All assignments referenced on this blog can be found in full at http://entlaw.wordpress.com/ and are part of the Entertainment Law class at Barry University School of Law in Orlando, Florida.
Mashups. What do you think? How do they fit with the rules we have learned so far?
My response:
I have to agree with Stephen. Mash ups are not created by an “artist” in my opinion. Maybe I should change my view of what an artist is. To have the technology and time to take two different songs and change various aspects of them to create a new work is innovative but not creative. The Beyonce mash up is better than the original because the original seems boring now. The mash up may effect the market for the original work under prong four of the fair use test because the mash up is edgier than the original and possible may confuse a purchaser. Beyonce created her songs to sound a certain way and this bastardizes her original intentions. I enjoyed the mash ups but I still do not feel they are fair use of the original.
I understand the concept of “promote the progress” but what is progress? Is it coming out with something new even if is the result of the efforts of two other artists? I think many people look at music in a different way than they do other forms of artistic expression. This could be because it is audible and not a visual medium. People would be outraged if I were to cut a Georgia O’Keeffe down the middle and then did the same with a Renoir, taped them together and called it my own “original art work”. Different from the original, to be sure, but is it art? Is it progress or is it the lack of an original idea? Shana Carson
chris keegan said,
January 29, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
I agree. I don’t believe that mashups are created in an artistic sense. Two works are blatantly copied and then recorded simultaneously. The technician that blends the songs is not an artist as he or she brings nothing to the table. I don’t think that I’m an artist when I sync Dark Side of the Moon with The Wizard of Oz. CKeegan
Amanda Riley said,
January 29, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
I disagree in that I believe a mashup is a creative artistic work. Selection and placement are both artistic acts. I don’t think that mashups can be compared to ripping two paintings apart because the original work is not physcially destroyed. In fact, the original may even gain value from being used in a mashup. Musical, performance, and visual artists have been sampling images and sounds for years because there is “nothing new under the sun.” Nothing exists that is entirely new and original.
Kevin Wimberly said,
January 29, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
My response is HERE.
shanacarson said,
January 29, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
Amanda Riley used to be my best friend but now I know that that she is a traitor. But I love her and all the ducats her parents plugged into her high brow art/MBA education have obviously paid off. I have to disagree with you though Mandy, when you say that there is nothing that exists that is new and original made me think. I tried to think something entirely new. Everytime I thought I had come up with an idea I would realize that it was similar to something that already exists. I promise you I will put more thought into this. Don’t freeze in BOS.
marcorandazza said,
January 29, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
WOW… there is not only a decent post here, but FOUR comments on a STUDENT blog? Outstanding…. this is exactly the kind of professional interaction that the exercise was supposed to foster. Prof. Randazza is a very happy camper right now!