buyin a model from another artist (like for example a dragon or somethin) -where the other artist is benefitting financially with it- and throwin it in ur own artistic view in ur visuals or samples; knowing that a dragon will stay a dragon (until addin ur own touch of creativity to it), and realizing that u are modelling the same dragon where ur goin to save at least like 10 hrs with modelling it.

besides all wat is done is kinda of a tribute to that artist or movie coz who the fuck doesnt know or didnt watch aronofsky's requiem for a dream or even pi, who didnt watch the ring (or even ringu) and so on
everyone knows whos samples are these for, but the creative part comes with ur own touch to it (either by fx, speed, selecting frames or even where and when u play them)

ofcoarse my own visuals and samples are there, heck they provide more than 60% of my VJing, but in my own opinion, makin a raver setting forth his memories is the best trip ever, coz a person comes to a raving or musical scene to enjoy, have fun and forget all worries surrouding his life, everyone's mind in this world nowadays is busy thinking even while enjoyin his own gendre and style of music

SO wats more creative in VJing than u deciding wat this raver thinks or remembers... thats in my opinion wat makes a good VJ, besides his own visual style

am not defending stealing samples, coz this i another thing, just disussing the movies and animations sampling from the ethical P.O.V

(i needed to point to some other things, but i still have less than 5 min left before electricity goes off at 1800hr -lebanese fucked up way of life- so i have to submit my post b4 that)


peace and respect,

[holly]

where the hell did my post go :|
it's here. for some reason spambot unapproved it (don't know why, there are no links in it). Now you are up to 7 posts and I think that should make you legit in spambot's universe(?).

[vj_jasper]

ethics?

to your own soul be true

[Rovastar]

Rova, I can just as easily say that your opinions are also invalid because they have not been proven by the courts. Have a read at copyright laws and it is spelled out what they are meant to protect: FAIR COMPETITION. Proving unfair competition is the burden of the prosecutors. The US law is very careful to include the idea that copyrights END and society and culture can superceed. Of course there are practical limits. Publishing a dvd of remixed movies *is* probably going to be competition against the movies on dvd. If they can be sold on the same media in the same store that is competition.... Most people's "sampling" and copyright (mis)information comes from the music industry where song=song (always direct competition, no way around it), and where publishing and licensing agreements pre-date recorded media.


True they have not been tested but there is fair more reason to suggest that copyright laws will hold out when VJs sample others works (like the link with music samples that I will explain below). Like I say I have seen very little even ethical guidance amongst the community with this let alone and legal consideration for

Fair competition is ONE of the reasons for copyright. It is also to protect the persons work sometimes I think people forgot this.
Just because you change the media doesn't mean that you are exempt from copyright.

If you posted a visuals of a film "sample" on the Internet and maybe you would argue that you are changing the media then it doesn't make it ok.

Even if it was like that you would have to argue that VJing is a whole different type of medium (playing clips of a visual media back) whereas it is just visuals really, guess what, like film. Hence the common link to music "sampling". Sometimes I think VJing consider themselves far too special and can do no wrong.

You will break many copyright laws public performance, etc for the LICENSE you have for the the DVD of the film you ripped, etc.

You cannot just use but a copyrighted image/photo on your website for you company. Even if the image is not in direct competition with what your company does. If have a background on your website that a texture artist made for sale or you ripped one from Apples website, etc doesn't make it legally right that you can use it for your company. This is the same example (with different media) as you stated. You know this Holly.

Here is a brief explanation of copyright

"Copyright gives the creators of a wide range of material, such as literature (any text), art (any images), music, (any sounds), films (any movies - amateur or otherwise) and broadcasts (radio, tv, mobile phone or anything else), economic rights enabling them to control use of their material in a number of ways, such as (but not limited to) making copies, issuing copies to the public, performing in public, broadcasting and the usage on the Internet. It also gives the moral rights to be identified as the creator and owner of certain kinds of material, and to object to distortion or mutilation of it.

The main purpose of copyright is to allow original creators to gain economic rewards for their efforts and so encourage continued creativity and inspire the development of new material to benefit us all. Copyright material is usually the result of creative skill and significant labour or investment, and without protection, it would often be very easy for others to exploit material without paying the creator.
Usage of copyright material therefore require permission from the copyright owner."

