I wanted to consider ways in which music has been interpreted visually to deepen my contextual and creative understanding of what was possible and to try and expand my horizons and inspirations as i moved forward with my Amen Brother piece. This led to research into different ways to do this and I remembered the work of the animator Oskar Fischinger that I had enjoyed. Oskar Wilhelm Fischinger (1900–1967) was a German-American abstract animator, filmmaker, and painter, notable for creating abstract musical animation many decades before the appearance of computer graphics and music videos. One of his constant themes was animating to music and trying to create a visual interpretation of it just as I am trying to do with the Amen drum Break.
The short film below An Optical Poem, 1938 is an excellent example of his work. The animation is composed to Franz Liszt's "2nd Hungarian Rhapsody." It is made entirely with paper in stop motion fashion often hanging from invisible wire to create the persoective. The piece below is thought to be the only one to be commissioned and released by an American film studio.
The use of shape, colour and size of the objects works really well and does create a strong visual interpretation of the music especially for the era and the techniques available to be used. The effect is stunning and constantly interesting and the images work well to combine the visuals and the music. An issue working with visuals to music is that all too often they do not integrate well enough and work parallel to each other not in combining in unison. Fischingers work does not do this and effectively combines the two.
Taking forward some of Fischingers ideas, whilst I am not prepared to spend weeks animating tiny pieces of cut out coloured paper the use of shape and colour is a very interesting one. This I feel is something I could exploit in my own visual interpretation of music for my piece. However my reservations are that although visually it is very strong it may not have the clarity of message linking all of the types of music in my piece together. His work is a forefather and therefore slightly reminiscent of some of the visuals at raves and gigs I attended in my misspent youth and these will be another interesting avenue to explore.
Sunday, 30 October 2016
Saturday, 29 October 2016
AMEN: AURAL MEMORY
Whilst researching around I came across the concept of aural memory which is what records that which comes to us through the ear. It is not, as a rule, nearly so well developed as the visual, mainly because it is not used so much. Most people remember what they see far better than what they hear. Musicians are an exception, as their training has developed a highly efficient aural sense due to their training. Instead of being peculiar in this respect, I would say that they are far more representative of a normal product of higher civilization than are the masses who are deficient in aural sense. The auditory faculty should be highly developed in every one and not just musicians and them with good aural retention.
This is a really interesting concept to consider whilst creating my Amen Break and could play upon it. At the centre of my Amen Break is to use lots of examples of music that have all used the same drum solo. They are different tempos, electronic and played on drums, fractions of the drum break and sometimes the whole 4 bars of it. I want the audience to be able to spot independently these many uses of it and to be able to forge a link. Ideally even creating an "ear worm" effect where the drum break is subliminally tapping into their subconscious. Another knock on of this is the use of music some of which they have heard before, some of which they may be exceptionally familiar with and some they have never heard before. depending on their relationship to it, it will affect their interpretation of it. To this end a mix of different genres, styles, and tempos will make the piece more interesting.
Rory Seodel wrote a fascinating piece on the culture of sampling referring to it as a "memory trigger" on his blog landr.com. He went on to give an example of sampling and how one producer used it in this way to tap into the memory of the audience and use something memorable to create something memorable.
At a recent ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) panel on music production, producer Harmony Samuels detailed the thinking behind his hit song ‘The Way’. He produced and wrote it for pop star Ariana Grande. The song references Brenda Russell’s ‘A Little Bit of Love’ (1978) which enjoyed a second life by way of sampling in ‘Still Not a Player’ by Big Pun (1998).
In front of hundreds of aspiring music creators, Samuels explained the business logic behind choosing to use samples: “I wanted everybody to have something memorable. That’s what samples are: something memorable. As a child you listen to music and it stores in your memory somewhere. Basically I was gonna sample a sample. Take a hit song and make another hit song, that came from a hit song.” – Harmony Samuels
So did Samuels reach all demographics with a twice-familiar earworm? The song went on to sell 2.3 million copies in the United States and has reached triple platinum status. It carried with it the mixed legacies of Brenda Russell, Big Pun, Ariana Grande and perhaps more to come. It combines all those successes into a 38 year timeline that is alive and well.
I love the idea of this and it all stems back to the Amen Break and my intentions for it. GC Coleman created something so memorable that it has been used over 2300 times. What is it about the break though that made it so memorable and continues to be so inspiring generation after generation. Nate Harrison creator of the installation piece Can I Get and Amen sums it up perfectly. "There's something about the groove of that break and especially the way people chop it up of course," says Harrison. "For me, it's this perfect blend between something very organic-sounding and very robotic-sounding at the same time. "The rhythm itself is syncopated so there's lots of variations on the drums you can derive from sampling the original break. It's really conducive to chopping and rearranging. It also sonically has this punch to it that makes it unique," he says. "It's the backbone of so much music. Both hip hop and drum and bass [musicians] have made a lot of money from it."
This is a really interesting concept to consider whilst creating my Amen Break and could play upon it. At the centre of my Amen Break is to use lots of examples of music that have all used the same drum solo. They are different tempos, electronic and played on drums, fractions of the drum break and sometimes the whole 4 bars of it. I want the audience to be able to spot independently these many uses of it and to be able to forge a link. Ideally even creating an "ear worm" effect where the drum break is subliminally tapping into their subconscious. Another knock on of this is the use of music some of which they have heard before, some of which they may be exceptionally familiar with and some they have never heard before. depending on their relationship to it, it will affect their interpretation of it. To this end a mix of different genres, styles, and tempos will make the piece more interesting.
Rory Seodel wrote a fascinating piece on the culture of sampling referring to it as a "memory trigger" on his blog landr.com. He went on to give an example of sampling and how one producer used it in this way to tap into the memory of the audience and use something memorable to create something memorable.
At a recent ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) panel on music production, producer Harmony Samuels detailed the thinking behind his hit song ‘The Way’. He produced and wrote it for pop star Ariana Grande. The song references Brenda Russell’s ‘A Little Bit of Love’ (1978) which enjoyed a second life by way of sampling in ‘Still Not a Player’ by Big Pun (1998).
In front of hundreds of aspiring music creators, Samuels explained the business logic behind choosing to use samples: “I wanted everybody to have something memorable. That’s what samples are: something memorable. As a child you listen to music and it stores in your memory somewhere. Basically I was gonna sample a sample. Take a hit song and make another hit song, that came from a hit song.” – Harmony Samuels
So did Samuels reach all demographics with a twice-familiar earworm? The song went on to sell 2.3 million copies in the United States and has reached triple platinum status. It carried with it the mixed legacies of Brenda Russell, Big Pun, Ariana Grande and perhaps more to come. It combines all those successes into a 38 year timeline that is alive and well.
I love the idea of this and it all stems back to the Amen Break and my intentions for it. GC Coleman created something so memorable that it has been used over 2300 times. What is it about the break though that made it so memorable and continues to be so inspiring generation after generation. Nate Harrison creator of the installation piece Can I Get and Amen sums it up perfectly. "There's something about the groove of that break and especially the way people chop it up of course," says Harrison. "For me, it's this perfect blend between something very organic-sounding and very robotic-sounding at the same time. "The rhythm itself is syncopated so there's lots of variations on the drums you can derive from sampling the original break. It's really conducive to chopping and rearranging. It also sonically has this punch to it that makes it unique," he says. "It's the backbone of so much music. Both hip hop and drum and bass [musicians] have made a lot of money from it."
Thursday, 27 October 2016
AMEN BROTHER INITIAL AUDIO TRIALS
I had been toying and developing ideas in my head and also collecting some of the assets I felt I would need but now decided to do some experiments with the sound files I had collected. The first thing I wanted to do was to roughly mix all of the tracks together to see how they complemented each other and combined to make one long mixed piece of music. I had done some mini tests into playing with time so get the tracks to go from the actual Amen break tempo then move it into their actual tempo into the next Amen break but found this tricky and it was not too easy on the ear. I did try and use just one bar of the break and try to create a flowing series of sound clips but this was too fast and again really uneasy on the ear too. Underneath is the best compromise and three versions of varying lengths that I felt were working the best.
AMEN MUSIC TESTS X3 from Jon Saward on Vimeo.
The first thing I noticed from the tracks tests above was that some of them were a little similar and not just due to the drums being variations on a theme. There needs to be a greater variety of genres, themes and acts to build up and create more contrasts of the usages of the Amen Break.
Secondly it was really interesting listening to the different versions.
Something else that arose from the tests was my current technical skills and limitations with sound. Possibly some time spent with a sound specialist would rectify this but obviously mixing tempos, genres etc in small clips is tricky but worth looking into with some friend who teach Music Technology at the college I work at. However I do not want to edit the tracks and abridge them too much or recreate them the whole point is that they are what they are and my re-interpreting would dilute this.
Another consideration I was toying with whilst collecting and deciding on the tracks to use was that not all of them had music videos for them to use as visuals in the final piece. A lot of them did have but even more did not. Some where album tracks others were obscure D&D or EDM tracks that were for dancefloors and clubs not the charts. I do like the idea of using the music videos as they show the diversity of artists that have used the Amen Break and their multitude of genres, representations and styles. Alongside that they are also visually rich and I have no issues about appropriating them for my use as well as music as they themselves did not by sampling the Amen Break. This would restrict me to using music tracks that had music videos but I did not see this as a problem or necessary anyway, and would using all 2400 tracks be possible? I felt that this was not actually needed or only a pipe dream anyway? See below.
Another thing I realised from compiling these tests and also from doing my research into sourcing the songs was that 2400 examples is likely to be far too many for the January completion of the work and also 240 would be a huge push. This is for many reasons sourcing the clips, editing the clips, visuals for the clips and the length of the piece. At the shortest version this would be 1:32 for 9 tracks so about 10 seconds per track. Times 10 seconds by 240 and the piece would be about 40 minutes long as it stands. For the middle version it would be about double this and 75-80 minutes obviously even worse. For the test I am aiming to do as mentioned perviously for the test in january 1% of the 2400 samples making it 24 which would bring the piece in at about 5 minutes.
AMEN MUSIC TESTS X3 from Jon Saward on Vimeo.
The first thing I noticed from the tracks tests above was that some of them were a little similar and not just due to the drums being variations on a theme. There needs to be a greater variety of genres, themes and acts to build up and create more contrasts of the usages of the Amen Break.
Secondly it was really interesting listening to the different versions.
- In my opinion the longer version is the smoother and more polished mix as it allows more song to be used as the editing options are increased and also better contextualisation of the songs as there are more of them. However it was a little long and and due to not focussing solely on the Amen Drum Break of the songs did drift into some elements where the drum break was not in evidence and not force a link between all of the tracks continually.
- The shorter version I liked for it's immediacy and punch. The transitions were the aural equivalent of jump cuts in video and a little crashy and I liked the punch of these. However I felt that they lost a lot of the contextualisation of the artists and the original songs as there was too little of them played. In my opinion this would also bombard the audience with too much information and not give enough prominence to the artists and band who have used the sample.
- The middle version (feels a little Goldilocks this) felt just right and had the best elements of the other two. The drum break was more featured, the tracks were contextualised enough and the transitions and flow has a sense of urgency and dove the audio forward but was not too cutty and jumpy giving a nice flow. Moving forward I feel that this was the best fit for the piece.
Something else that arose from the tests was my current technical skills and limitations with sound. Possibly some time spent with a sound specialist would rectify this but obviously mixing tempos, genres etc in small clips is tricky but worth looking into with some friend who teach Music Technology at the college I work at. However I do not want to edit the tracks and abridge them too much or recreate them the whole point is that they are what they are and my re-interpreting would dilute this.
Another consideration I was toying with whilst collecting and deciding on the tracks to use was that not all of them had music videos for them to use as visuals in the final piece. A lot of them did have but even more did not. Some where album tracks others were obscure D&D or EDM tracks that were for dancefloors and clubs not the charts. I do like the idea of using the music videos as they show the diversity of artists that have used the Amen Break and their multitude of genres, representations and styles. Alongside that they are also visually rich and I have no issues about appropriating them for my use as well as music as they themselves did not by sampling the Amen Break. This would restrict me to using music tracks that had music videos but I did not see this as a problem or necessary anyway, and would using all 2400 tracks be possible? I felt that this was not actually needed or only a pipe dream anyway? See below.
Another thing I realised from compiling these tests and also from doing my research into sourcing the songs was that 2400 examples is likely to be far too many for the January completion of the work and also 240 would be a huge push. This is for many reasons sourcing the clips, editing the clips, visuals for the clips and the length of the piece. At the shortest version this would be 1:32 for 9 tracks so about 10 seconds per track. Times 10 seconds by 240 and the piece would be about 40 minutes long as it stands. For the middle version it would be about double this and 75-80 minutes obviously even worse. For the test I am aiming to do as mentioned perviously for the test in january 1% of the 2400 samples making it 24 which would bring the piece in at about 5 minutes.
Tuesday, 25 October 2016
EISENSTEIN AND MONTAGE EDITING (MULTIPLE ELEMENTS)
The Soviet film-maker Sergei Eisenstein said of his theory of intellectual montage editing is "“an idea that derives from the collision between two shots that are independent of one another”. I strongly believe in this idea that the collision of two images for instance a shot of a blank face followed by a shot or rain at a window combine and collide to create a meaning of sadness and tears. However I want to see if this can be taken a little further by one image not replacing the next consecutively in a montage but explore the possibilities of them working concurrently to create meaning.
Split screen techniques will allow this and several images can be happening at the same time creating a multi layered message or ideology. Also double exposure techniques rather than split screen and layers happening one over the other or incorporated inside one another. The interesting thing about the double exposure technique used above is that it is not creating this as Eisenstein intended by shots following one another BUT at the same time. This will indeed create the whilst not a "collision of images" a blurring of images, messages and ideology that run concurrently rather than consecutively.
This is certainly something I wish to pursue so not the "collision" of images perhaps more like the "collusion" of images working together at the same time.
