Comments on: The Idolawyer Gives Us Some Real Talk About Girl Talk http://idolator.com/5083447/the-idolawyer-gives-us-some-real-talk-about-girl-talk Music News, Reviews, and Gossip on Idolator.com Sat, 26 May 2012 18:17:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: WOW GUIDE http://idolator.com/5083447/the-idolawyer-gives-us-some-real-talk-about-girl-talk/comment-page-1#comment-3251672 WOW GUIDE Tue, 01 Mar 2011 01:51:08 +0000 http://8ed3770fb4c534c9ed52af477e1c4687#comment-3251672 Hi there may I reference some of the material here in this entry if I link back to you? Hi there may I reference some of the material here in this entry if I link back to you?

]]> By: GetGirls http://idolator.com/5083447/the-idolawyer-gives-us-some-real-talk-about-girl-talk/comment-page-1#comment-2617342 GetGirls Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:25:21 +0000 http://8ed3770fb4c534c9ed52af477e1c4687#comment-2617342 DJ'ing for a bunch of kids on ecstasy? Naw. That would indicate he has some sort of talent. DJ’ing for a bunch of kids on ecstasy? Naw. That would indicate he has some sort of talent.

]]> By: MayhemintheHood http://idolator.com/5083447/the-idolawyer-gives-us-some-real-talk-about-girl-talk/comment-page-1#comment-761692 MayhemintheHood Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:39:45 +0000 http://8ed3770fb4c534c9ed52af477e1c4687#comment-761692 <P>@<A href="http://idolator.com/5083447/the-idolawyer-gives-us-some-real-talk-about-girl-talk#c8858080">tim_loves_cats</A>: @<A href="http://idolator.com/5083447/the-idolawyer-gives-us-some-real-talk-about-girl-talk#c8858479">juiceandgin</A>: Watch it guys...I've gone that route on here before and have been accused of "not liking fun" and that "I dont get his conceptual art".</P> @tim_loves_cats: @juiceandgin: Watch it guys…I’ve gone that route on here before and have been accused of “not liking fun” and that “I dont get his conceptual art”.

]]> By: Mike Barthel http://idolator.com/5083447/the-idolawyer-gives-us-some-real-talk-about-girl-talk/comment-page-1#comment-761672 Mike Barthel Wed, 12 Nov 2008 04:53:06 +0000 http://8ed3770fb4c534c9ed52af477e1c4687#comment-761672 <p>Although maybe scratch Nike there and put in Michael Bay.</p> Although maybe scratch Nike there and put in Michael Bay.

]]> By: John P Strohm http://idolator.com/5083447/the-idolawyer-gives-us-some-real-talk-about-girl-talk/comment-page-1#comment-761642 John P Strohm Wed, 12 Nov 2008 04:15:21 +0000 http://8ed3770fb4c534c9ed52af477e1c4687#comment-761642 <P>I guess it was a Second Circuit court that sided with the filmmakers for the use of the song Imagine in Expelled (about intelligent design) under a transformative use analysis. Looks like an idiotic documentary, but I'm sure it will do (has done?) tens of millions in business. But I don't know - these are interesting questions. I agree that a legislative solution would be great - with technology evolving at warp speed it's time to overhaul the copyright act. Certainly the changes from 1978 (when the 1976 act became law) to now are as significant and substantial as the changes from 1909 to 1978. Point well taken re "postmodern tradition." Also I'm chuckling over "brighter lines" - since we know bright line rules are elusive.</P> I guess it was a Second Circuit court that sided with the filmmakers for the use of the song Imagine in Expelled (about intelligent design) under a transformative use analysis. Looks like an idiotic documentary, but I’m sure it will do (has done?) tens of millions in business. But I don’t know – these are interesting questions. I agree that a legislative solution would be great – with technology evolving at warp speed it’s time to overhaul the copyright act. Certainly the changes from 1978 (when the 1976 act became law) to now are as significant and substantial as the changes from 1909 to 1978. Point well taken re “postmodern tradition.” Also I’m chuckling over “brighter lines” – since we know bright line rules are elusive.

