Fair use: Any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and transformative purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Fair use can be done without the permission from the copyright owner.
Transformative use: A derivative work is transformative if it uses a source work in completely new or unexpected ways. It's a relatively new addition to fair use law, having been first raised in a Supreme Court decision in 1995.
I'm currently taking an electronic media law and regulations class, where we have done a great deal of discussion on fair use.
The Copyright Act of 1976 states: The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. The purpose and character of the use should be for nonprofit educational purposes, and not be of commercial nature.
Between the Copyright Act and transformative use, it's quite obvious there still isn't a strong grasp on copyright law. It's constantly developing and changing.
Girl Talk Case: "Girl Talk" is an American musician who specializes in mashups and digital sampling. The Girl Talk case coincides extremely well with copyright law. The reason being that you can argue either for, or against, whether or not his works are transformative. Girl Talk technically isn't transforming songs, but rather using samples straight from the original works. Legally, I would argue that this probably isn't a safe bet. Girl Talk doesn't purchase the rights to the music he uses, so I think this could potentially infringe copyright laws. However, Girl Talk seems to care more about the music than the money. One could argue that the nature of his music can be considered fair use.But is the music being transformed? Decide for yourself....
Brian, I agree with you that Girl Talk is clearly in the right by the basic definitions of fair and transformative use, but could run into many issues based upon what he is actually doing with the song samples. Given the digital age we've found ourselves in, I think we could see another alteration to copyright laws in the next few years that will allow more of these uses, such as the ones demonstrated by Girl Talk.
ReplyDeleteBrian, I also mentioned how blurry the line is for what Girl Talk's work could be considered. It also comes down to how people perceive transformative purpose. Girl Talk does not necessarily parody or criticize original work, but instead arranges it with the use of smaller sound clips.
ReplyDeleteI like how you use the word "change" and how this is an evolving term that everyone still does not quite have a firm handle on. It is true that the rules of the game will likely change as content becomes more accessible and more power is put in the users' hands. It reminds me of the app Dubsmash, for instance, which allows users to film themselves lip-syncing an audio clip from a song or movie. All of those clips are used without permission, yet Dubsmash has gained national attention and is used by many celebrities without anyone seeming to bat an eye at fair use (or lack thereof). What are the rules, and is it a problem if the rules are broken?
ReplyDeleteBrian, I like how you included the legal definition of Fair Use. According to that law, as long as there are changes done to the work then it is legal. It is a shame that copyright owners are not as lenient as the law should allow.
ReplyDelete