I think that Girl Talk should be fair use. If Girl Talk is not fair use than a DJ profiting off their music would not be considered Fair Use. Girl Talk is not trying to take credit for something that has already been made, they are using already produced music to make new music. In this situation I believe that the music that is mashed up could just be the equivalent of sounds. Any music producer out there has used pre-recorded sounds to create new music. What Girl Talk is doing and what any other DJ is doing is producing the regular music that has evolved, they are building off of ideas. As Girl Talk himself put it, "sampling is his instrument." I believe that as long as he is not saying that he built his instrument it should be legal. I could see this being a problem if he illegally downloaded that music that he uses. In that case the original creator would've made no profit and it would be like Girl Talk had stolen his instrument. Transformative Law I think is a good way to support DJing in general. There is a public interest in DJing as a genre in music. There are plenty of DJs today releasing music that uses part from other musician's work.
In a communications law class I took we talked about the case of Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose. This lawsuit was on a parody of the song Pretty Woman by 2 Live Crew. They used the music from the song pretty woman but had all new lyrics. 2 Live Crew won this case because it was different enough from the original to constitute their song to be their own work. I think that Girl Talk's music should be fair use as well because he is using many different parts of songs, not one song in particular, as his instrument. In the end he has something very different from the original.
Wow, I really like your discussion of this film. Your analysis using Campbell vs Acuff-Rose is helpful when understanding this question of, "What really is fair use?" I agree with you additionally when you say that DJs use sample bits from pre-recorded sounds to create new music. I would argue, however, that those sound bits are paid for through their purchase of the software, downloaded online through fair use, or paid for by the DJ. Even despite this, I say that Girl Talk is spurring a new way of creating and DJing in general has become very profitable. There has been many movies and songs made over again and we shouldn't be punished for this; I say as long as he paid for his songs originally he should be able to use them to create his own work as long as he cites them somewhere on his album or whatever. If you like mashups definitely check out The Grey Album if it's still available. Some awesome mashups of Jay-Z and the Beatles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grey_Album
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeJQh6xjjTc&index=3&list=PLF27428868443F302
DeleteThis song - Grey Album specifically is really cool.
I also like that you included the Campbell vs Acuff-Rose case, because I learned about that in Comm Law as well and I'd forgotten about it. I think that by the precedent set by that case, what Girl Talk is doing should also be considered legal.
ReplyDeleteI really like your point about music evolving and the building off of ideas.We benefit from people creating ideas, growing ideas, and then evolving those ideas into new ones. This process is what introduces new technologies, advancements, and innovations into our world. Girl Talk is just one example of how this process works and is beneficial to people. He is not directly profiting of his music because he gives his albums away for free. He is just an artist who wants to push the boundaries of creativity and create music that is unlike any other.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your point and didn't really think about the thousands of DJs in our country that make profit off of artist daily. Not only that but I also agree that there are many instruments that have been created over the history of human kind so what's to say he didn't evolve his own form of music? He is just using the tools he has.
ReplyDelete