The following article greatly helped whilst doing more in-depth research of Eisenstein and in clarifying my own thoughts on applying his
Eisenstein: ‘Intellectual Montage’, Poststructuralism, and Ideology Ideas on Montage by Jason Lindop Volume 11, Issue 2 / February 2007 13 minutes (3231 words)
The great Soviet theorist and filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein explores the idea of creating an ‘intellectual cinema’ in three essays which were composed in 1929: Beyond the Shot, The Dramaturgy of Film Form, and The Fourth Dimension in Cinema. A central concern in these works is how a series of images can, when correctly composed by the filmmaker and then interpreted by the viewer, produce an abstract concept not strictly present in each of the composite images. He seeks to explicate this process by applying to cinema the dynamics he found in the Japanese hieroglyph. The following examples of the hieroglyphs are used by Eisenstein to illustrate a process of meaning generation which can be adopted by the cinema, in the service of ‘intellectual montage’.
eye + water = crying
door + ear = eavesdropping
child + mouth = screaming
mouth + dog = barking
mouth + bird = singing
knife + heart = anxiety
In response to the idea of the ideogram, Eisenstein concluded that montage is “an idea that DERIVES from the collision between two shots that are independent of one another”. This description seems to reverse the order in which the process actually unfolds in the spectator’s mind; it is not so much that the additive effect of two separate terms produce a new concept so much as the a priori conventionally determined meaning gives special connotations to the terms which, taken as an aggregate, produce this meaning. For example, if we take the three terms above that involve the word mouth, without knowledge of the conventionally based meanings, it would just as reasonable to conclude that the resulting meaning was hunger. Assuming the production of a sound is the natural meaning that results from these terms can only arise once we know the conventional rules of combination, which constitute not only a kind of grammatical code but also an ideological privileging of one value over another. For example, if we were shown the first two hieroglyphs involving the term mouth, and were then asked about the meaning of mouth + bird, we would then be in a position to conclude singing, because the previous usage of the noun/sign ‘mouth’ functioned as the verb ‘to make the appropriate sound’ of the animal with which it was combined. This conclusion would be logical in a true sense of the term, and is the kind of inference Eisenstein seems to apply to all above examples independent of each other. On an ideological level, this grammatical rule of composition forms a binary opposition that places production (of sound) over consumption (of food). Eisenstein presents the process as one of logical induction of the final term when it is more accurately described as one of ideological deduction of the composite terms. As an interesting aside, from the perspective of Marxist/Communist ideological needs, the privileging of production over consumption would serve to direct the workers attention in the right direction by valuing contribution to the system over thoughts of what the system can give back.
Split screen techniques will allow this and several images can be happening at the same time creating a multi layered message or ideology. Also double exposure techniques rather than split screen and layers happening one over the other or incorporated inside one another. The interesting thing about the double exposure technique used above is that it is not creating this as Eisenstein intended by shots following one another BUT at the same time. This will indeed create the whilst not a "collision of images" a blurring of images, messages and ideology that run concurrently rather than consecutively.
This is certainly something I wish to pursue so not the "collision" of images perhaps more like the "collusion" of images working together at the same time.
The following article greatly helped whilst doing more in-depth research of Eisenstein and in clarifying my own thoughts on applying his
Eisenstein: ‘Intellectual Montage’, Poststructuralism, and Ideology Ideas on Montage by Jason Lindop Volume 11, Issue 2 / February 2007 13 minutes (3231 words)
The great Soviet theorist and filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein explores the idea of creating an ‘intellectual cinema’ in three essays which were composed in 1929: Beyond the Shot, The Dramaturgy of Film Form, and The Fourth Dimension in Cinema. A central concern in these works is how a series of images can, when correctly composed by the filmmaker and then interpreted by the viewer, produce an abstract concept not strictly present in each of the composite images. He seeks to explicate this process by applying to cinema the dynamics he found in the Japanese hieroglyph. The following examples of the hieroglyphs are used by Eisenstein to illustrate a process of meaning generation which can be adopted by the cinema, in the service of ‘intellectual montage’.
eye + water = crying
door + ear = eavesdropping
child + mouth = screaming
mouth + dog = barking
mouth + bird = singing
knife + heart = anxiety
In response to the idea of the ideogram, Eisenstein concluded that montage is “an idea that DERIVES from the collision between two shots that are independent of one another”. This description seems to reverse the order in which the process actually unfolds in the spectator’s mind; it is not so much that the additive effect of two separate terms produce a new concept so much as the a priori conventionally determined meaning gives special connotations to the terms which, taken as an aggregate, produce this meaning. For example, if we take the three terms above that involve the word mouth, without knowledge of the conventionally based meanings, it would just as reasonable to conclude that the resulting meaning was hunger. Assuming the production of a sound is the natural meaning that results from these terms can only arise once we know the conventional rules of combination, which constitute not only a kind of grammatical code but also an ideological privileging of one value over another. For example, if we were shown the first two hieroglyphs involving the term mouth, and were then asked about the meaning of mouth + bird, we would then be in a position to conclude singing, because the previous usage of the noun/sign ‘mouth’ functioned as the verb ‘to make the appropriate sound’ of the animal with which it was combined. This conclusion would be logical in a true sense of the term, and is the kind of inference Eisenstein seems to apply to all above examples independent of each other. On an ideological level, this grammatical rule of composition forms a binary opposition that places production (of sound) over consumption (of food). Eisenstein presents the process as one of logical induction of the final term when it is more accurately described as one of ideological deduction of the composite terms. As an interesting aside, from the perspective of Marxist/Communist ideological needs, the privileging of production over consumption would serve to direct the workers attention in the right direction by valuing contribution to the system over thoughts of what the system can give back.
Monday, 24 October 2016
JONATHAN HODGSON (ANIMATED DOCUMENTARY)
I was keen on using animation techniques in my Anonymous documentary idea and also for elements of my Nature Of Love documentary idea with my Grandma. I wanted to seek out who had used the animated styles and techniques in documentaries and my tutor put me onto Jonathan Hodgson.
Jonathan Hodgson is one of the directors of Sherbet a highly successful animation production company and this biography is directly lifted from here.
Jonathan Hodgson is an internationally renowned, BAFTA winning animation director based in London. He was born in Oxford and studied animation at Liverpool Polytechnic and the Royal College of Art. In 2011 he directed the animation for Wonderland: The Trouble with Love and Sex, the first full length animated documentary on British TV.
After leaving the RCA in 1985, he went on to be a director at various animation studios before co-founding Sherbet in 1996. At Sherbet he directed numerous high profile advertising campaigns and collaborated with legendary illustrator Maurice Sendak.
His short films have won numerous awards including a BAFTA in 2000 for The Man with the Beautiful Eyes and a BAFTA nomination in 2002 for Camouflage. Jonathan’s work is featured on numerous books and DVD compilations. He has lectured extensively including the Royal College of Art, University of the Creative Arts Farnham and Film Akademie Barden Wurtemburg, Germany. In 2008 he became the programme leader for the new BA in Animation at Middlesex University.
I have looked at a lot of his work and he uses a multitude of styles, techniques and collaborators. His work whilst not always pure documentary is factual based and has often campaigned with organisations such as Greenpeace and Amnesty or for issues such as Guantanamo Bay and women's rights. He has a knack of marrying visuals and voice over excellently always complementing and enhancing the message through the style and never simply showing what is being said on film. His films have a universal appeal and the use of animation allows in my opinion more access into tricky political issues and debates. Something I could really capitalise on too. I am sure he works with the voice first honing and editing and then working on the visuals and there is much food for thought from his work. I have selected a couple of his works I have enjoyed underneath.
The Man With The Beautiful Eyes is a semi documentary as it is based on a short poem by the writer Charles Bukowski of whom I am a big fan. Whilst not a pure documentary Bukowski's writings were all semi auto-biographical so there is certainly a documentary element and feel to the story as well as be a fairytale fable quality too. Hodgson collaborated with illustrator Jonny Hannah on the film.
The Vimeo description is thus: A gang of kids find a strange house with an overgrown garden where they play. Only once do they meet the man who lives there, a dead-beat alcoholic with a free and easy spirit who welcomes them. The children see him as a romantic character in stark contrast to their neurotically house proud parents.
The Man with the Beautiful Eyes from Jonathan Hodgson on Vimeo.
I really enjoyed the film and the hand-drawn style works well the images not just pictorially representing the voice over narrative but adding to it with charm, wit and creativity. It was obviously a time consuming process but the result is bright, interesting and feels contemporary although the story somehow does not.
What comes after religion is a similar piece but utilises a different animation technique. The script is written by the philosopher Alain de Botton and questions what is religion, what purpose does it serve and do gods really exist.
The Vimeo description of the piece is: The debate between believers and atheists usually goes nowhere. The real issue is: what should fill the gaps created by the end of widespread belief? What should fill the God-shaped hole?
WHAT COMES AFTER RELIGION from Jonathan Hodgson on Vimeo.
The style and tone is different from The Man With The Beautiful Eyes. This feels more like a lesson than a narrative story but the tongue in cheek comedy is still there. As before the visuals not just pictorially representing the voice over narrative but adding to it with charm, wit and creativity. The style is very thematic largely based on old religious etchings in style for most of the film and these look like they have been animated using largely cut-outs (and a few other techniques) in a program such as Adobe After Effects. This is less time consuming and is a very old fashioned but quick to create style of animation and some elements have a real flavour of Terry Gilliam about them but a little more subtle. The movements of the characters is really interesting and at the same time the voice over manages to walk that fine line between pointing out the absurdity of religion and it's flaws whilst appreciating the virtues and moral compass it provides. This is done cleverly through both the visuals and the thought provoking voice over which work exceptionally well in tandem.
http://www.sherbet.co.uk/
http://hodgsonfilms.tumblr.com/
http://animateprojects.org/
https://vimeo.com/search?q=jonathan+hodgson
Jonathan Hodgson is one of the directors of Sherbet a highly successful animation production company and this biography is directly lifted from here.
His short films have won numerous awards including a BAFTA in 2000 for The Man with the Beautiful Eyes and a BAFTA nomination in 2002 for Camouflage. Jonathan’s work is featured on numerous books and DVD compilations. He has lectured extensively including the Royal College of Art, University of the Creative Arts Farnham and Film Akademie Barden Wurtemburg, Germany. In 2008 he became the programme leader for the new BA in Animation at Middlesex University.
I have looked at a lot of his work and he uses a multitude of styles, techniques and collaborators. His work whilst not always pure documentary is factual based and has often campaigned with organisations such as Greenpeace and Amnesty or for issues such as Guantanamo Bay and women's rights. He has a knack of marrying visuals and voice over excellently always complementing and enhancing the message through the style and never simply showing what is being said on film. His films have a universal appeal and the use of animation allows in my opinion more access into tricky political issues and debates. Something I could really capitalise on too. I am sure he works with the voice first honing and editing and then working on the visuals and there is much food for thought from his work. I have selected a couple of his works I have enjoyed underneath.
The Man With The Beautiful Eyes is a semi documentary as it is based on a short poem by the writer Charles Bukowski of whom I am a big fan. Whilst not a pure documentary Bukowski's writings were all semi auto-biographical so there is certainly a documentary element and feel to the story as well as be a fairytale fable quality too. Hodgson collaborated with illustrator Jonny Hannah on the film.
The Vimeo description is thus: A gang of kids find a strange house with an overgrown garden where they play. Only once do they meet the man who lives there, a dead-beat alcoholic with a free and easy spirit who welcomes them. The children see him as a romantic character in stark contrast to their neurotically house proud parents.
The Man with the Beautiful Eyes from Jonathan Hodgson on Vimeo.
I really enjoyed the film and the hand-drawn style works well the images not just pictorially representing the voice over narrative but adding to it with charm, wit and creativity. It was obviously a time consuming process but the result is bright, interesting and feels contemporary although the story somehow does not.
What comes after religion is a similar piece but utilises a different animation technique. The script is written by the philosopher Alain de Botton and questions what is religion, what purpose does it serve and do gods really exist.
The Vimeo description of the piece is: The debate between believers and atheists usually goes nowhere. The real issue is: what should fill the gaps created by the end of widespread belief? What should fill the God-shaped hole?
WHAT COMES AFTER RELIGION from Jonathan Hodgson on Vimeo.
The style and tone is different from The Man With The Beautiful Eyes. This feels more like a lesson than a narrative story but the tongue in cheek comedy is still there. As before the visuals not just pictorially representing the voice over narrative but adding to it with charm, wit and creativity. The style is very thematic largely based on old religious etchings in style for most of the film and these look like they have been animated using largely cut-outs (and a few other techniques) in a program such as Adobe After Effects. This is less time consuming and is a very old fashioned but quick to create style of animation and some elements have a real flavour of Terry Gilliam about them but a little more subtle. The movements of the characters is really interesting and at the same time the voice over manages to walk that fine line between pointing out the absurdity of religion and it's flaws whilst appreciating the virtues and moral compass it provides. This is done cleverly through both the visuals and the thought provoking voice over which work exceptionally well in tandem.
http://www.sherbet.co.uk/
http://hodgsonfilms.tumblr.com/
http://animateprojects.org/
https://vimeo.com/search?q=jonathan+hodgson
Sunday, 23 October 2016
FLUXUS
Throughout my research into artists the Fluxus art movement keeps cropping up. Fluxus is desribed as a the multi practice avant garde collective and network of artists who had a DIY attitude and collaboration. A central figure in this movement and "ideological father"was avant garde composer John Cage. His philosophy about the movement was the "notion that one should embark on an artwork without a conception of its end, and his understanding of the work as a site of interaction between artist and audience." Other famous artistic figures associated with the movement include Yoko Ono and two artists whose work has greatly inspired me Nam June Paik and Christian Marclay.
Marclay's work with it's undertones of John CageCage's themes and methodology run into Marclay's own work. He used this work and indeed took it further with his "turntablist" performances. Using multiple records on multiple record players rather than the broken and then reassembled record made from different ones he created new music from concurrently played different records. He repeated a similar trick but this time using editing and movie clips in "The Clock" and "Video Quartet"
Nam June Paik 's work coined the term Video Art which was seen as part of the movement and sharing it's ideologies. Paik and his work was often viewed as an imposter in art galleries in its formative years but due to the often sculptural nature of his early work he helped to path the way by combining a sculptural structure to his work that made it more gallery friendly. He famously said that this newfound medium would “enable us to shape the TV screen canvas as precisely as Leonardo, as freely as Picasso, as colourfully as Renoir.”
As some of these figures inspired me I thought that it must have some crossovers with my work. It was an interdisciplinary art movement encompassing a multitude of disciplines and an anything goes DIY philosophy. I guess that does sum up my work somewhat, the creating of something from existing parts and the colision of images and sound. Appropriation and mixing that with technology to create something new and interesting. Also Cage's quote and the "notion that one should embark on an artwork without a conception of its end, and his understanding of the work as a site of interaction between artist and audience." is also strangely appropriate as this piece of work is laced with a spirit of adventure and as of now i am still unsure how it will eventually end.
Marclay's work with it's undertones of John CageCage's themes and methodology run into Marclay's own work. He used this work and indeed took it further with his "turntablist" performances. Using multiple records on multiple record players rather than the broken and then reassembled record made from different ones he created new music from concurrently played different records. He repeated a similar trick but this time using editing and movie clips in "The Clock" and "Video Quartet"
Nam June Paik 's work coined the term Video Art which was seen as part of the movement and sharing it's ideologies. Paik and his work was often viewed as an imposter in art galleries in its formative years but due to the often sculptural nature of his early work he helped to path the way by combining a sculptural structure to his work that made it more gallery friendly. He famously said that this newfound medium would “enable us to shape the TV screen canvas as precisely as Leonardo, as freely as Picasso, as colourfully as Renoir.”