[Rovastar]

thats weird i didnt beleive of it as that much of a subject, but seems that everyone's fallin into this dilemma


anyways i tottaly agree with VGA with the modelling and recontextualization, since am a modeller and animator too and i see wat we face daily... the world is in continuous evolution and to follow, artists shud stand beside each other, so wat others model or sample and we use just for us to be more and more creative under the influence of havin more time for our own visions is wat helps in this evolution.


It seems you have already made up your mind before you even posted so I am confused as to why you posted tbh.


sampling from different movies, i beleive this shouldn't be sued or takin a grudge for, since not only its givin credit for the director or moviemakers ut even it helps more when addin it to ur animations and samples....


And what credit do you give them? Do you have text on the screen for the duration of the clip saying who made and where the clips are from?


and wats better in savin time for doin a better work when buyin a model from another artist (like for example a dragon or somethin) -where the other artist is benefitting financially with it- and throwin it in ur own artistic view in ur visuals or samples; knowing that a dragon will stay a dragon (until addin ur own touch of creativity to it), and realizing that u are modelling the same dragon where ur goin to save at least like 10 hrs with modelling it.


I have little problem with the paying aspect of it although it would be much better if you have the ability to make it yourself to do so. Having a generic dragon is hardly original.

So you would have made EXACTLY the same dragon? Somehow I doubt it and if you did what an uncanny coincidence it would be if you never saw it before!


am not defending stealing samples, coz this i another thing, just disussing the movies and animations sampling from the ethical P.O.V


It sounds like you are defending stealing, at least defending it ethically, in your mind.

I have much lower objections if you have the samples all cleared/paid for but this not the case here with many examples.

[Rovastar]

Isn't the whole ownership debate in the end in the hands of the owner?!

Totally agree that is what copyright is all about. How you want to distructe the footage, etc is up to you - who made the content.

Most people are thrilled to have their footage exposed; painters, young film makers, 3d moddelers in their off-hours etc. etc.
If you come up to them and say; "let's get a can of beer and a computer and we're gonna beam your shit in clubs!" Most people say yeah! great idea! and just DO it.


I have no problem if you ask them and they say this. I have asked texture authors if they mind me using there stuff and they have been ok.


When you never met the people you are sampling from, think about if they liked it to be sampled. So let's say I was Don Johnson, I walk into a club in Amsterdam and somebody would be playing the intro to the old miami vice because it fits with the "retrosexual atmosphere" of the evening. Would he mind? I don't think so. He would be boozed up smiling to his friends and have a beer. I really do. He probably thinks it's going to sell him more dvds. If I was to publish it (as holly said) on DVD it's a different ball game.

I really think that most copyright owners wouldn't mind being referred to in a live show.


*sigh*

Saving the best til last.

Where on earth do you get the idea that Don Johnson owns the rights to the opening credits of Miami Vice. LOL

I very much doubt he does. More likely a TV company own the rights to the show and all images of Don Johnson in the show, etc. If DOn Johnson wanted to sign away his rights for people to use this acting/image on camera then they own it.

It is just like if a client wants a exclusive design of a website/3d model/film and they agree the rights/license they can own it. Often this is rewarded with money. Payment, a job.

[xangadix]

*sigh*

Saving the best til last.

Where on earth do you get the idea that Don Johnson owns the rights to the opening credits of Miami Vice. LOL

I very much doubt he does. More likely a TV company own the rights to the show and all images of Don Johnson in the show, etc. If DOn Johnson wanted to sign away his rights for people to use this acting/image on camera then they own it.

It is just like if a client wants a exclusive design of a website/3d model/film and they agree the rights/license they can own it. Often this is rewarded with money. Payment, a job.

Okay, you missed my point then; Maybe I explained it a bit to poetic ;) What I mean is that most copyright owners would not mind seeing bits and pieces in a club if it is used in a 'good' way. Even apart from the contextualisation argument I don't think that the copyright owners of miami vice would mind you playing bits and pieces in a live set. After all it is great advertisement.
Publishing it on DVD is another matter; Most designers are thrilled to find out that there logos have been used on t-shirts in a different context.