]]> By: Mike Barthel http://idolator.com/5083447/the-idolawyer-gives-us-some-real-talk-about-girl-talk/comment-page-1#comment-761652 Mike Barthel Wed, 12 Nov 2008 03:58:55 +0000 http://8ed3770fb4c534c9ed52af477e1c4687#comment-761652 <p>@<a href="#c8872033">John P Strohm</a>: sorry, I wasn't making myself clear there. Gillis isn't a party in my example. I was thinking more if Michael Bay--an artist, even if not one we would consider a good one--decided to do what Gillis does and take a snippet of someone else's song and lay it over some footage he has filmed as a way of commenting on that footage. Again, I don't see how that's substantially different from Girl Talk other than we like Girl Talk and we don't like Michael Bay. Is there a certain level of profitability at which something stops being artistic and starts being commercial? And given that a recent decision seemed to deny the idea that samples of a short length are acceptable, are courts really likely to draw this distinction? Gillis demonstrably makes a profit off his music, after all.</p> <p>This could just be a difference in taste; I tend to think rap got better when they were forced to make their own beats, and the phrase "postmodern tradition" seems a little oxymoronical to me. But maybe we're really saying the same thing. I agree that this SHOULD be the interpretation of copyright. I think there needs to be protection for the kinds of uses you're talking about (though I think that people making a living off sample-based art should be required to pay SOMETHING for the use, in the way that a painter has to pay something for the paint and the canvas, but a one-time, low-denomination fee is fine), but I think that reinterpreting existing case law is a dangerous way to do it. It seems to require the courts to share our taste in art. I'd rather see new legislation passed that established brighter lines, like a profit ceiling under which no fees need be paid so that people could post their crazy manga/emo mashups to their hearts' delight. But certainly that's part of the copyfight agenda, and I agree with it, even if I think it's a little less important than Cory Doctorow does. I just don't think Gillis going around claiming fair use is helping anything.</p> @John P Strohm: sorry, I wasn’t making myself clear there. Gillis isn’t a party in my example. I was thinking more if Michael Bay–an artist, even if not one we would consider a good one–decided to do what Gillis does and take a snippet of someone else’s song and lay it over some footage he has filmed as a way of commenting on that footage. Again, I don’t see how that’s substantially different from Girl Talk other than we like Girl Talk and we don’t like Michael Bay. Is there a certain level of profitability at which something stops being artistic and starts being commercial? And given that a recent decision seemed to deny the idea that samples of a short length are acceptable, are courts really likely to draw this distinction? Gillis demonstrably makes a profit off his music, after all.

This could just be a difference in taste; I tend to think rap got better when they were forced to make their own beats, and the phrase “postmodern tradition” seems a little oxymoronical to me. But maybe we’re really saying the same thing. I agree that this SHOULD be the interpretation of copyright. I think there needs to be protection for the kinds of uses you’re talking about (though I think that people making a living off sample-based art should be required to pay SOMETHING for the use, in the way that a painter has to pay something for the paint and the canvas, but a one-time, low-denomination fee is fine), but I think that reinterpreting existing case law is a dangerous way to do it. It seems to require the courts to share our taste in art. I’d rather see new legislation passed that established brighter lines, like a profit ceiling under which no fees need be paid so that people could post their crazy manga/emo mashups to their hearts’ delight. But certainly that’s part of the copyfight agenda, and I agree with it, even if I think it’s a little less important than Cory Doctorow does. I just don’t think Gillis going around claiming fair use is helping anything.