As some of these figures inspired me I thought that it must have some crossovers with my work. It was an interdisciplinary art movement encompassing a multitude of disciplines and an anything goes DIY philosophy. I guess that does sum up my work somewhat, the creating of something from existing parts and the colision of images and sound. Appropriation and mixing that with technology to create something new and interesting. Also Cage's quote and the "notion that one should embark on an artwork without a conception of its end, and his understanding of the work as a site of interaction between artist and audience." is also strangely appropriate as this piece of work is laced with a spirit of adventure and as of now i am still unsure how it will eventually end.
CHRISTIAN MARCLAY
Christian Marclay is a long established multi discipline artist but perhaps most well know for his installation and audio visual work. Marclay was born in California in 1955, raised in Switzerland and now lives in London and has exhibited widely. He has long explored the relationships between sound and image in a galley and fine art setting and themes of pop culture, music and its iconography are repeated themes and constants in a lot of his work. Therefore he is someone who I feel I could learn a lot from especially for my Amen Brother piece.
RECYCLED RECORDS (1980-86)
Recycled Records was an early series of pieces by Marclay made from building records from fragmented and then reassembled vinyl records he created hybrid objects that could be played, complete with abrupt leaps in tone and sound. Marclay loved the scratches, the jumps, jolts and irregularity of this process and the combination of sounds that occurred when he made them. He apparently is responsible for the advent of the term "turntablist". Today is the name taken by skilled DJ's in the Hip Hop genre who create new cohesive, flowing music out of records turntables, laptops and mixers but the principle is the same. Marclay's approach was not this fluidity though but the collision of sounds the flow being secondary to this. Marclay is viewed as a follower of Fluxus the multi practice avant garde collective and network of artists who had a DIY attitude and collaboration. A central figure in this movement was avant garde composer John Cage and undertones of Cage's themes and methodology run into Marclay's own work. He used this work and indeed took it further with his "turntablist" performances. Using multiple records on multiple record players rather than the broken and then reassembled record made from different ones he created new music from concurrently played different records.
I loved the idea of recycled records and of the DIY attitude of combining different elements to create something new. I have a passion for Hip Hop music and the sampling of other records used to create something new at its core. It was this passion that proved a gateway into many other forms of music by tracking down the original records used in the Hip Hop tracks and then realising how fantastic the original source songs were too. This in time led to an appreciation of "The break" and the most famous of all The Amen Break.
My own Amen piece I am currently working on follows a similar them to this idea and indeed that of a lot of Marclay's work that of creating something new from lots of other elements. at it's core this is appropriation sampling call it what you want. What I want to do also though is use this to communicate a message not just challenge our perceptions of what music could and should be and its construction.
VIDEO QUARTET (2002)
Video Quartet is a large, four-screen projection featuring hundreds of clips from old Hollywood films, with actors and musicians making sound or playing instruments. It extends his ideas further from Recycled records by recycling film clips to create an elaborate audio-visual collage that evokes pop culture, appropriation art and sampling. The themes, methodology and concept is extremely similar to Recycled Records above but film clips are his source material this time. From his turntablist work and the combining of records playing at the same to create a new piece of music he has simply evolved this into using clips from film and the audio from them so he gets pictures to accompany the work. The sound combines and creates a much more fluid approach and cohesiveness though than some of his turntablist works. Vocals work with instrumentation from guitar, piano and harps to create a surreal ever changing band with a jazz like quality the music continually inventing a re-inventing itself.
Whilst the piece in clever, technically skilled and interesting both visually and aurally like much of Marclay's work though it is hard to put your finger on what exactly he is trying to say. As a work of technical competency and execution it works well and it is certainly clever but it is a little bit of a one liner. As I have mentioned before technique unless it serves a purpose is just that a clever technique and the piece lacks a little in substance. It has obvious links to the Amen piece I am developing though with clips and sound combined to create an installation but just not at the same time although this may be worth trying. Hopefully what my work will do it to have a strong underlying theme and ideology that shines through and not just be a what seems like a clever technical exercise. A very enjoyable one but in the end I was left wanting a little more.
THE CLOCK (2010)
The Clock is created from thousands of edited film clips and fragments, from a vast range of films to create a 24-hour, single-channel video that is shown on one screen. It examines how time, plot and duration are depicted in cinema, the video is also a working timepiece that is synchronised to the local time zone. At any moment, the viewer can look at the work and use it to tell the time. Yet the audience watching The Clock experiences a vast range of narratives, settings and moods within the space of a few minutes, making time unravel in countless directions at once. It is also a great rolling enigma particularly for cineastes in trying to work out the films that the clips used in the piece are sourced from.
My feelings about the clock are very similar to those I had for Video Quartet. Whilst their is absolutely no denying huge undertaking of the the work, research and time put into creating it and the clever idea behind it there is not much more than that to it. Marclay is more like a librarian sifting through clips to find the ones he wants and then simply letting them follow one after the other. Technically it is not a wonderful piece of work the exceptional archiving and researching is where the cleverness lies. It is a one line idea, stunt and concept that probably countless people had discussed in the pub but Marclay just had the time, resources and initiative to actually do it. All that aside it is really enjoyable piece to consume as an audience member but lacks the depth messages and ideology to elevate it to much more than clever entertainment. You could argue it questions time, movie history, narrative progression and structure or how we use time to navigate our day ritualistically but I feel that would be reading too much into it.
Again the use multiple clips to tell a story has links to my Amen piece and it is a great example of fair usage policy as there is no way he would have sought clearance on all those clips and their length points to this. The way they are linked by time is similar to the linking of my Amen idea through the drum beats but I want to as mentioned earlier it to be more than a technical exercise. I want to make sure the ideology, messages and values of sampling, appropriation are crustal clear. I want the audience for my piece to leave it being informed, educated AND entertained and to acclaim the unsung hero and 6 seconds of genius that inspired over 2400 other artists. If I do not it will simply be apiece of clever entertainment at best like Marclay's The Clock!
RECYCLED RECORDS (1980-86)
Recycled Records was an early series of pieces by Marclay made from building records from fragmented and then reassembled vinyl records he created hybrid objects that could be played, complete with abrupt leaps in tone and sound. Marclay loved the scratches, the jumps, jolts and irregularity of this process and the combination of sounds that occurred when he made them. He apparently is responsible for the advent of the term "turntablist". Today is the name taken by skilled DJ's in the Hip Hop genre who create new cohesive, flowing music out of records turntables, laptops and mixers but the principle is the same. Marclay's approach was not this fluidity though but the collision of sounds the flow being secondary to this. Marclay is viewed as a follower of Fluxus the multi practice avant garde collective and network of artists who had a DIY attitude and collaboration. A central figure in this movement was avant garde composer John Cage and undertones of Cage's themes and methodology run into Marclay's own work. He used this work and indeed took it further with his "turntablist" performances. Using multiple records on multiple record players rather than the broken and then reassembled record made from different ones he created new music from concurrently played different records.
I loved the idea of recycled records and of the DIY attitude of combining different elements to create something new. I have a passion for Hip Hop music and the sampling of other records used to create something new at its core. It was this passion that proved a gateway into many other forms of music by tracking down the original records used in the Hip Hop tracks and then realising how fantastic the original source songs were too. This in time led to an appreciation of "The break" and the most famous of all The Amen Break.
My own Amen piece I am currently working on follows a similar them to this idea and indeed that of a lot of Marclay's work that of creating something new from lots of other elements. at it's core this is appropriation sampling call it what you want. What I want to do also though is use this to communicate a message not just challenge our perceptions of what music could and should be and its construction.
VIDEO QUARTET (2002)
Video Quartet is a large, four-screen projection featuring hundreds of clips from old Hollywood films, with actors and musicians making sound or playing instruments. It extends his ideas further from Recycled records by recycling film clips to create an elaborate audio-visual collage that evokes pop culture, appropriation art and sampling. The themes, methodology and concept is extremely similar to Recycled Records above but film clips are his source material this time. From his turntablist work and the combining of records playing at the same to create a new piece of music he has simply evolved this into using clips from film and the audio from them so he gets pictures to accompany the work. The sound combines and creates a much more fluid approach and cohesiveness though than some of his turntablist works. Vocals work with instrumentation from guitar, piano and harps to create a surreal ever changing band with a jazz like quality the music continually inventing a re-inventing itself.
Whilst the piece in clever, technically skilled and interesting both visually and aurally like much of Marclay's work though it is hard to put your finger on what exactly he is trying to say. As a work of technical competency and execution it works well and it is certainly clever but it is a little bit of a one liner. As I have mentioned before technique unless it serves a purpose is just that a clever technique and the piece lacks a little in substance. It has obvious links to the Amen piece I am developing though with clips and sound combined to create an installation but just not at the same time although this may be worth trying. Hopefully what my work will do it to have a strong underlying theme and ideology that shines through and not just be a what seems like a clever technical exercise. A very enjoyable one but in the end I was left wanting a little more.
THE CLOCK (2010)
The Clock is created from thousands of edited film clips and fragments, from a vast range of films to create a 24-hour, single-channel video that is shown on one screen. It examines how time, plot and duration are depicted in cinema, the video is also a working timepiece that is synchronised to the local time zone. At any moment, the viewer can look at the work and use it to tell the time. Yet the audience watching The Clock experiences a vast range of narratives, settings and moods within the space of a few minutes, making time unravel in countless directions at once. It is also a great rolling enigma particularly for cineastes in trying to work out the films that the clips used in the piece are sourced from.
My feelings about the clock are very similar to those I had for Video Quartet. Whilst their is absolutely no denying huge undertaking of the the work, research and time put into creating it and the clever idea behind it there is not much more than that to it. Marclay is more like a librarian sifting through clips to find the ones he wants and then simply letting them follow one after the other. Technically it is not a wonderful piece of work the exceptional archiving and researching is where the cleverness lies. It is a one line idea, stunt and concept that probably countless people had discussed in the pub but Marclay just had the time, resources and initiative to actually do it. All that aside it is really enjoyable piece to consume as an audience member but lacks the depth messages and ideology to elevate it to much more than clever entertainment. You could argue it questions time, movie history, narrative progression and structure or how we use time to navigate our day ritualistically but I feel that would be reading too much into it.
Again the use multiple clips to tell a story has links to my Amen piece and it is a great example of fair usage policy as there is no way he would have sought clearance on all those clips and their length points to this. The way they are linked by time is similar to the linking of my Amen idea through the drum beats but I want to as mentioned earlier it to be more than a technical exercise. I want to make sure the ideology, messages and values of sampling, appropriation are crustal clear. I want the audience for my piece to leave it being informed, educated AND entertained and to acclaim the unsung hero and 6 seconds of genius that inspired over 2400 other artists. If I do not it will simply be apiece of clever entertainment at best like Marclay's The Clock!
Friday, 21 October 2016
AMEN: SAMPLING DEBATE RESEARCH
The Amen Break is the most sampled drum break in history and sampling is the aural equivalent of appropriation in art and it is something I am familiar with from my love of Hip Hop which is Built upon the break and the sampling. However I decided to look into it a little further into the issues and debates which surround it as in a way by re-using records that use the Amen break to form a soundtrack I am sampling them. The following documentary gives a good overview of the issues and debates surrounding sampling. It makes and interesting connection with art collage and the re-appropriation of sound rather than images to make something new.
Sampling has a long tradition within the music industry and ever since the 1960s, some artists used tape recorders to create new songs with pieces of other people’s work. Today, sampling still happens all the time with many different artists. Some DJs base their entire careers off creating musical pieces using samples. To sample, you take a piece of another artist’s work, whether vocal or instrumental, and use it to make a new song. Some songs only borrow a bass line, others use an entire chorus. The sample should only be a small part of the whole new song you create. To sample, you take a piece of another artist’s work, whether vocal or instrumental, and use it to make a new song. Some songs only borrow a bass line, others use an entire chorus. The sample should only be a small part of the whole new song you create.
Some songs have been sampled many times by multiple artists and have become famous samples. For example, the popular 1984 hip hop song “La Di Da Di” by rapper Slick Rick and beatboxer Doug E. Fresh. Other artists have used parts of “La Di Da Di” in hundreds of different songs and mixes. Most recently, Miley Cyrus borrowed the lyrics “La di da di, we like to party” for her hit song “We Can’t Stop.” Other artists have used “La Di Da Di’s” unique beats, melodies, and vocals for various purposes in their own work.
As with "fair usage" of the work of others when sampling you need to give due credit to the original and the copyright holders. This can make the difference between sampling another artist’s music and stealing it. Although you can use samples exclusively to create an entirely new song, the original artist(s) still deserve credit and need to give permission for you to use their work. Famous musicians have been taken to task for sampling other artists’ work without permission. Not all musicians end up having to go to court or pay penalties, but they still often face public disapproval.
Rapper Vanilla Ice sampled a bass line from Queen and David Bowie’s song “Under Pressure” in his own song “Ice Ice Baby.” The rapper now gives credit to the original artists, but did not originally have permission to use the track. The band the Verve was taken to court for using samples from an orchestral version of a Rolling Stones song in their own song “Bittersweet Symphony.” They ended up having to pay 100% of their royalties to the Rolling Stones.
You can safely sample music without stealing it as long as you have permission to do so. You’ll need to give the original artist credit and let them know you’re using the track before you distribute your music for sale. While copyright laws protect artists from having their tracks stolen, you can sometimes use samples without permission if they fall under fair use.
Fair use is an exception to copyright laws. It means you can use another artist’s work without their knowledge if you’re using it for specific purposes. Fair use can be difficult to define. However, most courts assess whether something falls under fair use using four criteria:
1.Purpose/character of the new material
2.Nature of the original work
3.Amount of the original work in the new material
4.Effect upon the original work’s value
You can usually use copyrighted works without permission if you use them for commentary, parody, reporting, research, education, criticism, or a few other specific reasons. If you ultimately want to sell your music to the general public, you’ll need permission for those samples.
http://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/blog-why-sampling-isnt-stealing-157446#
http://www.mibba.com/Articles/Entertainment/6762/Music-Sampling-Daylight-Robbery-or-Art-Form/
http://blog.landr.com/sampling-isnt-theft/
Sampling has a long tradition within the music industry and ever since the 1960s, some artists used tape recorders to create new songs with pieces of other people’s work. Today, sampling still happens all the time with many different artists. Some DJs base their entire careers off creating musical pieces using samples. To sample, you take a piece of another artist’s work, whether vocal or instrumental, and use it to make a new song. Some songs only borrow a bass line, others use an entire chorus. The sample should only be a small part of the whole new song you create. To sample, you take a piece of another artist’s work, whether vocal or instrumental, and use it to make a new song. Some songs only borrow a bass line, others use an entire chorus. The sample should only be a small part of the whole new song you create.
Some songs have been sampled many times by multiple artists and have become famous samples. For example, the popular 1984 hip hop song “La Di Da Di” by rapper Slick Rick and beatboxer Doug E. Fresh. Other artists have used parts of “La Di Da Di” in hundreds of different songs and mixes. Most recently, Miley Cyrus borrowed the lyrics “La di da di, we like to party” for her hit song “We Can’t Stop.” Other artists have used “La Di Da Di’s” unique beats, melodies, and vocals for various purposes in their own work.