I can't speak for the copyright owners of Miami vice, who are prolly boring people in blue suits, but I'm sure that the makers of the series would really dig it if I played it in a club mixed into a live set. Which brings me back to my first point: When using shit, think about what the original makers and owners would think about it.

[Rovastar]

Okay, you missed my point then; Maybe I explained it a bit to poetic ;) What I mean is that most copyright owners would not mind seeing bits and pieces in a club if it is used in a 'good' way. Even apart from the contextualisation argument I don't think that the copyright owners of miami vice would mind you playing bits and pieces in a live set. After all it is great advertisement.
Publishing it on DVD is another matter; Most designers are thrilled to find out that there logos have been used on t-shirts in a different context.

I can't speak for the copyright owners of Miami vice, who are prolly boring people in blue suits, but I'm sure that the makers of the series would really dig it if I played it in a club mixed into a live set. Which brings me back to my first point: When using shit, think about what the original makers and owners would think about it.

Actually I think you missed my point.

You appear to interchange original creators/makers and owners. This is not the case and I have no doubt this is not the case with this example.

I am not sure who you would even class as the creators? The person that first thought of the idea; the writer of each episode or series; the actors; the editor; I dunno

Miami Vice's owner I believe will be NBC Universal. The creators is immaterial. If I create something and sell it exculsively to someone else they (can) become the owners of it and do with it as they see fit. No matter how much they think it is cool. The creators are no doubt paid in there job to do make the series. This is the same for any industry if you design a new vacuum cleaner working for Hoover on their payroll they will "own" the design even though you created it. You cannot resell that design to others they will own it not you.

If I then want to sell or promote these I cannot without prior agreement. I created them but I am not the owner. This is happens all the time in business and has happened to us personally many times in our work. Hell I cannot even have downloads of my own work I created for some clients. That is the way it works.

Oh BTW it is only a good advertisment if the owner actually wants it.

[numbskull]

It seems you have already made up your mind before you even posted so I am confused as to why you posted tbh.

actually if u recheck the whole topic from the beg. , i was followin got the info that i needed and then posted wat i thought... i wanted to see others opinion coz in my country nobody had the answer for that,not even YES or NO; all they said that they had no idea.

And what credit do you give them? Do you have text on the screen for the duration of the clip saying who made and where the clips are from?
Actually i always post my played set... and i do get feedback of wat i played, good or bad

I have little problem with the paying aspect of it although it would be much better if you have the ability to make it yourself to do so. Having a generic dragon is hardly original.
well if i wanted a dragon nowadays, i would modell it myself, coz i have the time to create my own art, am not on a hurry, but seems that ur not in the in the "production and animation" business, they pay for such stuff for the sake of finishing up ahead of time... been there, done that.

So you would have made EXACTLY the same dragon? Somehow I doubt it and if you did what an uncanny coincidence it would be if you never saw it before!
i'll give u a do-it-urself homework mate, draw me 2 3d dragons that looks different, without throwin ur own touch to it, just a normal dragon that u can give to a modeller to extrude

A dragon is a dragon, he has the same mouth, teeth, body, legs, hands and wings... wat changes is the deformation and tweaks u give it to it after extruding it... if u dont believe me, do ur homework

as i said b4 am an animator/modeller, so plz dont question my abilties and dont even judge me without knowin who i am(heck i even didnt pass 10 posts for u to picture of me as u like :P )

It sounds like you are defending stealing, at least defending it ethically, in your mind.
well wat do u call the DJs when playin each others tracks or even the one who plays other artist tracks mixed alltogether (thats not called stealing; neither ethically nor in law issues)

I have much lower objections if you have the samples all cleared/paid for but this not the case here with many examples.
wats ur point exactly, and show me wat many examples ur talkin about, coz kinda all of them had his own examples.

One more thing i need to tell u... chill bro, go smoke or take some relaxin pills if u cant do it alone... my scene is all about peace, love and respect, and all i did was post my P.O.V. , didnt offend nor attacked others' comments... be diplomatic and state wat u want to say in a nice discussable way; at least when replyin to me mate

peace & respect,:hippy:

[john01]

How many little boys play with toy guns but don't become sherriff?


You got me.:cry:

I don't think we can all become great artists, but I do think we should try.

ethics?

to your own soul be true

What if your soul is telling you to get up and do your thing ?

