Copyright and Mash-ups: Issues, questions, and not many answers

"Copyright?" People exclaim. "Do you mean the fine print and the readme text files attached to my songs and videos?" While it might not be the most exciting topic to do with technology (drum-playing robots vs. Terms and Agreement... need I say more?), copyright law is nonetheless a vital aspect of any artist that wants to get their work published. I assure you, it DOES matter.

First of all, the film RiP! A Remix Manifesto deals with the issues that surface when a mashup artist dances with copyright law. This documentary is great. Watch it here. 

To narrow it down, this video deals with mash-up culture and copyright issues. It features the artist, Girl Talk, who creates music by mixing together snippets of other songs. Which, by copyright law, is perfectly acceptable to do in your own home if a) you paid for the music tracks used, and b) it is for your own personal use. Issues arise when Girl Talk performs at an event (which is, of course, the goal of any musician!) and has not received permission to use these songs from the artists/recording companies. Therefore, Girl Talk's performances are violating copyright law. 

Why doesn't Girl Talk just attain the copyright for those songs? 

Heh heh. 

The issues with copyright is that for Girl Talk to legally perform his mash-ups, he has to gain permission for each and every song that he plays. It's difficult to get permission from the record label, particularly if the company doesn't believe they have much to gain from their music being played in this context. For Girl Talk to license an entire set, he would have to cough up millions of dollars. Another factor? He's not a DJ, he does a lot more than press play on his computer. These songs have been stripped down and completely changed. A lot of the original songs are almost unrecognizable, and there are only pieces of it in an entirely new context. 

The question is, where is the line with copyright and mash-ups?

This video provokes thoughts from both sides of the equation. It really shows Girl Talk's creative process in creating his mixes (again, watch RiP!!). Mashups differ from other performances because the process is really more important than the final product. Girl Talk may be using other people's work as a starting point, but the final product is his own art-- it's like a music collage of found songs, but presented in a way that is different than the original artist. However, the fact that this is illegal raises the question: is art off-limits? And if it is, how are artists supposed to be free to riff off of ideas and become inspired if they are terrified of being sued? 

It's copyright vs. copy-left. Should art be public domain, and free to feed creativity? Or is copyright law something that should be enforced, the way it is now? 

On one hand, copyright law can severely limit creativity. And where does copyright law end? If songwriters start licensing their music and chord progressions, the music wheels are going to stop turning pretty quickly. People can argue that a healthy public domain is essential in order for artists to feel free to create. North American laws in particular are strict and manipulative for profit: a good example is the "Happy Birthday" song. The original writers are long dead, but the copyright has been passed into the hands of a company. Therefore, the company makes money every time this song is played on stage, screen, or online. This kind of copyright law only serves to profit companies, and doesn't help the artists at all. 

But on the other hand, copyright is important. Musicians, writers, and other artists work hard to create, and they deserve recognition. To put all art into the public domain can be seen as a way to put all artists out of business, because that is to say their art is worth nothing. Copyright laws preserve an artist's integrity and originality, and also gives them the recognition they deserve. Artists deserve to make a living for their work! No one would walk up to a doctor and say "you should treat all your patients for free, because everyone deserves health care and procedures at no cost."

Copyright law and ethics apply to many types of art and science: code, writing, graphics, music, film, etc. It is important for people to be educated on the topic, to avoid breaking the law. However, I believe it's also important for us (new generation of artists) to consider the line where copyright and creativity intersect. 

There are a lot of questions in this post, and not many answers. Comment your thoughts below!

Projection Mapping

In the world of creative technologies, the term "projector" doesn't particularly evoke any futuristic imagery: everyone has seen projectors. They exist in movie theatres, in classrooms, dance parties, etc. However, video mapping is an innovative use of video projection that has a myriad of possibilities. Instead of projecting a flat image on a wall, the projectors are set up at different angles to instead cover an entire wall, or building, or face. Video projection mapping synthesizes architecture, sculpture, film, music, dance and fashion in any combination to create a unique experience. 

For example, in the above image, underwater video is projected onto the walls to create a certain atmosphere. See how it covers the entire wall, top to bottom? It could be a discombobulating experience! This kind of video mapping is pretty basic, but it can be very effective.

This image displays video mapping onto buildings, which is more complicated than just a flat wall. The software has to map out the edges and shape of the building in order to project over it, making it look like this building is sagging. 

Some artists have taken video mapping to a larger scale. This location is the Carrieres des Lumieres (Quarry of Lights) in France, where a creative team has turned an abandoned quarry into a multi sensory show with projected images set to music. (Read a detailed post about this particular show here). 

The previous images are all examples of performative mapping: that is, the projected images are the entire show. But what happens when people perform WITH this technology?

I love this performance. To me, it not only expands the creativity of the dancers, choreographers, and video projectionists, but it also reanimates live performance. Let's be honest, in an era where the special effects in our movies we watch could make dinosaurs blow each other up in space, I think that live performance has dropped in popularity. (That wasn't a specific movie scene, but I'm sure it's possible to create with CGI). People's attention spans are wavering with every new generation, and the act of watching an artist perform live-- be it music, dance, or theatre-- should not be forgotten. Ever. That's why I love the marriage of humanity and technology, it opens up new possibilities. 

This video is so cool. It also requires the use of smart projectors, because once the face is mapped with tracking points and such, the camera also has to continuously read where they are moving to. The technology for this still a little slow-- note that the models kept their movements slow and deliberate, so that the camera could follow them. However, this "face hacking" is still incredibly fascinating to watch! It could be used in movies in the future... Perhaps instead of hours of makeup to transform their figures, all it takes is a few tracking points and a video projector. Personally, I thought that this use could be used in live theatre! That would be another example of adding an exciting flair to live performance. 

So, video projection mapping is a multi-faceted technology that has uses in all kinds of entertainment. Whether it's being used for atmospheric walls at a dance party, to change the face of a building, or to change the face of a human being, this technology is already being used in a variety of ways. What could you make with video mapping technology?