As with "fair usage" of the work of others when sampling you need to give due credit to the original and the copyright holders. This can make the difference between sampling another artist’s music and stealing it. Although you can use samples exclusively to create an entirely new song, the original artist(s) still deserve credit and need to give permission for you to use their work. Famous musicians have been taken to task for sampling other artists’ work without permission. Not all musicians end up having to go to court or pay penalties, but they still often face public disapproval.
Rapper Vanilla Ice sampled a bass line from Queen and David Bowie’s song “Under Pressure” in his own song “Ice Ice Baby.” The rapper now gives credit to the original artists, but did not originally have permission to use the track. The band the Verve was taken to court for using samples from an orchestral version of a Rolling Stones song in their own song “Bittersweet Symphony.” They ended up having to pay 100% of their royalties to the Rolling Stones.
You can safely sample music without stealing it as long as you have permission to do so. You’ll need to give the original artist credit and let them know you’re using the track before you distribute your music for sale. While copyright laws protect artists from having their tracks stolen, you can sometimes use samples without permission if they fall under fair use.
Fair use is an exception to copyright laws. It means you can use another artist’s work without their knowledge if you’re using it for specific purposes. Fair use can be difficult to define. However, most courts assess whether something falls under fair use using four criteria:
1.Purpose/character of the new material
2.Nature of the original work
3.Amount of the original work in the new material
4.Effect upon the original work’s value
You can usually use copyrighted works without permission if you use them for commentary, parody, reporting, research, education, criticism, or a few other specific reasons. If you ultimately want to sell your music to the general public, you’ll need permission for those samples.
http://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/blog-why-sampling-isnt-stealing-157446#
http://www.mibba.com/Articles/Entertainment/6762/Music-Sampling-Daylight-Robbery-or-Art-Form/
http://blog.landr.com/sampling-isnt-theft/
Thursday, 20 October 2016
AMEN APPROPRIATION: LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES (AUDIO USAGE)
As well as using or appropriating moving video imagery from music videos the main crux of the Amen Brother piece is obviously the music. This is integral and the lynchpin of the piece as whilst the visuals are important the sound is the priority. I have a basic knowledge and understanding of music copyright and how to get clearance from my TV days but it is usually such a legal minefield as well as being costly. It involved going through PRS (Performing Rights Society) and stating length, usage, medium, context etc and they will then act as intermediaries for copyright holders and calculate the costs to use the music. To avoid this recently used rights free un-copyrighted music or worked with composers to write original music for my work to avoid these issues.
However using the copyrighted music of others is the basis for this whole piece and would be very time consuming and potentially costly as I mentioned earlier. The aim is to use music from well known artists that the audience may be familiar with and to get the to re-listen to it in a different context so will be necessary. To this end I needed to explore and research the legality surrounding the use of music much the same way as I had to with using moving image works and hopefully find something similar to fair usage in operation. The whole idea of the piece and appropriation is also in the irony of musical artists and acts appropriating (sampling) the Amen Break and paying no royalties. So by my paying no royalties myself to use their music and giving G.C.Coleman and the Meters the full credit and acknowledgement they deserve this is appropriation gone almost full circle.
From research it appears that the use of Fair Usage does also apply to music and is very similar to that of moving images. Whilst my work will only initially be screened within an educational context to tutors and peers in case of what may happen later or where it may be screened or exhibited I want to try and get it right from the start. I am currently looking at creating a multi screen installation piece but this may change into an experimental broadcast mini documentary so I want to be safe.
The UK Copyright Service seemed to be the people who oversaw the use of music so I researched and read around their guidelines (Fact sheet P-27) and the most poignant points I have outlined below.
Duration of copyright The 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act states the duration of copyright as;
For literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works
70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last remaining author of the work dies. If the author is unknown, copyright will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created, although if it is made available to the public during that time, (by publication, authorised performance, broadcast, exhibition, etc.), then the duration will be 70 years from the end of the year that the work was first made available.
Sound Recordings and broadcasts
50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was created, or, if the work is released within that time: 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first released.
Films
70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last principal director, author or composer dies. If the work is of unknown authorship: 70 years from end of the calendar year of creation, or if made available to the public in that time, 70 years from the end of the year the film was first made available.
From the above it is clear that as most of the material I will be using is from the last 25-30 years I will need to adhere to copyright as none of it will be out of copyright.
Fair Dealing
iii: Criticism or Review
Quoting parts of a work for the purpose of criticism or review is permitted provided that:
Fair Use Under Copyright Law And Its Application
The following also need to be taken into consideration.
I feel my work will transformative as it is likely to be a collage made from lots of sound clips combined to create another meaning. Whilst the work is creative it is in the public arena already and is really promotional material and an advert for the song and the band so by using it I do not feel I will I will be effecting its potential market share and may possibly even increase attention and sales of the original songs. The length of the copyrighted work used will obviously be kept to a minimum and the amount you can use is an issue and this is a very inexact science and they give the following guidance:
How much of a work can I use under fair dealing?
There is no simple formula or percentage that can be applied. You may have seen figures like ‘up to 10%’ or ‘no more than 400 words’ quoted in some publications, but such figures are at best a rough guide and can be misleading. What is acceptable will vary from one work to another. In cases that have come to trial what is clear is that it is the perceived importance of the copied content rather than simply the quantity that counts. Judges hearing such cases often have to make an objective decision on whether the use is justified or excessive.
From this and the 10% rough guidance the shorter the better. If a song is 4 minutes for example that would be 240 seconds so would be about 24 seconds of the song being able to be used. From research into music use in podcasts though the rule of thumb, not essentially the law but what has been established as "good practice" is that you cannot use more than 30 seconds of uninterrupted music. As this will be about the length of the sections of the tracks I aim to use and I envisage them blending into one another I feel I am on safe ground.
There is more information on this at Creative Commons and their Podcasting legal guide.
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Podcasting_Legal_Guide
For the full details on copyright and adhering to the law for reference the UK Copyright Service outlines and guidance can be found here.
https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others#fair_dealing
Their advice on fair usage is below.
What is fair use?
In copyright law, there is a concept of fair use, also known as; free use, fair dealing, or fair practice. Fair use sets out certain actions that may be carried out, but would not normally be regarded as an infringement of the work.
The idea behind this is that if copyright laws are too restrictive, it may stifle free speech, news reporting, or result in disproportionate penalties for inconsequential or accidental inclusion.
What does fair use allow?
Under fair use rules, it may be possible to use quotations or excerpts, where the work has been made available to the public, (i.e. published). Provided that:
This is where part of a work is unintentionally included. A typical examples of this would be a case where holiday movie inadvertently captured part of a copyright work, such as some background music, or a poster that just happened to on a wall in the background.
Points to keep in mind...
The actual specifics of what is acceptable will be governed by national laws, and although broadly similar, actual provision will vary from country to country. Cases dealing with fair dealing can be complex, as decisions are based on individual circumstances and judgements. This can be a very difficult area of copyright law. To avoid problems, if you are in any doubt, you are advised to always get the permission of the owner, prior to use. UK fair dealing legislation For specific details on fair dealing under UK law please refer to our factsheet P-27: Using the work of others.
However using the copyrighted music of others is the basis for this whole piece and would be very time consuming and potentially costly as I mentioned earlier. The aim is to use music from well known artists that the audience may be familiar with and to get the to re-listen to it in a different context so will be necessary. To this end I needed to explore and research the legality surrounding the use of music much the same way as I had to with using moving image works and hopefully find something similar to fair usage in operation. The whole idea of the piece and appropriation is also in the irony of musical artists and acts appropriating (sampling) the Amen Break and paying no royalties. So by my paying no royalties myself to use their music and giving G.C.Coleman and the Meters the full credit and acknowledgement they deserve this is appropriation gone almost full circle.
From research it appears that the use of Fair Usage does also apply to music and is very similar to that of moving images. Whilst my work will only initially be screened within an educational context to tutors and peers in case of what may happen later or where it may be screened or exhibited I want to try and get it right from the start. I am currently looking at creating a multi screen installation piece but this may change into an experimental broadcast mini documentary so I want to be safe.
The UK Copyright Service seemed to be the people who oversaw the use of music so I researched and read around their guidelines (Fact sheet P-27) and the most poignant points I have outlined below.
Duration of copyright The 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act states the duration of copyright as;
For literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works
70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last remaining author of the work dies. If the author is unknown, copyright will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created, although if it is made available to the public during that time, (by publication, authorised performance, broadcast, exhibition, etc.), then the duration will be 70 years from the end of the year that the work was first made available.
Sound Recordings and broadcasts
50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was created, or, if the work is released within that time: 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first released.
Films
70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last principal director, author or composer dies. If the work is of unknown authorship: 70 years from end of the calendar year of creation, or if made available to the public in that time, 70 years from the end of the year the film was first made available.
From the above it is clear that as most of the material I will be using is from the last 25-30 years I will need to adhere to copyright as none of it will be out of copyright.
Fair Dealing
iii: Criticism or Review
Quoting parts of a work for the purpose of criticism or review is permitted provided that:
- The work has been made available to the public.
- The source of the material is acknowledged.
- The material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment (to warrant the criticism or review classification).
- The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose of the review.
Fair Use Under Copyright Law And Its Application
The following also need to be taken into consideration.
- The purpose and character of your use (this is sometimes called the “transformative factor”)
- The nature of the copyrighted work (e.g., is the work highly creative fiction warranting broader protection, or is it highly factual warranting narrower protection?)
- The amount and substantiality of the portion taken, (as compared both to the underlying work and the work in which the copying is used)
- The effect of the use upon the potential market (e.g., did the copyrighted work lose market share or potential market share?).
I feel my work will transformative as it is likely to be a collage made from lots of sound clips combined to create another meaning. Whilst the work is creative it is in the public arena already and is really promotional material and an advert for the song and the band so by using it I do not feel I will I will be effecting its potential market share and may possibly even increase attention and sales of the original songs. The length of the copyrighted work used will obviously be kept to a minimum and the amount you can use is an issue and this is a very inexact science and they give the following guidance:
How much of a work can I use under fair dealing?
There is no simple formula or percentage that can be applied. You may have seen figures like ‘up to 10%’ or ‘no more than 400 words’ quoted in some publications, but such figures are at best a rough guide and can be misleading. What is acceptable will vary from one work to another. In cases that have come to trial what is clear is that it is the perceived importance of the copied content rather than simply the quantity that counts. Judges hearing such cases often have to make an objective decision on whether the use is justified or excessive.
From this and the 10% rough guidance the shorter the better. If a song is 4 minutes for example that would be 240 seconds so would be about 24 seconds of the song being able to be used. From research into music use in podcasts though the rule of thumb, not essentially the law but what has been established as "good practice" is that you cannot use more than 30 seconds of uninterrupted music. As this will be about the length of the sections of the tracks I aim to use and I envisage them blending into one another I feel I am on safe ground.
There is more information on this at Creative Commons and their Podcasting legal guide.
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Podcasting_Legal_Guide
For the full details on copyright and adhering to the law for reference the UK Copyright Service outlines and guidance can be found here.
https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others#fair_dealing
Their advice on fair usage is below.
What is fair use?
In copyright law, there is a concept of fair use, also known as; free use, fair dealing, or fair practice. Fair use sets out certain actions that may be carried out, but would not normally be regarded as an infringement of the work.
The idea behind this is that if copyright laws are too restrictive, it may stifle free speech, news reporting, or result in disproportionate penalties for inconsequential or accidental inclusion.
What does fair use allow?
Under fair use rules, it may be possible to use quotations or excerpts, where the work has been made available to the public, (i.e. published). Provided that:
- The use is deemed acceptable under the terms of fair dealing.
- That the quoted material is justified, and no more than is necessary is included.
- That the source of the quoted material is mentioned, along with the name of the author.
- Inclusion for the purpose of news reporting.
- Incidental inclusion.
- National laws typically allow limited private and educational use.
This is where part of a work is unintentionally included. A typical examples of this would be a case where holiday movie inadvertently captured part of a copyright work, such as some background music, or a poster that just happened to on a wall in the background.
Points to keep in mind...
The actual specifics of what is acceptable will be governed by national laws, and although broadly similar, actual provision will vary from country to country. Cases dealing with fair dealing can be complex, as decisions are based on individual circumstances and judgements. This can be a very difficult area of copyright law. To avoid problems, if you are in any doubt, you are advised to always get the permission of the owner, prior to use. UK fair dealing legislation For specific details on fair dealing under UK law please refer to our factsheet P-27: Using the work of others.
Tuesday, 18 October 2016
LEGAL & ETHICAL: CMSI GUIDELINES
The following is taken directly from cmsimpact the Centre for Media and Social Impact and is the strongest overview of fair usage and what or not is in the black, white or the huge grey area in between.
CMSI information as on their website is below and I have cut and pasted it to act a reference for myself during any grey areas.
Video is increasingly becoming a central part of our everyday landscape of communication, and it is becoming more visible as people share it on digital platforms. People make and share videos to tell stories about their personal lives, remixing home videos with popular music and images. Video remix has become a core component of political discourse, as the video “George Bush Don’t Like Black People” and the “Yes We Can” parodies demonstrated. Both amateur and professional editors are creating new forms of viral popular culture, as the “Dramatic Chipmunk” meme and the “Brokeback to the Future” mashup illustrate. The circulation of these videos is an emerging part of the business landscape, as the sale of YouTube to Google demonstrated.
More and more, video creation and sharing depend on the ability to use and circulate existing copyrighted work. Until now, that fact has been almost irrelevant in business and law, because broad distribution of nonprofessional video was relatively rare. Often people circulated their work within a small group of family and friends. But digital platforms make work far more public than it has ever been, and cultural habits and business models are developing. As practices spread and financial stakes are raised, the legal status of inserting copyrighted work into new work will become important for everyone.
It is important for video makers, online service providers, and content providers to understand the legal rights of makers of new culture, as policies and practices evolve. Only then will efforts to fight copyright “piracy” in the online environment be able to make necessary space for lawful, value-added uses.
Mashups, remixes, subs, and online parodies are new and refreshing online phenomena, but they partake of an ancient tradition: the recycling of old culture to make new. In spite of our romantic cliches about the anguished lone creator, the entire history of cultural production from Aeschylus through Shakespeare to Clueless has shown that all creators stand, as Isaac Newton (and so many others) put it, “on the shoulders of giants.”
In fact, the cultural value of copying is so well established that it is written into the social bargain at the heart of copyright law. The bargain is this: we as a society give limited property rights to creators, to reward them for producing culture; at the same time, we give other creators the chance to use that same copyrighted material without permission or payment, in some circumstances. Without the second half of the bargain, we could all lose important new cultural work just because one person is arbitrary or greedy.