[numbskull]

ethics?

to your own soul be true

thats the best answer if ur soul is clean and not full of rubbish and bullshittin

respect,

[holly]

You got me.:cry:
I don't think we can all become great artists, but I do think we should try.
Heheheh. I wasn't trying to "get" you. Sorry if my posts went on too long and seemed pedantic.

I guess what I was driving at is that you are presenting this as an Arts issue with a capital A. I agree with everything you are saying (that the reality of sampling, or maybe I just call it "ripping" in this context) is going to result in crap. But I wouldn't consider that art.

Yes, in an arts context it is crap , but in a club context it is not so serious. I guess I don't take clubs as real art (any more than little girls playing princess ballerina and boys playing sherrif). To follow that metaphore it is the parents who take it too seriously and enroll kids in classes hoping they will get serious training instead of playtime. Grabbing random samples and mashing them up with software to the beat is like a kid playing with blocks -- maybe it sparks an interest in architecture later in life (maybe he's just learning to grab shapes and see colors), but forcing him to follow established principles in Roman architecture isn't going to create the spark. He's playing and using his hands and eye and maybe his brain is engaged or not. That's really all there is. Playtime should not be sacrificed for class time.

What I was trying to say with the magazine cut-outs is that this "cut-up culture" is a phenomenon that has happened before, has more to do with the way society ingests (and tries to own) mass-media, and doesn't really touch the art world at all. Listen to what most people are talking about here: beer, 3d dragons, T-shirt logos, Miami Vice.... Calling it art is a tad pretentious. Calling anything you see in a disco "art" is a tad pretentious. If it were happening in museums then I'd agree it was a horrible horrible thing, but this is kids playing around with pop culture. They're not even considering historical concepts. Maybe someday they will. But maybe everyone who sees it will be on drugs and it all has the intellectual equivalent of a pinwheel. wheeeeeeee.

Rova, since you are ethically against anyone even PAYING to use another's samples WITH permission, it is unlikely you will ever see a middle ground. You casually confuse copyright with licensing and trademark, two different concepts that cover what copyrights don't. Why don't you re-read your own quote until you figure out what the main purpose of copyright is:
The main purpose of copyright is to allow original creators to gain economic rewards for their efforts and so encourage continued creativity and inspire the development of new material to benefit us all.
Since I already stated this and talked about actual US law and discussed REAL cases involving arts copyright that ACTUALLY happened, I will consider the issue settled until a court comes along and says otherwise.

[VGA]

I'd love to post something here but just aint got the time.
too busy! busy busy.
But just enough time to say, interesting stuff from everyone apart from, well you know who.

[john01]

Yes, in an arts context it is crap , but in a club context it is not so serious. I guess I don't take clubs as real art (any more than little girls playing princess ballerina and boys playing sherrif).

It is hard to tell whether what we considered art still is art, or just a way for lazy potheads & fat ladies to make a living. I think clubs have some potential for art, you can starve trying to make a living that's for sure, there are plenty of flakes and late nights, all seems very bohemian to me.

I take your point, but I still believe that we should aspire to something more than just mashing up and recycling. My next project is an attempt at a 180 degree continuous animation across 6 screens, when I saw the prototype ideas started popping out of my head and mouth faster than you can say computer graphics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGCvpSzoLR4)

[many2]

a very nice clip about fair use made only with samples from Disney
Great editing :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo

[vj_jasper]

okay... ethics... ? ... sampling /// ???

people this is not rocket science... a vj can sample if they want to. they can trigger visuals in time to the beat by hitting a keyboard. the vj can do video feedback by pointing camera directly at screen. these are techniques. that is what vj does. uses techniques, dips the brush of his/her soul into the colour wheels of technique, and makes a patchwork quilt with which to clothe the walls in shapes and movements.

no ethics comes into it really. the only question is: is it advisable? when answering that question, you would do yourself a huge favour and remove ethics and morals right out of the equasion. just forget them. when you sample, you access a massive world and millions of dollars worth of creativity. even if you splashed your vj name right over the top of a 10 second clip from a famous movie, no-one would ever think for a second that you made it.
they would, however, possibly enjoy the way you recontextualised it. they might enjoy the delicious surprise of seeing something familiar, after an enjoyable 20 minute mix of completely original animations/footage preps. or the audience member might say - 'i watched that on tv last night!'. whatever, it's just a technique thats all. no-one is ever going to take a VJ to court, seriously. just... no way.

release a DVD of classic movie scenes with your name on the cover and expect 15 court cases in two weeks.

sampling in a live vj mix has as many ethical issues as a pencil: none. it is just a tool, but if you want to make something special - art or not - you better use a lot more than just a pencil.

[Rovastar]

Rova, since you are ethically against anyone even PAYING to use another's samples WITH permission, it is unlikely you will ever see a middle ground. You casually confuse copyright with licensing and trademark, two different concepts that cover what copyrights don't. Why don't you re-read your own quote until you figure out what the main purpose of copyright is:

Since I already stated this and talked about actual US law and discussed REAL cases involving arts copyright that ACTUALLY happened, I will consider the issue settled until a court comes along and says otherwise.

I object more on an artistic level rather than a ethical one. I am sorry if that wasn't clear - I thought I was referencing the ripping aspect rather than the purchasing one and I presumed Holly you didn't clear the rights when you talked about in your example of "sampling". Generally when people mention "sampling" in VJing it is unauthorised material. Apoligies if that is not the case here. You buy/have clearance content that is fine I have never really objected to that - I have done it myself. Artistically however, I suppose the nearest comparison is back to the bad analogy of the DJ. If a DJ just plays others records I see this with less artistic merit than those that make the tunes they play. Obviously there are others that put them in the same bracket of artistic skill.

Now that I have expalined myself more clearly I don't see how I differ from the main purpose of copyright. I am a defender of copyright and personally think that the laws should be enforced more not less. I see them a tools to protect us.

It is easy to find the odd case of fighting copyright law and winning - as you would see it. My standpoint comes from many lawyers, etc in about copyright. Do work for any (large) client and they will insist from the lawyers, etc that the footage is all cleared or you own the copyright. They do this for a reason because they are in the wrong if not. Most large events will all insist on the same thing. Do a large gig/festival and you are likely to sign a contract and in there say you have the rights to all the work you display. That is more talking about the law I wonder how ethical it is to go against this clients wishes that no doubt many do at gigs where they are paid to be there.

[vj_jasper]

:) yo dude, i relate to that artistic standpoint you are making.

re/ no-sampling forms 4 big events.. i have had to sign those contracts. i don't care about their contract and neither do they. all it means is, if i mix some movie samples in with my 90 percent original visualz, it better be good, and if any legal action happens because of it, i am the one who the lawyers talk to...
the thing is, both i and the promoters know that is not going to happen, nor will it ever imho. in fact, fwiw film companies will start to pay vj's to incorporate 'samples' of various movies in their sets, as a form of 'guerilla marketing'

in fact if any vj gets themselves taken to court for sampling i would pay them a hundred dollars as congratulations on achieving the seemingly impossible.

the world has turned and suddenly vj cultural stylings and pastiche messages are being taken up as valuable precepts by society at large. it seems like 2 weeks ago i had to go for about 5 minutes explaining to someone what a vj is, and now suddenly everyone is like, yeah yeah sure sure; vj this vj that... tv shows are incorporating blatant vj style 'interstitials', cut-to's and fade-ins just like a vj at a club except on a 9pm comedy show... if society is now grabbing the vj stylee and throwing it into the melting pot of its own popular culture, then there is surely going to be no outcry when vj's turn around and remix everything all over again whenever they want to.

for what it's worth, i prefer original vj mixes if the visuals are moving me and giving me fantastical visions, satisfying me with aesthetically pleasing edit decisions, classic and experimental camera angles/lighting, etc ,.... it's a big ask. but original is the most exciting 4 sure, if done well. and if it is amateurish, yet heartfelt, that is totally cool too. let's get some emotion in there... make some real new fun sort of cultural mixes. i think the big question is how to achieve balance in the mix. although, that does not relate to ethics, so much as on-the-spot mixing decisions.