Copyright law has several features that permit quotations from copyrighted works without permission or payment, under certain conditions. Fair use is the most important of these features. It has been an important part of copyright law for more than 150 years. Where it applies, fair use is a right, not a mere privilege. In fact, as the Supreme Court has pointed out, fair use keeps copyright from violating the First Amendment. As copyright protects more works for longer periods than ever before, it makes new creation harder. As a result, fair use is more important today than ever before.
Copyright law does not exactly specify how to apply fair use, and that is to creators’ advantage. Creative needs and practices differ with the field, with technology, and with time. Rather than following a specific formula, lawyers and judges decide whether an unlicensed use of copyrighted material is “fair” according to a “rule of reason.” This means taking all the facts and circumstances into account to decide if an unlicensed use of copyright material generates social or cultural benefits that are greater than the costs it imposes on the copyright owner.
Fair use is flexible; it is not uncertain or unreliable. In fact, for any particular field of critical or creative activity, lawyers and judges consider expectations and practice in assessing what is “fair” within the field. In weighing the balance at the heart of fair use analysis, judges refer to four types of considerations mentioned in the law: the nature of the use, the nature of the work used, the extent of the use and its economic effect. This still leaves much room for interpretation, especially since the law is clear that these are not the only necessary considerations. In reviewing the history of fair use litigation, we find that judges return again and again to two key questions:
• Did the unlicensed use “transform” the material taken from the copyrighted work by using it for a different purpose than that of the original, or did it just repeat the work for the same intent and value as the original?
• Was the material taken appropriate in kind and amount, considering the nature of the copyrighted work and of the use?
Both questions touch on, among other things, the question of whether the use will cause excessive economic harm to the copyright owner. If the answers to these two questions are “yes,” a court is likely to find a use fair. Because that is true, such a use is unlikely to be challenged in the first place.
Another consideration underlies and influences the way in which these questions are analyzed: whether the user acted reasonably and in good faith, in light of general practice in his or her particular field. Online video makers’ ability to rely on fair use will be enhanced by the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use that follows. This code of best practices serves as evidence of commonly held understandings–some drawn from the experience of other creative communities (including documentary filmmakers) and supported by legal precedents, and all grounded in current practice of online video. Thus, the code helps to demonstrate the reasonableness of uses that fall within its principles.
Video makers can take heart from other creator groups’ reliance on fair use. For instance, historians regularly quote both other historians’ writings and textual sources; filmmakers and visual artists reinterpret and critique existing work; scholars illustrate cultural commentary with textual, visual, and musical examples. Equally important is the example of commercial news media. Fair use is healthy and vigorous in daily broadcast television news, where references to popular films, classic TV programs, archival images, and popular songs are constant and routinely unlicensed.
Unlike many traditional creator groups, nonprofessional and personal video makers often create and circulate their videos outside the marketplace. Such works, especially if they are circulated within a delimited network, do enjoy certain copyright advantages. Not only are they less likely to attract the attention of rights holders, but if noticed they are more likely to receive special consideration under the fair use doctrine. That said, our goal here is to define the widely accepted contours of fair use that apply with equal force across a range of commercial and noncommercial activities, without regard to how video maker communities’ markets may evolve. Thus, the principles articulated below are rooted squarely in the concept of “transformativeness.”
In fact, a transformative purpose often underlies an individual creator’s investment of substantial time and creative energy in producing a mashup, a personal video, or other new work. Images and sounds can be building blocks for new meaning, just as quotations of written texts can be. Emerging cultural expression deserves recognition for transformative value as much as more established expression.
ONE: Commenting on or Critiquing of Copyrighted Material
Video makers often take as their raw material an example of popular culture, which they comment on in some way. They may add unlikely subtitles. They may create a fan tribute (positive commentary) or ridicule a cultural object (negative commentary). They may comment or criticize indirectly (by way of parody, for example), as well as directly. They may solicit critique by others, who provide the commentary or add to it.
PRINCIPLE: Video makers have the right to use as much of the original work as they need to in order to put it under some kind of scrutiny. Comment and critique are at the very core of the fair use doctrine as a safeguard for freedom of expression. So long as the maker analyzes, comments on, or responds to the work itself, the means may vary. Commentary may be explicit (as might be achieved, for example, by the addition of narration) or implicit (accomplished by means of recasting or recontextualizing the original). In the case of negative commentary, the fact that the critique itself may do economic damage to the market for the quoted work (as a negative review or a scathing piece of ridicule might) is irrelevant.
LIMITATION: The use should not be so extensive or pervasive that it ceases to function as critique and becomes, instead, a way of satisfying the audience’s taste for the thing (or the kind of thing) that is being quoted. In other words, the new use should not become a market substitute for the work (or other works like it).
TWO: Using copyrighted material for illustration or example
Sometimes video makers quote copyrighted material (for instance, music, video, photographs, animation, text) not in order to comment upon it, but because it aptly illustrates an argument or a point. For example, clips from Hollywood films might be used to demonstrate changing American attitudes toward race; a succession of photos of the same celebrity may represent the stages in the star’s career; a news clip of a politician speaking may reinforce an assertion.
PRINCIPLE: This sort of quotation generally should be considered fair use and is widely recognized as such in other creative communities. For instance, writers in print media do not hesitate to use illustrative quotations of both words and images. The possibility that the quotes might entertain and engage an audience as well as illustrate a video maker’s argument takes nothing away from the fair use claim. Works of popular culture typically have illustrative power precisely because they are popular. This kind of use is fair when it is important to the larger purpose of the work but also subordinate to it. It is fair when video makers are not presenting the quoted material for its original purpose but to harness it for a new one. This kind of use is, thus, creating new value.
LIMITATIONS: To the extent possible and appropriate, illustrative quotations should be drawn from a range of different sources; and each quotation (however many may be employed to create an overall pattern of illustrations) should be no longer than is necessary to achieve the intended effect. Properly attributing material, whether in the body of the text, in credits, or in associated material will often reduce the likelihood of complaints or legal action and may bolster a maker’s fair use claim.
THREE: Capturing copyrighted material incidentally or accidentally
Video makers often record copyrighted sounds and images when they are recording sequences in everyday settings. For instance, they may be filming a wedding dance where copyrighted music is playing, capturing the sight of a child learning to walk with a favorite tune playing in the background, or recording their own thoughts in a bedroom with copyrighted posters on the walls. Such copyrighted material is an audio-visual found object. In order to eliminate this incidentally or accidentally captured material, makers would have to avoid, alter, or falsify reality.
PRINCIPLE: Fair use protects the creative choices of video makers who seek their material in real life. Where a sound or image has been captured incidentally and without pre-arrangement, as part of an unstaged scene, it is permissible to use it, to a reasonable extent, as part of the final version of the video. Otherwise, one of the fundamental purposes of copyright–to encourage new creativity–would be betrayed.
LIMITATION: In order to take advantage of fair use in this context, the video maker should be sure that the particular media content played or displayed was not requested or directed; that the material is integral to the scene or its action; that the use is not so extensive that it calls attention to itself as the primary focus of interest; and that where possible, the material used is properly attributed.
FOUR: Reproducing, reposting, or quoting in order to memorialize, preserve, or rescue an experience, an event, or a cultural phenomenon
Repurposed copyrighted material is central to this kind of video. For instance, someone may record their favorite performance or document their own presence at a rock concert. Someone may post a controversial or notorious moment from broadcast television or a public event (a Stephen Colbert speech, a presidential address, a celebrity blooper). Someone may reproduce portions of a work that has been taken out of circulation, unjustly in their opinion. Gamers may record their performances.
PRINCIPLE: Video makers are using new technology to accomplish culturally positive functions that are widely accepted–or even celebrated–in the analog information environment. In other media and platforms, creators regularly recollect, describe, catalog, and preserve cultural expression for public memory. Written memoirs for instance are valued for the specificity and accuracy of their recollections; collectors of ephemeral material are valued for creating archives for future users. Such memorializing transforms the original in various ways–perhaps by putting the original work in a different context, perhaps by putting it in juxtaposition with other such works, perhaps by preserving it. This use also does not impair the legitimate market for the original work.
LIMITATION: Fair use reaches its limits when the entertainment content is reproduced in amounts that are disproportionate to purposes of documentation, or in the case of archiving, when the material is readily available from authorized sources.
FIVE: Copying, restoring, and recirculating a work or part of a work for purposes of launching a discussion
Online video contributors often copy and post a work or part of it because they love or hate it, or find it exemplary of something they love or hate, or see it as the center of an existing debate. They want to share that work or portion of a work because they have a connection to it and want to spur a discussion about it based on that connection. These works can be, among other things, cultural (Worst Music Video Ever!, a controversial comedian’s performance), political (a campaign appearance or ad), social or educational (a public service announcement, a presentation on a school’s drug policy).
PRINCIPLE: Such uses are at the heart of freedom of expression and demonstrate the importance of fair use to maintain this freedom. When content that originally was offered to entertain or inform or instruct is offered up with the distinct purpose of launching an online conversation, its use has been transformed. When protected works are selectively repurposed in this way, a fundamental goal of the copyright system–to promote the republican ideal of robust social discourse–is served.
LIMITATIONS: The purpose of the copying and posting needs to be clear; the viewer needs to know that the intent of the poster is to spur discussion. The mere fact that a site permits comments is not enough to indicate intent. The poster might title a work appropriately so that it encourages comment, or provide context or a spur to discussion with an initial comment on a site, or seek out a site that encourages commentary.
SIX: Quoting in order to recombine elements to make a new work that depends for its meaning on (often unlikely) relationships between the elements
Video makers often create new works entirely out of existing ones, just as in the past artists have made collages and pastiches. Sometimes there is a critical purpose, sometimes a celebratory one, sometimes a humorous or other motive, in which new makers may easily see their uses as fair under category one. Sometimes, however, juxtaposition creates new meaning in other ways. Mashups (the combining of different materials to compose a new work), remixes (the re-editing of an existing work), and music videos all use this technique of recombining existing material. Other makers achieve similar effects by adding their own new expression (subtitles, images, dialog, sound effects or animation, for example) to existing works.
PRINCIPLE: This kind of activity is covered by fair use to the extent that the reuse of copyrighted works creates new meaning by juxtaposition. Combining the speeches by two politicians and a love song, for example, as in “Bush Blair Endless Love,” changes the meaning of all three pieces of copyrighted material. Combining the image of an innocent prairie dog and three ominous chords from a movie soundtrack, as in “Dramatic Chipmunk,” creates an ironic third meaning out of the original materials. The recombinant new work has a cultural identity of its own and addresses an audience different from those for which its components were intended.
LIMITATIONS: If a work is merely reused without significant change of context or meaning, then its reuse goes beyond the limits of fair use. Similarly, where the juxtaposition is a pretext to exploit the popularity or appeal of the copyrighted work employed, or where the amount of material used is excessive, fair use should not apply. For example, fair use will not apply when a copyrighted song is used in its entirety as a sound track for a newly created video simply because the music evokes a desired mood rather than to change its meaning; when someone sings or dances to recorded popular music without comment, thus using it for its original purpose; or when newlyweds decorate or embellish a wedding video with favorite songs simply because they like those songs or think they express the emotion of the moment.
Conclusion
These principles don’t exhaust the possibilities of fair use for online video. They merely address the most common situations today. Inevitably, online video makers will find themselves in situations that are hybrids of those described above or will develop new practices. Then, they can be guided by the same basic values of fairness, proportionality, and reasonableness that inform this code of practices. As community practices develop and become more public, the norms that emerge from these practices will themselves provide additional information on what is fair use
CMSI information as on their website is below and I have cut and pasted it to act a reference for myself during any grey areas.
Video is increasingly becoming a central part of our everyday landscape of communication, and it is becoming more visible as people share it on digital platforms. People make and share videos to tell stories about their personal lives, remixing home videos with popular music and images. Video remix has become a core component of political discourse, as the video “George Bush Don’t Like Black People” and the “Yes We Can” parodies demonstrated. Both amateur and professional editors are creating new forms of viral popular culture, as the “Dramatic Chipmunk” meme and the “Brokeback to the Future” mashup illustrate. The circulation of these videos is an emerging part of the business landscape, as the sale of YouTube to Google demonstrated.
More and more, video creation and sharing depend on the ability to use and circulate existing copyrighted work. Until now, that fact has been almost irrelevant in business and law, because broad distribution of nonprofessional video was relatively rare. Often people circulated their work within a small group of family and friends. But digital platforms make work far more public than it has ever been, and cultural habits and business models are developing. As practices spread and financial stakes are raised, the legal status of inserting copyrighted work into new work will become important for everyone.
It is important for video makers, online service providers, and content providers to understand the legal rights of makers of new culture, as policies and practices evolve. Only then will efforts to fight copyright “piracy” in the online environment be able to make necessary space for lawful, value-added uses.
Mashups, remixes, subs, and online parodies are new and refreshing online phenomena, but they partake of an ancient tradition: the recycling of old culture to make new. In spite of our romantic cliches about the anguished lone creator, the entire history of cultural production from Aeschylus through Shakespeare to Clueless has shown that all creators stand, as Isaac Newton (and so many others) put it, “on the shoulders of giants.”
In fact, the cultural value of copying is so well established that it is written into the social bargain at the heart of copyright law. The bargain is this: we as a society give limited property rights to creators, to reward them for producing culture; at the same time, we give other creators the chance to use that same copyrighted material without permission or payment, in some circumstances. Without the second half of the bargain, we could all lose important new cultural work just because one person is arbitrary or greedy.
Copyright law has several features that permit quotations from copyrighted works without permission or payment, under certain conditions. Fair use is the most important of these features. It has been an important part of copyright law for more than 150 years. Where it applies, fair use is a right, not a mere privilege. In fact, as the Supreme Court has pointed out, fair use keeps copyright from violating the First Amendment. As copyright protects more works for longer periods than ever before, it makes new creation harder. As a result, fair use is more important today than ever before.
Copyright law does not exactly specify how to apply fair use, and that is to creators’ advantage. Creative needs and practices differ with the field, with technology, and with time. Rather than following a specific formula, lawyers and judges decide whether an unlicensed use of copyrighted material is “fair” according to a “rule of reason.” This means taking all the facts and circumstances into account to decide if an unlicensed use of copyright material generates social or cultural benefits that are greater than the costs it imposes on the copyright owner.
Fair use is flexible; it is not uncertain or unreliable. In fact, for any particular field of critical or creative activity, lawyers and judges consider expectations and practice in assessing what is “fair” within the field. In weighing the balance at the heart of fair use analysis, judges refer to four types of considerations mentioned in the law: the nature of the use, the nature of the work used, the extent of the use and its economic effect. This still leaves much room for interpretation, especially since the law is clear that these are not the only necessary considerations. In reviewing the history of fair use litigation, we find that judges return again and again to two key questions:
• Did the unlicensed use “transform” the material taken from the copyrighted work by using it for a different purpose than that of the original, or did it just repeat the work for the same intent and value as the original?