there was the law of fair-use with audio samples, something like that... it became apparent that it was legal to sample just under 2 seconds worth of audio and not infringe audio copyright...
anyway, with the vj sampling scene in the future, there may be some legal precedent set whereby vj's can mix in film clips for no more than ten percent of their show. but vj's will always do whatever they want to do, because they know that it doesen't matter; it is ephemeral... an entertainment of visual interpretation, without the film's audio.

if a vj mixes in a film's visuals in an artistic way in his or her mix, it is just the same as a dj mixing in records they bought at the store.
just colours, that's all it is. colours and textures, horses for courses... sometimes its good to sample, other times it ain't. sometimes a visualiser is called for, or maybe even turning the visuals off for a couple of minutes. whatever the show needs at the time, to be greatly inter-relating with the dj's mix and the lighting guy's vibe with the ambience.

[holly]

The public domain is a disgrace to the forces of evil!
hahahaha. great stuff! Thanks for that link many2!!!

Rova, I'm pro-copyright. I'm also pro-copyright limitations. (I guess that's not really going out on a limb, har har.) I think people should try to understand what the law intends, and it's my opinion that they would try to be more responsible with it, from both ends.

Big corps would be forced to give over their propaganda to the culture once they have spent so many resources selling it, and it could mature and evolve into millions of subcategories like fan fiction... No corp could ever hold a cultural icon hostage -- DC couldn't say "Superman is never gay" because in fan fiction everyone is gay at least sometimes.... Heros and icons would evolve around society, rather than being held to the rigid morals of old desk-warmers and accountants. Just imagine what could have happened with Jesus if there wasn't an evil mega-corp controlling his image!

But also lil' cut-n-clip artists would have to think about the culture around them, that they can only dip into that private well when it is for the public good, not just because they wanted a real' bitchin' clip.... They'd actually have to be socially responsible for their use of private works. You know, they'd have to be saying or thinking something. They'd have to be clever.

I'm waiting for what VGA says, since I'm not much of a sampler by nature and I'm positively giddy with amateur fanaticism (one show and now I am the queen of sampleeng)

You guys also have to remember we see so little sampling here in the US. It really is the opposite culture here. Everyone is an "artist" and no one is a VJ....

[Rovastar]

To be honest I have never seen any evidence of any VJ even attempting to understand the law when it comes to sampling, let alone taking on any social responsibility with it. What law change do you think could bring this about whilst still protecting copyright?

If anyone could create works of say DC comics, Superman then I can only see harm to DC comics. The DC and Marvel have only survived from licensing their heroes out to Warner Bros, etc. If Warner Bros don't have to pay then they will just make a film without paying and so will Universal, etc, etc. One will not pay without the others are not.

So DC and Marvel will not make comics anymore and there will no more chance of new cultural icons from them.

That is all I see from allowing this.

So what areas of copyright law would you like amending?

[Bokonon]

In terms of 'giving credit' back to the copyright owner, is not a blanket MPLC license for the venue sufficient?

I think you would be on dodgy ground in terms of remixing any content under that license, but clip triggering of films* would be covered by it.

This is clearly enough for the music industry, you are basically given free reign as a DJ to play whatever music you like as long as the venue has the appropriate MCPS/PRS license - why should it not be the same for film?

I certainly use (by) and (by-sa) licensed content in my sets from time to time and as there is no specified way to atribute the work back to the authors I tend to do a short credits slide at the end of my sets which include them - and as far as I'm concerned thats fine, legal and in accordance with the license.

* As long as they were owned by members.

[jonas m.]

Grabbing random samples and mashing them up with software to the beat is like a kid playing with blocks -- maybe it sparks an interest in architecture later in life (maybe he's just learning to grab shapes and see colors), but forcing him to follow established principles in Roman architecture isn't going to create the spark.

:love2:

i started out vj'ing a couple of months ago, with no prior skills in animation regarding animation or content creation. i shoot photographs and write on an amateur level, but nothing besides that.

my first 2 sets were based solely on online content, mpeg streamclip, quicktime pro and software + 1 borrowed midikeyboard.

nothing original, "just" samples. and i've learned a hell of a lot in terms of cutting and sticking those clips up and together so they made sense in a set. and what's perhaps even more important - i'm now beginning to think, "making my own content would be awesome. the technique used in that and that clip now was inspiring, how can i use that inspiration to make my own stuff?"

if you're a beginner you should, to phrase a clich?, just get out and do what you can with what you have available. get inspired, and only start worrying about ethics when you know you're not doing your best possible with the available means at hand.

[holly]

So what areas of copyright law would you like amending?
:confused:Nothing. I don't know if you are deliberately trying to misrepresent what I say, or maybe you really just don't get it. I'm perfectly happy with copyright and support its limitations and exceptions.

If I could change anything it would be people's (mis)understanding of the law, and what it's supposed to protect for the individual and for society. You can't blame the law for people's immaturity or ignorance.

I should stop here, but about DC: I think those characters have long outlived their original construction. Unfortunately, any attempt to update them is squashed by DC. Superman is from the 1920s(?) Batman from the 30s, WonderWoman from the 40s.... Each was specific to the age and zeitgeist in which they were formed (Superman is limitless in positivity, Batman a gangster to fight gangsters in the midst of corruption, WonderWoman an idealized warrior virgin while the men are away at war....) There was a recent TV show that threatened to make the DC characters 3-dimensional and interesting: Justice League, an animated series that was pretty exciting for the first season, even better in the second. The nature of good television is that the characters evolve and grow.... Unfortunately this threatened to outshine the comicbooks (does anyone read superman comicbooks?!) and alter the cannon that was set up 50 years ago. WW was obviously going to start screwing Batman because he embodied the dark/good struggle of men which is how she sees the whole race of men..., and all the characters sort of talked around Superman like he was a niave alien farmboy that could kill them all at any moment.... In other words the characters were evolving. They were not being diluted, the opposite in fact, they were becoming better! More rooted to their origins (as silly and inconsistant as comicbook origins are), and interacting true to their nature.

Long story short, the suits at DC didn't like a franchise leading the stories (tail wagging the dog, so to speak) and shut down the show. Instead the TV producers were offered Justice League Unlimited a terrible show about C and D characters (all seem to be teenagers) that come and go each episode so the animators can't do any more "damage" to the main pantheon. In my opinion (and many others) this is a waste of some of the best known characters from the 20th century: the possibility to have them evolve into OUR world and OUR age, grow up as we grow up and become complicated and sophisticated as we do, and see them live anew in the dominant media format (television). Instead, we get more sacherine crap that lacks focus and doesn't inspire anyone. Left to their own devices, corporations would just roll out a new line of toys each year, rather than allow the imaginations of a generation to take root.

Superman and Batman should be public domain by now, and WW would just go public within the next few years (Just in time for a Joss Weaden interpretation: ready for a generation reared on Buffy who wants a more mature more complex icon...). The original time spans on copyright weren't arbitrary. Everyone owns these characters inside them, the same as we all own Jesus and King Arthur. They are a part of our Pantheon, they are symbols and personifications of our own values. To sell Batman costumes to kids and then try to claim ownership of that kid's imagination once he's grown up..., it's stupid and stunted and limited. Kids become our society, they're not just targets for product placement and branding. DC didn't create ANY of these characters, they bought them from the original artists -- the ones that had vision and found a way to incorporate their times into an icon that meant something to a lot of people. ...I'll say it again, where could Jesus be today without the church?

When you look at specific examples rather than abstractions the issues are quite clear. The profits of corporations should end when it infringes on the public good.

[Rovastar]

Copyright law changes from country to country and I do not claim to know it all, no at all.

But most of the time copyright is held for the lifetime of the author of the work plus 70 years (maybe 50 for US *shrug*) before it enters the public domain.

Know I do not know what happens for corps take over the copyright but are you saying they should have less then individual? I don't know if this is the case the timelines are too long for me to realistically care about.

Now I am no expert on Superman but according to the, oh so reliable, wikipedia Superman was created in 1932 by: Jerome "Jerry" Siegel a.k.a. Joe Carter (October 17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_17), 1914 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1914) – January 28 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_28), 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996))

So he died 11 years ago so in my maths as there is another 59 years to go. If he held it as an individual you still would not have the rights to public domain for another 59 years.

So if a corp owns it you should have less?

The status of the copyright is of Superman appears complicated. With DC and the author swapping rights to ownership and extending the term. The initial sale appears to have been in 1938.