• Was the material taken appropriate in kind and amount, considering the nature of the copyrighted work and of the use?
Both questions touch on, among other things, the question of whether the use will cause excessive economic harm to the copyright owner. If the answers to these two questions are “yes,” a court is likely to find a use fair. Because that is true, such a use is unlikely to be challenged in the first place.
Another consideration underlies and influences the way in which these questions are analyzed: whether the user acted reasonably and in good faith, in light of general practice in his or her particular field. Online video makers’ ability to rely on fair use will be enhanced by the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use that follows. This code of best practices serves as evidence of commonly held understandings–some drawn from the experience of other creative communities (including documentary filmmakers) and supported by legal precedents, and all grounded in current practice of online video. Thus, the code helps to demonstrate the reasonableness of uses that fall within its principles.
Video makers can take heart from other creator groups’ reliance on fair use. For instance, historians regularly quote both other historians’ writings and textual sources; filmmakers and visual artists reinterpret and critique existing work; scholars illustrate cultural commentary with textual, visual, and musical examples. Equally important is the example of commercial news media. Fair use is healthy and vigorous in daily broadcast television news, where references to popular films, classic TV programs, archival images, and popular songs are constant and routinely unlicensed.
Unlike many traditional creator groups, nonprofessional and personal video makers often create and circulate their videos outside the marketplace. Such works, especially if they are circulated within a delimited network, do enjoy certain copyright advantages. Not only are they less likely to attract the attention of rights holders, but if noticed they are more likely to receive special consideration under the fair use doctrine. That said, our goal here is to define the widely accepted contours of fair use that apply with equal force across a range of commercial and noncommercial activities, without regard to how video maker communities’ markets may evolve. Thus, the principles articulated below are rooted squarely in the concept of “transformativeness.”
In fact, a transformative purpose often underlies an individual creator’s investment of substantial time and creative energy in producing a mashup, a personal video, or other new work. Images and sounds can be building blocks for new meaning, just as quotations of written texts can be. Emerging cultural expression deserves recognition for transformative value as much as more established expression.
ONE: Commenting on or Critiquing of Copyrighted Material
Video makers often take as their raw material an example of popular culture, which they comment on in some way. They may add unlikely subtitles. They may create a fan tribute (positive commentary) or ridicule a cultural object (negative commentary). They may comment or criticize indirectly (by way of parody, for example), as well as directly. They may solicit critique by others, who provide the commentary or add to it.
PRINCIPLE: Video makers have the right to use as much of the original work as they need to in order to put it under some kind of scrutiny. Comment and critique are at the very core of the fair use doctrine as a safeguard for freedom of expression. So long as the maker analyzes, comments on, or responds to the work itself, the means may vary. Commentary may be explicit (as might be achieved, for example, by the addition of narration) or implicit (accomplished by means of recasting or recontextualizing the original). In the case of negative commentary, the fact that the critique itself may do economic damage to the market for the quoted work (as a negative review or a scathing piece of ridicule might) is irrelevant.
LIMITATION: The use should not be so extensive or pervasive that it ceases to function as critique and becomes, instead, a way of satisfying the audience’s taste for the thing (or the kind of thing) that is being quoted. In other words, the new use should not become a market substitute for the work (or other works like it).
TWO: Using copyrighted material for illustration or example
Sometimes video makers quote copyrighted material (for instance, music, video, photographs, animation, text) not in order to comment upon it, but because it aptly illustrates an argument or a point. For example, clips from Hollywood films might be used to demonstrate changing American attitudes toward race; a succession of photos of the same celebrity may represent the stages in the star’s career; a news clip of a politician speaking may reinforce an assertion.
PRINCIPLE: This sort of quotation generally should be considered fair use and is widely recognized as such in other creative communities. For instance, writers in print media do not hesitate to use illustrative quotations of both words and images. The possibility that the quotes might entertain and engage an audience as well as illustrate a video maker’s argument takes nothing away from the fair use claim. Works of popular culture typically have illustrative power precisely because they are popular. This kind of use is fair when it is important to the larger purpose of the work but also subordinate to it. It is fair when video makers are not presenting the quoted material for its original purpose but to harness it for a new one. This kind of use is, thus, creating new value.
LIMITATIONS: To the extent possible and appropriate, illustrative quotations should be drawn from a range of different sources; and each quotation (however many may be employed to create an overall pattern of illustrations) should be no longer than is necessary to achieve the intended effect. Properly attributing material, whether in the body of the text, in credits, or in associated material will often reduce the likelihood of complaints or legal action and may bolster a maker’s fair use claim.
THREE: Capturing copyrighted material incidentally or accidentally
Video makers often record copyrighted sounds and images when they are recording sequences in everyday settings. For instance, they may be filming a wedding dance where copyrighted music is playing, capturing the sight of a child learning to walk with a favorite tune playing in the background, or recording their own thoughts in a bedroom with copyrighted posters on the walls. Such copyrighted material is an audio-visual found object. In order to eliminate this incidentally or accidentally captured material, makers would have to avoid, alter, or falsify reality.
PRINCIPLE: Fair use protects the creative choices of video makers who seek their material in real life. Where a sound or image has been captured incidentally and without pre-arrangement, as part of an unstaged scene, it is permissible to use it, to a reasonable extent, as part of the final version of the video. Otherwise, one of the fundamental purposes of copyright–to encourage new creativity–would be betrayed.
LIMITATION: In order to take advantage of fair use in this context, the video maker should be sure that the particular media content played or displayed was not requested or directed; that the material is integral to the scene or its action; that the use is not so extensive that it calls attention to itself as the primary focus of interest; and that where possible, the material used is properly attributed.
FOUR: Reproducing, reposting, or quoting in order to memorialize, preserve, or rescue an experience, an event, or a cultural phenomenon
Repurposed copyrighted material is central to this kind of video. For instance, someone may record their favorite performance or document their own presence at a rock concert. Someone may post a controversial or notorious moment from broadcast television or a public event (a Stephen Colbert speech, a presidential address, a celebrity blooper). Someone may reproduce portions of a work that has been taken out of circulation, unjustly in their opinion. Gamers may record their performances.
PRINCIPLE: Video makers are using new technology to accomplish culturally positive functions that are widely accepted–or even celebrated–in the analog information environment. In other media and platforms, creators regularly recollect, describe, catalog, and preserve cultural expression for public memory. Written memoirs for instance are valued for the specificity and accuracy of their recollections; collectors of ephemeral material are valued for creating archives for future users. Such memorializing transforms the original in various ways–perhaps by putting the original work in a different context, perhaps by putting it in juxtaposition with other such works, perhaps by preserving it. This use also does not impair the legitimate market for the original work.
LIMITATION: Fair use reaches its limits when the entertainment content is reproduced in amounts that are disproportionate to purposes of documentation, or in the case of archiving, when the material is readily available from authorized sources.
FIVE: Copying, restoring, and recirculating a work or part of a work for purposes of launching a discussion
Online video contributors often copy and post a work or part of it because they love or hate it, or find it exemplary of something they love or hate, or see it as the center of an existing debate. They want to share that work or portion of a work because they have a connection to it and want to spur a discussion about it based on that connection. These works can be, among other things, cultural (Worst Music Video Ever!, a controversial comedian’s performance), political (a campaign appearance or ad), social or educational (a public service announcement, a presentation on a school’s drug policy).
PRINCIPLE: Such uses are at the heart of freedom of expression and demonstrate the importance of fair use to maintain this freedom. When content that originally was offered to entertain or inform or instruct is offered up with the distinct purpose of launching an online conversation, its use has been transformed. When protected works are selectively repurposed in this way, a fundamental goal of the copyright system–to promote the republican ideal of robust social discourse–is served.
LIMITATIONS: The purpose of the copying and posting needs to be clear; the viewer needs to know that the intent of the poster is to spur discussion. The mere fact that a site permits comments is not enough to indicate intent. The poster might title a work appropriately so that it encourages comment, or provide context or a spur to discussion with an initial comment on a site, or seek out a site that encourages commentary.
SIX: Quoting in order to recombine elements to make a new work that depends for its meaning on (often unlikely) relationships between the elements
Video makers often create new works entirely out of existing ones, just as in the past artists have made collages and pastiches. Sometimes there is a critical purpose, sometimes a celebratory one, sometimes a humorous or other motive, in which new makers may easily see their uses as fair under category one. Sometimes, however, juxtaposition creates new meaning in other ways. Mashups (the combining of different materials to compose a new work), remixes (the re-editing of an existing work), and music videos all use this technique of recombining existing material. Other makers achieve similar effects by adding their own new expression (subtitles, images, dialog, sound effects or animation, for example) to existing works.
PRINCIPLE: This kind of activity is covered by fair use to the extent that the reuse of copyrighted works creates new meaning by juxtaposition. Combining the speeches by two politicians and a love song, for example, as in “Bush Blair Endless Love,” changes the meaning of all three pieces of copyrighted material. Combining the image of an innocent prairie dog and three ominous chords from a movie soundtrack, as in “Dramatic Chipmunk,” creates an ironic third meaning out of the original materials. The recombinant new work has a cultural identity of its own and addresses an audience different from those for which its components were intended.
LIMITATIONS: If a work is merely reused without significant change of context or meaning, then its reuse goes beyond the limits of fair use. Similarly, where the juxtaposition is a pretext to exploit the popularity or appeal of the copyrighted work employed, or where the amount of material used is excessive, fair use should not apply. For example, fair use will not apply when a copyrighted song is used in its entirety as a sound track for a newly created video simply because the music evokes a desired mood rather than to change its meaning; when someone sings or dances to recorded popular music without comment, thus using it for its original purpose; or when newlyweds decorate or embellish a wedding video with favorite songs simply because they like those songs or think they express the emotion of the moment.
Conclusion
These principles don’t exhaust the possibilities of fair use for online video. They merely address the most common situations today. Inevitably, online video makers will find themselves in situations that are hybrids of those described above or will develop new practices. Then, they can be guided by the same basic values of fairness, proportionality, and reasonableness that inform this code of practices. As community practices develop and become more public, the norms that emerge from these practices will themselves provide additional information on what is fair use
AMEN APPROPRIATION: LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES (VIDEO USAGE)
Whilst I know Appropriation is the area I want to and need to work in for my Amen Brother piece I am researching I need to be clear on any legal and ethical issues. I am highly likely to need to use music from artists who have used the Amen Break as well as possibly music video footage as I am a moving image practitioner as well as other imagery of the bands photos, cover art etc. Before I pursue this as an area to work in I want to be clear of the legal parameters that I will have to work in.
Fair usage is a relatively newish concept within the law and the advent and proliferation of digital files, DVD's and CD's it is exceptionally easy to access and use the work of others. Whereas in the past you would have to try and tape from TV, radio or often in the case of moving image contact the creators or film companies and get copies made most of this is now online and a mouse click away. The 100 best movie moments, funny scenes compilations with C-List celebs discussing them that proliferate our TV screens are examples of this in action. They use very small clips and a documentary style premise to use a lot of these clips for free.
As it is a new area there are many myths surrounding the Fair Usage concept the three main ones outlined below.
Myth #1: If you are making money off a video using copyrighted content, this is not fair use.
Reality: Whether or not something is used for commercial purposes is not a factor that goes into deciding whether it is fair use or not. She says that there are many commercial enterprises that actually rely on fair use. So if you are creating commercial work, for profit, you can use copyrighted content as long as it falls under fair use.
Myth #2: As long as you give credit to the original creator then you won’t be liable for copyright infringement.
Reality: You are not required by law to give credit when using another person’s work under fair use and, by the same token, crediting someone will not protect you from copyright infringement. That being said, it is often advised to give credit when using someone else’s content. It just may help you avoid a lawsuit and sometimes all that the original creator wants is credit for his or her work.
Myth #3: If I use less than thirty seconds of copyright material, I’m in the clear!
Reality: There are no precise numbers dictated under the fair use doctrine when it comes to how much of a copyrighted video or song you can use. Simply put, the amount that you use just needs to be reasonably related to your purpose.”
So as I have discovered fair usage is a murky territory but from reading around guide lines whilst not written down as law or set in stone are generally accepted as the correct way to use the moving image work of others. The two main issues are the following.
• Did the unlicensed use “transform” the material taken from the copyrighted work by using it for a different purpose than that of the original, or did it just repeat the work for the same intent and value as the original?
• Was the material taken appropriate in kind and amount, considering the nature of the copyrighted work and of the use?
For both of these I feel I can abide by them. Whilst not completely "transforming" the material I am re-contextualizing it to make a different point by Appropriating it to make s different point from its intention. I am also going to be using it alongside other material which again will change the context from it being viewed solely as one entity. As far as if the material is taken in appropriate kind and amount a fairly good rule of thumb is not to take too much. There is no definitive amount for this but from case studies and researching every case is dealt with individually but 30 seconds seems to be the norm.
Questions to ask of the use of copyrighted material are.
1. What are you doing with the copyrighted content? If you are doing something highly transformative with the content then you will have more room under the fair use doctrine. You are more likely to be covered if you are saying something quite different from what the original creator was trying to say.
2. What is the nature of the copyrighted content you are using? Use of creative or fictional content (for example, a film or cartoon) is less frequently allowed under fair use than less creative, non-fictional material.
3. How much of the original content are you using? You should be careful to use a reasonable amount. Just use enough of the copyrighted content as you need to in order to get your point across. 4. Will your work serve as a substitute for the original? If your video will take away views or sales from the original then it is less likely to be covered under fair use. Additionally, you shouldn’t create work that occupies markets that copyright owners are entitled to exploit.
I feel confident that by using the work in an uncommercial (well currently anyway!) art installation piece I will stay clear of any issues. The length of the clips I use may be an issue but if i keep these intentionally short as possible I feel I will avoid any problems here too.
The Centre for Media and Social Impact also put out guidelines which again I feel I am comfortably within. They mention 6 key areas but only a 5 apply to my use and appropriation of others work.
ONE: Commenting on or Critiquing of Copyrighted Material
Video makers often take as their raw material an example of popular culture, which they comment on in some way. They may add unlikely subtitles. They may create a fan tribute (positive commentary) or ridicule a cultural object (negative commentary). They may comment or criticize indirectly (by way of parody, for example), as well as directly. They may solicit critique by others, who provide the commentary or add to it.
PRINCIPLE: Video makers have the right to use as much of the original work as they need to in order to put it under some kind of scrutiny. Comment and critique are at the very core of the fair use doctrine as a safeguard for freedom of expression. So long as the maker analyzes, comments on, or responds to the work itself, the means may vary. Commentary may be explicit (as might be achieved, for example, by the addition of narration) or implicit (accomplished by means of recasting or recontextualizing the original). In the case of negative commentary, the fact that the critique itself may do economic damage to the market for the quoted work (as a negative review or a scathing piece of ridicule might) is irrelevant.
LIMITATION: The use should not be so extensive or pervasive that it ceases to function as critique and becomes, instead, a way of satisfying the audience’s taste for the thing (or the kind of thing) that is being quoted. In other words, the new use should not become a market substitute for the work (or other works like it).