Anyway that is immaterial as there is a copyright at the moment and you are arguing that DC should not have the right to choose how their copyrighted owned characters are portrayed when talking about Justice League.

This is a fundamental attitude to copyright as how your work is viewed/distributed. So they are well within their rights to pull the plug.

Yet you seem to be arguing for this because it is popular (in popular culture) then normal copyright laws should not apply? And at the same time be pro-copyright and not wanting to change the law..........thus I am confused.

Also I don't understand how a creative person needs Superman, Mickey Mouse, etc to make something good. All I see will be cheap knock offs and other companies abusing the works.

[holly]

Yeah. I think I'm with copyrights being owned by the original creator and corporations can only license from the original creator, in other words no transfer of copyright. Since corporations aren't alive, I don't think they should own property or copyrights.... Actually a whole slue of ethical problems come up because corporations can act like a living entity but cannot be criminally punished like a living entity and have no conscience like a living entity. Corporations cannot go to jail, but they can commit crimes. It's all above my head and I'm not trying to say I have it solid, just that when you use real-world examples it's a bit easier to see the plus and minuses in a more specific way.

14 years (the original term) seems too short, but the "lifetime" of a corporation is an oxymoron or a paradox. I tend to think lifetime of the author is a good thing, and I understand the desire to hold the copyright for a while (for the heirs and widows fund), don't know how long that should be really. When it's abstract I'm less sure of the numbers.

I guess I would change copyright law so the original copyright cannot be transfered -- of course that would create all new weirdness (plus a new motive for murdering artists, hehe). I run a non-profit corporation and is is a little strange how the company can buy things and own them, but at the same time can simply be disolved and it's assets re-distributed. Someone with a nose for scamming could really work their personal vs corporate assets like an invulnerable Gollum who goes out and does the master's bidding. You get the executive class, which receives huge lifestyle benefits from the corporation that is disproportionate to their contribution. As a human system, I think it still needs some evolving.

Corporate law is above my head (probably above most people's which is an advantage to the corporations). I see the good, I don't know how to fix the bad....

[john01]

You get the executive class, which receives huge lifestyle benefits from the corporation that is disproportionate to their contribution.

Tell me about it, I have the misfortune to deal with these people in my day job. The NYC version of me came over for a visit last year and we had a cable guy powow, he tells me it is just as bad over there. I thought it was just ex-pats floating around on hot air, but it is a global problem.

I find the worst abusers are corporations themselves, they try and screw freelancers & production houses for everything they can get, sometimes it is just greed, often it is due to incompetence. This may be a particularly Japanese problem but there are a lot of people taking a cut and contributing nothing. It came to a head recently when it transpired that TV shows were broadcasting fictitious items because the so-called producers were just skimming off money and leaving the production houses doing the actual work with no budget to do research.

An art director at an ad agency told me recently he has noticed that clients no longer want to pay a fair price for work, during the recession they had got into the habit of saying "We've got no money", but despite the economy picking up and corporate profits going up, they now are saying "We've got money, but you're not getting any". As ever it is the little guy that ends up being burnt.

[EYEKOn1]

Just finished reading through the 6 pages on this topic..good read, good points from both sides.

I believe that sampling is perfectly fine, granted you're not sampling the WHOLE movie, just letting it play and slapping your name all over it saying its yours.

Some DJ's like to play music, blend the 2 songs to create a "new sound" cutting out lows and hi's on the EQ.

flip it over to VJing

A VJ plays a 2,3 or 4 sampled contents to match to the beat of a song, twisting, rotating, color blending and placement to create a "new visual"

There was a statement saying that a DJ was "less" of an artist because he didnt produce his own music...

Are they or are they not creating something here?

To me thats like saying, a Painter isnt an artist because he didnt cook up his own paint and build his own canvas from scratch.

Here's a clip of an article about Inspiration or Rip-off (not sure if this goes off in a totally different topic but after reading it, it doesnt make me feel bad at all for using sampled content)


Have you ripped people off? I have. Have you been influenced by people? I have. Have you taken a design that just blew you away and recreated it using your own style? I have. Have you seen an element of a design and thought, cool I might do something like that as well? I have. If your answer to these questions is No then your either a liar or your not a designer.

continue reading here (http://designiskinky.net/theory/theory4.html)