TWO: Using copyrighted material for illustration or example
Sometimes video makers quote copyrighted material (for instance, music, video, photographs, animation, text) not in order to comment upon it, but because it aptly illustrates an argument or a point. For example, clips from Hollywood films might be used to demonstrate changing American attitudes toward race; a succession of photos of the same celebrity may represent the stages in the star’s career; a news clip of a politician speaking may reinforce an assertion.
PRINCIPLE: This sort of quotation generally should be considered fair use and is widely recognized as such in other creative communities. For instance, writers in print media do not hesitate to use illustrative quotations of both words and images. The possibility that the quotes might entertain and engage an audience as well as illustrate a video maker’s argument takes nothing away from the fair use claim. Works of popular culture typically have illustrative power precisely because they are popular. This kind of use is fair when it is important to the larger purpose of the work but also subordinate to it. It is fair when video makers are not presenting the quoted material for its original purpose but to harness it for a new one. This kind of use is, thus, creating new value.
LIMITATIONS: To the extent possible and appropriate, illustrative quotations should be drawn from a range of different sources; and each quotation (however many may be employed to create an overall pattern of illustrations) should be no longer than is necessary to achieve the intended effect. Properly attributing material, whether in the body of the text, in credits, or in associated material will often reduce the likelihood of complaints or legal action and may bolster a maker’s fair use claim.
FIVE: Copying, restoring, and recirculating a work or part of a work for purposes of launching a discussion
Online video contributors often copy and post a work or part of it because they love or hate it, or find it exemplary of something they love or hate, or see it as the center of an existing debate. They want to share that work or portion of a work because they have a connection to it and want to spur a discussion about it based on that connection. These works can be, among other things, cultural (Worst Music Video Ever!, a controversial comedian’s performance), political (a campaign appearance or ad), social or educational (a public service announcement, a presentation on a school’s drug policy).
PRINCIPLE: Such uses are at the heart of freedom of expression and demonstrate the importance of fair use to maintain this freedom. When content that originally was offered to entertain or inform or instruct is offered up with the distinct purpose of launching an online conversation, its use has been transformed. When protected works are selectively repurposed in this way, a fundamental goal of the copyright system–to promote the republican ideal of robust social discourse–is served.
LIMITATIONS: The purpose of the copying and posting needs to be clear; the viewer needs to know that the intent of the poster is to spur discussion. The mere fact that a site permits comments is not enough to indicate intent. The poster might title a work appropriately so that it encourages comment, or provide context or a spur to discussion with an initial comment on a site, or seek out a site that encourages commentary.
SIX: Quoting in order to recombine elements to make a new work that depends for its meaning on (often unlikely) relationships between the elements
Video makers often create new works entirely out of existing ones, just as in the past artists have made collages and pastiches. Sometimes there is a critical purpose, sometimes a celebratory one, sometimes a humorous or other motive, in which new makers may easily see their uses as fair under category one. Sometimes, however, juxtaposition creates new meaning in other ways. Mashups (the combining of different materials to compose a new work), remixes (the re-editing of an existing work), and music videos all use this technique of recombining existing material. Other makers achieve similar effects by adding their own new expression (subtitles, images, dialog, sound effects or animation, for example) to existing works.
PRINCIPLE: This kind of activity is covered by fair use to the extent that the reuse of copyrighted works creates new meaning by juxtaposition. Combining the speeches by two politicians and a love song, for example, as in “Bush Blair Endless Love,” changes the meaning of all three pieces of copyrighted material. Combining the image of an innocent prairie dog and three ominous chords from a movie soundtrack, as in “Dramatic Chipmunk,” creates an ironic third meaning out of the original materials. The recombinant new work has a cultural identity of its own and addresses an audience different from those for which its components were intended.
LIMITATIONS: If a work is merely reused without significant change of context or meaning, then its reuse goes beyond the limits of fair use. Similarly, where the juxtaposition is a pretext to exploit the popularity or appeal of the copyrighted work employed, or where the amount of material used is excessive, fair use should not apply. For example, fair use will not apply when a copyrighted song is used in its entirety as a sound track for a newly created video simply because the music evokes a desired mood rather than to change its meaning; when someone sings or dances to recorded popular music without comment, thus using it for its original purpose; or when newlyweds decorate or embellish a wedding video with favorite songs simply because they like those songs or think they express the emotion of the moment.
Fair usage is a relatively newish concept within the law and the advent and proliferation of digital files, DVD's and CD's it is exceptionally easy to access and use the work of others. Whereas in the past you would have to try and tape from TV, radio or often in the case of moving image contact the creators or film companies and get copies made most of this is now online and a mouse click away. The 100 best movie moments, funny scenes compilations with C-List celebs discussing them that proliferate our TV screens are examples of this in action. They use very small clips and a documentary style premise to use a lot of these clips for free.
As it is a new area there are many myths surrounding the Fair Usage concept the three main ones outlined below.
Myth #1: If you are making money off a video using copyrighted content, this is not fair use.
Reality: Whether or not something is used for commercial purposes is not a factor that goes into deciding whether it is fair use or not. She says that there are many commercial enterprises that actually rely on fair use. So if you are creating commercial work, for profit, you can use copyrighted content as long as it falls under fair use.
Myth #2: As long as you give credit to the original creator then you won’t be liable for copyright infringement.
Reality: You are not required by law to give credit when using another person’s work under fair use and, by the same token, crediting someone will not protect you from copyright infringement. That being said, it is often advised to give credit when using someone else’s content. It just may help you avoid a lawsuit and sometimes all that the original creator wants is credit for his or her work.
Myth #3: If I use less than thirty seconds of copyright material, I’m in the clear!
Reality: There are no precise numbers dictated under the fair use doctrine when it comes to how much of a copyrighted video or song you can use. Simply put, the amount that you use just needs to be reasonably related to your purpose.”
So as I have discovered fair usage is a murky territory but from reading around guide lines whilst not written down as law or set in stone are generally accepted as the correct way to use the moving image work of others. The two main issues are the following.
• Did the unlicensed use “transform” the material taken from the copyrighted work by using it for a different purpose than that of the original, or did it just repeat the work for the same intent and value as the original?
• Was the material taken appropriate in kind and amount, considering the nature of the copyrighted work and of the use?
For both of these I feel I can abide by them. Whilst not completely "transforming" the material I am re-contextualizing it to make a different point by Appropriating it to make s different point from its intention. I am also going to be using it alongside other material which again will change the context from it being viewed solely as one entity. As far as if the material is taken in appropriate kind and amount a fairly good rule of thumb is not to take too much. There is no definitive amount for this but from case studies and researching every case is dealt with individually but 30 seconds seems to be the norm.
Questions to ask of the use of copyrighted material are.
1. What are you doing with the copyrighted content? If you are doing something highly transformative with the content then you will have more room under the fair use doctrine. You are more likely to be covered if you are saying something quite different from what the original creator was trying to say.
2. What is the nature of the copyrighted content you are using? Use of creative or fictional content (for example, a film or cartoon) is less frequently allowed under fair use than less creative, non-fictional material.
3. How much of the original content are you using? You should be careful to use a reasonable amount. Just use enough of the copyrighted content as you need to in order to get your point across. 4. Will your work serve as a substitute for the original? If your video will take away views or sales from the original then it is less likely to be covered under fair use. Additionally, you shouldn’t create work that occupies markets that copyright owners are entitled to exploit.
I feel confident that by using the work in an uncommercial (well currently anyway!) art installation piece I will stay clear of any issues. The length of the clips I use may be an issue but if i keep these intentionally short as possible I feel I will avoid any problems here too.
The Centre for Media and Social Impact also put out guidelines which again I feel I am comfortably within. They mention 6 key areas but only a 5 apply to my use and appropriation of others work.
ONE: Commenting on or Critiquing of Copyrighted Material
Video makers often take as their raw material an example of popular culture, which they comment on in some way. They may add unlikely subtitles. They may create a fan tribute (positive commentary) or ridicule a cultural object (negative commentary). They may comment or criticize indirectly (by way of parody, for example), as well as directly. They may solicit critique by others, who provide the commentary or add to it.
PRINCIPLE: Video makers have the right to use as much of the original work as they need to in order to put it under some kind of scrutiny. Comment and critique are at the very core of the fair use doctrine as a safeguard for freedom of expression. So long as the maker analyzes, comments on, or responds to the work itself, the means may vary. Commentary may be explicit (as might be achieved, for example, by the addition of narration) or implicit (accomplished by means of recasting or recontextualizing the original). In the case of negative commentary, the fact that the critique itself may do economic damage to the market for the quoted work (as a negative review or a scathing piece of ridicule might) is irrelevant.
LIMITATION: The use should not be so extensive or pervasive that it ceases to function as critique and becomes, instead, a way of satisfying the audience’s taste for the thing (or the kind of thing) that is being quoted. In other words, the new use should not become a market substitute for the work (or other works like it).
TWO: Using copyrighted material for illustration or example
Sometimes video makers quote copyrighted material (for instance, music, video, photographs, animation, text) not in order to comment upon it, but because it aptly illustrates an argument or a point. For example, clips from Hollywood films might be used to demonstrate changing American attitudes toward race; a succession of photos of the same celebrity may represent the stages in the star’s career; a news clip of a politician speaking may reinforce an assertion.
PRINCIPLE: This sort of quotation generally should be considered fair use and is widely recognized as such in other creative communities. For instance, writers in print media do not hesitate to use illustrative quotations of both words and images. The possibility that the quotes might entertain and engage an audience as well as illustrate a video maker’s argument takes nothing away from the fair use claim. Works of popular culture typically have illustrative power precisely because they are popular. This kind of use is fair when it is important to the larger purpose of the work but also subordinate to it. It is fair when video makers are not presenting the quoted material for its original purpose but to harness it for a new one. This kind of use is, thus, creating new value.
LIMITATIONS: To the extent possible and appropriate, illustrative quotations should be drawn from a range of different sources; and each quotation (however many may be employed to create an overall pattern of illustrations) should be no longer than is necessary to achieve the intended effect. Properly attributing material, whether in the body of the text, in credits, or in associated material will often reduce the likelihood of complaints or legal action and may bolster a maker’s fair use claim.
FIVE: Copying, restoring, and recirculating a work or part of a work for purposes of launching a discussion
Online video contributors often copy and post a work or part of it because they love or hate it, or find it exemplary of something they love or hate, or see it as the center of an existing debate. They want to share that work or portion of a work because they have a connection to it and want to spur a discussion about it based on that connection. These works can be, among other things, cultural (Worst Music Video Ever!, a controversial comedian’s performance), political (a campaign appearance or ad), social or educational (a public service announcement, a presentation on a school’s drug policy).
PRINCIPLE: Such uses are at the heart of freedom of expression and demonstrate the importance of fair use to maintain this freedom. When content that originally was offered to entertain or inform or instruct is offered up with the distinct purpose of launching an online conversation, its use has been transformed. When protected works are selectively repurposed in this way, a fundamental goal of the copyright system–to promote the republican ideal of robust social discourse–is served.
LIMITATIONS: The purpose of the copying and posting needs to be clear; the viewer needs to know that the intent of the poster is to spur discussion. The mere fact that a site permits comments is not enough to indicate intent. The poster might title a work appropriately so that it encourages comment, or provide context or a spur to discussion with an initial comment on a site, or seek out a site that encourages commentary.
SIX: Quoting in order to recombine elements to make a new work that depends for its meaning on (often unlikely) relationships between the elements
Video makers often create new works entirely out of existing ones, just as in the past artists have made collages and pastiches. Sometimes there is a critical purpose, sometimes a celebratory one, sometimes a humorous or other motive, in which new makers may easily see their uses as fair under category one. Sometimes, however, juxtaposition creates new meaning in other ways. Mashups (the combining of different materials to compose a new work), remixes (the re-editing of an existing work), and music videos all use this technique of recombining existing material. Other makers achieve similar effects by adding their own new expression (subtitles, images, dialog, sound effects or animation, for example) to existing works.
PRINCIPLE: This kind of activity is covered by fair use to the extent that the reuse of copyrighted works creates new meaning by juxtaposition. Combining the speeches by two politicians and a love song, for example, as in “Bush Blair Endless Love,” changes the meaning of all three pieces of copyrighted material. Combining the image of an innocent prairie dog and three ominous chords from a movie soundtrack, as in “Dramatic Chipmunk,” creates an ironic third meaning out of the original materials. The recombinant new work has a cultural identity of its own and addresses an audience different from those for which its components were intended.
LIMITATIONS: If a work is merely reused without significant change of context or meaning, then its reuse goes beyond the limits of fair use. Similarly, where the juxtaposition is a pretext to exploit the popularity or appeal of the copyrighted work employed, or where the amount of material used is excessive, fair use should not apply. For example, fair use will not apply when a copyrighted song is used in its entirety as a sound track for a newly created video simply because the music evokes a desired mood rather than to change its meaning; when someone sings or dances to recorded popular music without comment, thus using it for its original purpose; or when newlyweds decorate or embellish a wedding video with favorite songs simply because they like those songs or think they express the emotion of the moment.
Sunday, 16 October 2016
AMEN INITIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
I have been researching the Amen Brother idea and fleshing out some research into the topic. One slight disappointment was that whilst I hoped that the idea for an installation piece on the "Amen Break" would be an original idea it had been done already. When I first discovered the clip below on youtube I assumed it was an audio documentary of the Amen Break.
However upon further investigation I realised it was an actual audio gallery installation entitled "Can I get an Amen" by Nate Harrison. The installation was an 18 minute recording put onto a record documenting the Amen Break that was situated in a gallery for an audience to listen to. The other aspect of the documentary was some wall mounted paper documents dealing with the copyright issues of the break. The audio "documentary/installation traces the drum solo from the original Winstons track to the key ingredient in "contemporary free expression" attempting to "bring into scrutiny the techno-utopian notion that "information wants to be free" - it questions it's effectiveness as a democratizing agent." It also examines the breaks awkward relationship with copyright law. The audio deals with key tracks that utilized the break as well as its use in the creation of the drum and bass musical genre. Ending on its move into and mainstream culture in adverts and title music.
Below is a BBC radio documentary about the Amen Break. This is another excellent source but perhaps a little more lowbrow and less academic than the Nate Harrison version above. It is quite populist and does focus more on the Drum and Bass and Hip Hop elements and less on the other uses in Pop, Rock and Soul genres though. It did not tell me too much that i did not know but is useful for filling in a few blanks and is great at suggesting tracks that have used it in the drum and bass field.
A revelation was the "Who Sampled" app which I will need to get. This app lets you choose a record and to see who sampled it which is obviously a real boon. This still means a lot of research and listening but it is great for enlightening me as to who had sampled it. It also seems to not only tell you who sampled the break, but links to sound of the usage and provides a time for when it appears in the track.
Another useful clip is the one below. It gives another five uses of the Amen Brother drum break but also it is mixed so badly it shows me a what not to do and that more finesses will be needed in my piece. The crashing edits stop the flow of the break one blending into the next and the pauses put the breaks on any possible recognition as one moves on to the next.
From this research I have been planning the way forward for my Amen Brother piece.
However upon further investigation I realised it was an actual audio gallery installation entitled "Can I get an Amen" by Nate Harrison. The installation was an 18 minute recording put onto a record documenting the Amen Break that was situated in a gallery for an audience to listen to. The other aspect of the documentary was some wall mounted paper documents dealing with the copyright issues of the break. The audio "documentary/installation traces the drum solo from the original Winstons track to the key ingredient in "contemporary free expression" attempting to "bring into scrutiny the techno-utopian notion that "information wants to be free" - it questions it's effectiveness as a democratizing agent." It also examines the breaks awkward relationship with copyright law. The audio deals with key tracks that utilized the break as well as its use in the creation of the drum and bass musical genre. Ending on its move into and mainstream culture in adverts and title music.
Below is a BBC radio documentary about the Amen Break. This is another excellent source but perhaps a little more lowbrow and less academic than the Nate Harrison version above. It is quite populist and does focus more on the Drum and Bass and Hip Hop elements and less on the other uses in Pop, Rock and Soul genres though. It did not tell me too much that i did not know but is useful for filling in a few blanks and is great at suggesting tracks that have used it in the drum and bass field.
A revelation was the "Who Sampled" app which I will need to get. This app lets you choose a record and to see who sampled it which is obviously a real boon. This still means a lot of research and listening but it is great for enlightening me as to who had sampled it. It also seems to not only tell you who sampled the break, but links to sound of the usage and provides a time for when it appears in the track.
Another useful clip is the one below. It gives another five uses of the Amen Brother drum break but also it is mixed so badly it shows me a what not to do and that more finesses will be needed in my piece. The crashing edits stop the flow of the break one blending into the next and the pauses put the breaks on any possible recognition as one moves on to the next.
From this research I have been planning the way forward for my Amen Brother piece.
- 2300 songs would be great but may do a smaller sample. 1% Amen featuring 23 songs OR even 10% Amen featuring 230 songs. Could obviously be other derivations too 2% etc.
- There are lots of songs that have sampled it BUT a lot are derivatives of the drum and bass genre of music and very similar.
- Smooth transitions from one piece of music to the next.
- Possibly building tempo of the tracks slow to faster during the piece. OR complete contrast throughout to show the variety of the music that has sampled the beak.
- Could the piece be an audio installation?
- Visually none of these are interesting and this is something I really must develop if I want to do a video installation.
Saturday, 15 October 2016
ANONYMOUS: ROTOSCOPING TEST
I wanted to do a basic rotoscoping test to make sure i could get the technique working. As I mentioned in an earlier post I found an excellent tutorial on Youtube to follow and guide me to create the effect. I will not bother to describe the process too much as it is all contained in this clip which I followed. The footage I used was some basic footage of my hand that I quickly shot using the green screen at the college I work at of my hand moving in frame.
The final clip is of my trial is demonstrated underneath. The technique is pretty simple although there were some After Effects issues as I am not 100% familiar with the software and still learning. I also borrowed a tablet from college as from research the process would be 100% more awkward and rough and ready without one and attempting to draw with a mouse.
ROTO TEST from Jon Saward on Vimeo.
I feel that the technique works pretty well it is simple and basic but gives a good overview of how the technique works. I have included in the clip the line drawing and also the final coloured in hand. I did a 2 second clip for the trial which as the frames were doubled making 12.5 a second or 25 in total for the 2 seconds as video works at 25fps. The drawings were the most time consuming element and were a good couple of hours to get them right even with the tablet so the technique must be used sparingly. However if I am using talking heads this may be less time consuming as less movement the better as you may be able to re-use some frames just changing mouth shapes and a few wrinkles and lines etc. The line drawing is basic and if I use the technique for real I may add more detail or even different thicknesses of line but all this will add time hence this was not done for the test.
Following the line drawing I decided to colour the hand in. This certainly brought it more to life and pop a little more. Again as this was only a test it is pretty basic and would greatly benefit from more shading to make it look a little more 3D but this would be time consuming but something I would almost certainly do for the real film when I make it. Overall the tests went well and a lot was learnt moving forward and i grew a little more comfortable with After effects too.
The final clip is of my trial is demonstrated underneath. The technique is pretty simple although there were some After Effects issues as I am not 100% familiar with the software and still learning. I also borrowed a tablet from college as from research the process would be 100% more awkward and rough and ready without one and attempting to draw with a mouse.
ROTO TEST from Jon Saward on Vimeo.
I feel that the technique works pretty well it is simple and basic but gives a good overview of how the technique works. I have included in the clip the line drawing and also the final coloured in hand. I did a 2 second clip for the trial which as the frames were doubled making 12.5 a second or 25 in total for the 2 seconds as video works at 25fps. The drawings were the most time consuming element and were a good couple of hours to get them right even with the tablet so the technique must be used sparingly. However if I am using talking heads this may be less time consuming as less movement the better as you may be able to re-use some frames just changing mouth shapes and a few wrinkles and lines etc. The line drawing is basic and if I use the technique for real I may add more detail or even different thicknesses of line but all this will add time hence this was not done for the test.
Following the line drawing I decided to colour the hand in. This certainly brought it more to life and pop a little more. Again as this was only a test it is pretty basic and would greatly benefit from more shading to make it look a little more 3D but this would be time consuming but something I would almost certainly do for the real film when I make it. Overall the tests went well and a lot was learnt moving forward and i grew a little more comfortable with After effects too.
Friday, 14 October 2016
SOUND & MUSIC INSTALLATION INSPIRATIONS
Even though I wish to work in video installation as the Amen Brother piece is based entirely around sound and it is at it's core I researched some sound and audio installations
Vinyl Requiem: Lol Sargent & Philip Jeck (1993)
This was an acclaimed piece created by artist Philip Jeck in collaboration with Lol Sargent in 1993, an award winning performance that involved 180 vintage Dansette record players and multiple film and slide projections. Vinyl requiem was an installation/performance based with audio but what really catches my eye are the projections and the set. the whiteness and impact of the sheer scale of the piece. Projections over musical items and objects is a really interesting idea that left a big impression on me and is something I may look into applying or incorporating into my work. It also shows that my work does not have to be just a projection onto a screen but could incorporate a more physical and structural element too. Possibly drawing on Nam June Paik as well as Jeck.
Jeck began his artistic life in the visual arts but then was diverted by explorations into using turntables to compose music in the early 1980s. The phrase ‘turntablist’ doesn’t seem quite right for his approach to vinyl appropriation and use of primitive sampling keyboards and minidisc recorders reveal an artist who still manages to create a tender sound despite all the tech. I have not been able to find any audio or video for it but in order to get a feel for what it may have been like I did find some footage of Jeck playing. No turntables but it gives a feel of his approach.
Janet Cardiff: 40 Part Motet (2001)
40 Part Motet by Janet Cardiff is a audio only piece installation but is almost structural too in it's presentation on a multitude of speakers. 14 minute 40 track immersive contemporary sound installation playing polyphonic choral music written in the mid-1500s by Thomas Tallis. The installation consists of 40 speakers arranged in a large oval turned inward. Sung in Latin and a cappella by the Salisbury Cathedral Choir, one singer’s voice comes from each speaker. The audience are allowed to move amongst the configuration of speakers to discover what the artist describes as “walking into a piece of music.”
The experience of the piece which unfortunately I have not been lucky to participate in must have been amazing. Reviews of the piece include “Achingly beautiful” by the New Yorker and “Transcendent” by the New York Times. Even from the video clip below you can get a sense of the immersive qualities and impact of the piece. I love the way that it is also structural with the 40 speakers and can only guess at the tech needed to create the installation. The all embracing immersive quality of the piece is also a really interesting idea.
It is these last two points that I will take forward to my piece the immersiveness and the uses of multiple speakers. I want to use multiple tracks of music so could a similar technique be used to move the different music one piece to the next around the room?
Rachel Rose: Palisades (2014)
This was a piece I visited last year at the Serpentine Sackler gallery. The main piece was Palisades a wonderful blurring of time and place, vision and audio and set up on one screen in it's own space. Set in various time zones Rose used tromp-loeil editing techniques to create almost optical illusions to link together a present day character in the Palisades Interstate Park in New York on the banks of the Hudson to different moments in the sites history.
The sound element on this was also hugely important and a real inspiration and an exercise in building narrative and story. The outside of the gallery wrap-around walkway of the gallery created a sound installation inspired by the piece and the other piece she was exhibiting, using a newly imagined mix soundscape from Palisades and A Minute Ago. This journey throug a space using sound really inspired me and i feel that this may be something to look into in my won work.
A multitude of speakers ere used so the sound literally moved, swallowed, chased, haunted and followed you as you went around the exterior walkway. A sigh sound bridges past and present, shouts, screams and gunfire and cannons bring moving images of old paintings to life. Most strikingly a subverted version of Bang Bang (My baby shot me down) by Nancy Sinatra weaves to gather the past and present. I use of sound was amazing and sparse and focussed rather than an onslaught. It drew on a variety of effects from atmosphere, voices, ambience, music, library and possibly foley to build and create meaning. Meryl Streep's voice whispering "I am the voice of dead people" flows into a static which crackle which then in turn changes into historical gunfire. Without a shadow of a doubt the audio mix was as important as the visuals and the glue that at times held everything together.
Bruce Nauman: Raw Materials (2001)
Raw materials was a purpose built site specific sound installation in the Tate Modern in 2005. It incorporated fragments and elements of Nauman's previous works to create an interactive sound installation that could be self edited by the audience depending on how they approached the piece. It was a mix of chants, cries and mantra-like repetitions resonating around the main turbine hall. It assembles fragments of audio build to create their own associations much like Eisenstein's montage theory of the collision of audio in this case creating their own connections interpretations and meanings.
The video clip below is pretty basic but it gives a sense of the piece. I love the scale and the invisibility of the piece as all of the speakers were made as invisible as possible so the sound must have seemed to belong to the voice of the building itself. Also the way connections could be made between the sounds to create your own individual journey, narratives, messages and ideologies.
This last point may be something that I could take and experiment with in my piece. Could the audience build their own versions of the Amen Break piecing together the clues from many different areas and speakers to try and create the whole.
Vinyl Requiem: Lol Sargent & Philip Jeck (1993)
This was an acclaimed piece created by artist Philip Jeck in collaboration with Lol Sargent in 1993, an award winning performance that involved 180 vintage Dansette record players and multiple film and slide projections. Vinyl requiem was an installation/performance based with audio but what really catches my eye are the projections and the set. the whiteness and impact of the sheer scale of the piece. Projections over musical items and objects is a really interesting idea that left a big impression on me and is something I may look into applying or incorporating into my work. It also shows that my work does not have to be just a projection onto a screen but could incorporate a more physical and structural element too. Possibly drawing on Nam June Paik as well as Jeck.
Jeck began his artistic life in the visual arts but then was diverted by explorations into using turntables to compose music in the early 1980s. The phrase ‘turntablist’ doesn’t seem quite right for his approach to vinyl appropriation and use of primitive sampling keyboards and minidisc recorders reveal an artist who still manages to create a tender sound despite all the tech. I have not been able to find any audio or video for it but in order to get a feel for what it may have been like I did find some footage of Jeck playing. No turntables but it gives a feel of his approach.
Janet Cardiff: 40 Part Motet (2001)
40 Part Motet by Janet Cardiff is a audio only piece installation but is almost structural too in it's presentation on a multitude of speakers. 14 minute 40 track immersive contemporary sound installation playing polyphonic choral music written in the mid-1500s by Thomas Tallis. The installation consists of 40 speakers arranged in a large oval turned inward. Sung in Latin and a cappella by the Salisbury Cathedral Choir, one singer’s voice comes from each speaker. The audience are allowed to move amongst the configuration of speakers to discover what the artist describes as “walking into a piece of music.”
The experience of the piece which unfortunately I have not been lucky to participate in must have been amazing. Reviews of the piece include “Achingly beautiful” by the New Yorker and “Transcendent” by the New York Times. Even from the video clip below you can get a sense of the immersive qualities and impact of the piece. I love the way that it is also structural with the 40 speakers and can only guess at the tech needed to create the installation. The all embracing immersive quality of the piece is also a really interesting idea.
It is these last two points that I will take forward to my piece the immersiveness and the uses of multiple speakers. I want to use multiple tracks of music so could a similar technique be used to move the different music one piece to the next around the room?
Rachel Rose: Palisades (2014)
This was a piece I visited last year at the Serpentine Sackler gallery. The main piece was Palisades a wonderful blurring of time and place, vision and audio and set up on one screen in it's own space. Set in various time zones Rose used tromp-loeil editing techniques to create almost optical illusions to link together a present day character in the Palisades Interstate Park in New York on the banks of the Hudson to different moments in the sites history.
The sound element on this was also hugely important and a real inspiration and an exercise in building narrative and story. The outside of the gallery wrap-around walkway of the gallery created a sound installation inspired by the piece and the other piece she was exhibiting, using a newly imagined mix soundscape from Palisades and A Minute Ago. This journey throug a space using sound really inspired me and i feel that this may be something to look into in my won work.
A multitude of speakers ere used so the sound literally moved, swallowed, chased, haunted and followed you as you went around the exterior walkway. A sigh sound bridges past and present, shouts, screams and gunfire and cannons bring moving images of old paintings to life. Most strikingly a subverted version of Bang Bang (My baby shot me down) by Nancy Sinatra weaves to gather the past and present. I use of sound was amazing and sparse and focussed rather than an onslaught. It drew on a variety of effects from atmosphere, voices, ambience, music, library and possibly foley to build and create meaning. Meryl Streep's voice whispering "I am the voice of dead people" flows into a static which crackle which then in turn changes into historical gunfire. Without a shadow of a doubt the audio mix was as important as the visuals and the glue that at times held everything together.
Bruce Nauman: Raw Materials (2001)
Raw materials was a purpose built site specific sound installation in the Tate Modern in 2005. It incorporated fragments and elements of Nauman's previous works to create an interactive sound installation that could be self edited by the audience depending on how they approached the piece. It was a mix of chants, cries and mantra-like repetitions resonating around the main turbine hall. It assembles fragments of audio build to create their own associations much like Eisenstein's montage theory of the collision of audio in this case creating their own connections interpretations and meanings.
The video clip below is pretty basic but it gives a sense of the piece. I love the scale and the invisibility of the piece as all of the speakers were made as invisible as possible so the sound must have seemed to belong to the voice of the building itself. Also the way connections could be made between the sounds to create your own individual journey, narratives, messages and ideologies.
This last point may be something that I could take and experiment with in my piece. Could the audience build their own versions of the Amen Break piecing together the clues from many different areas and speakers to try and create the whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)