]]> By: John P Strohm http://idolator.com/5083447/the-idolawyer-gives-us-some-real-talk-about-girl-talk/comment-page-1#comment-761662 John P Strohm Wed, 12 Nov 2008 03:32:16 +0000 http://8ed3770fb4c534c9ed52af477e1c4687#comment-761662 <P>Mike, I'm not arguing that Gillis' work IS fair use; rather, I'm arguing that it should be analyzed under the guidelines that Court set forth in Acuff Rose. I consider the pioneering work in digital sampling/recontextualization such as the works I mention above to be great art in the post-modern tradition. If you think about the clever juxtapositions in those works, they literally transform existing works. Copyright shouldn't stifle that sort of creative work. There's a tension between postmodern tradition and copyright, because copyright is centered on the rights of the author, whereas in post-modernism or post-structuralism the work itself is given greater import than the author. Recontextualizing an existing work in a way that's clever or inventive in this way is certainly comment or criticism. That's what should be permitted, even in a commercial context.</P> <P>It gets fuzzy when you bring in third parties. Imagine Gillis releases his album, relying (as he is) on fair use. Then imagine Nike or Bay license the work from Gillis (which wouldn't happen because of E&O insurance, but bear with me). If the owner of one of the samples sues Nike or Bay, you have a very different sort of defendant. Gillis is the artist - he's arguably making a statement. The analysis makes sense. The other entities are primarily commercial, so I'd assume that nature and character of the work is slanted more heavily towards commercialism. An analogy would be that the Court gives a lesser degree of First Amendment protection to commercial speech.</P> Mike, I’m not arguing that Gillis’ work IS fair use; rather, I’m arguing that it should be analyzed under the guidelines that Court set forth in Acuff Rose. I consider the pioneering work in digital sampling/recontextualization such as the works I mention above to be great art in the post-modern tradition. If you think about the clever juxtapositions in those works, they literally transform existing works. Copyright shouldn’t stifle that sort of creative work. There’s a tension between postmodern tradition and copyright, because copyright is centered on the rights of the author, whereas in post-modernism or post-structuralism the work itself is given greater import than the author. Recontextualizing an existing work in a way that’s clever or inventive in this way is certainly comment or criticism. That’s what should be permitted, even in a commercial context.

It gets fuzzy when you bring in third parties. Imagine Gillis releases his album, relying (as he is) on fair use. Then imagine Nike or Bay license the work from Gillis (which wouldn’t happen because of E&O insurance, but bear with me). If the owner of one of the samples sues Nike or Bay, you have a very different sort of defendant. Gillis is the artist – he’s arguably making a statement. The analysis makes sense. The other entities are primarily commercial, so I’d assume that nature and character of the work is slanted more heavily towards commercialism. An analogy would be that the Court gives a lesser degree of First Amendment protection to commercial speech.

]]> By: Mike Barthel http://idolator.com/5083447/the-idolawyer-gives-us-some-real-talk-about-girl-talk/comment-page-1#comment-761682 Mike Barthel Wed, 12 Nov 2008 03:10:25 +0000 http://8ed3770fb4c534c9ed52af477e1c4687#comment-761682 <p>John, it's a fair argument, certainly. But here's what I don't get, and maybe you can clear it up for me. I'm not denying that you can find some meaning in Girl Talk's songs. And maybe Gillis even intends that meaning to be there. But if we define the act of playing one song over the top of another song as fair use criticism, doesn't that dilute the definition so much as to make it totally meaningless? And if that happens, doesn't that make it possible for big corporations to use other people's work with impunity? After all, Nike using 15 seconds of an Arcade Fire track in an ad doesn't decrease the value of the original song. All the band loses is the revenue they would have gotten from the license fee, but that's true of the artists Gillis samples, too. And if Girl Talk songs constitute fair use criticism, then Nike could argue that it's simply commenting on the song by laying it over footage of its product. It could even argue that it's a comment on commercialism! Again, I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm missing something, but given the guidelines of fair use, what's the legal difference between Nike engaging in copyright infringement and Gillis doing so?</p> John, it’s a fair argument, certainly. But here’s what I don’t get, and maybe you can clear it up for me. I’m not denying that you can find some meaning in Girl Talk’s songs. And maybe Gillis even intends that meaning to be there. But if we define the act of playing one song over the top of another song as fair use criticism, doesn’t that dilute the definition so much as to make it totally meaningless? And if that happens, doesn’t that make it possible for big corporations to use other people’s work with impunity? After all, Nike using 15 seconds of an Arcade Fire track in an ad doesn’t decrease the value of the original song. All the band loses is the revenue they would have gotten from the license fee, but that’s true of the artists Gillis samples, too. And if Girl Talk songs constitute fair use criticism, then Nike could argue that it’s simply commenting on the song by laying it over footage of its product. It could even argue that it’s a comment on commercialism! Again, I’m not a lawyer, so maybe I’m missing something, but given the guidelines of fair use, what’s the legal difference between Nike engaging in copyright infringement and Gillis doing so?

]]> By: mike a http://idolator.com/5083447/the-idolawyer-gives-us-some-real-talk-about-girl-talk/comment-page-1#comment-761702 mike a Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:14:03 +0000 http://8ed3770fb4c534c9ed52af477e1c4687#comment-761702 <p>I liked his use of "Autumn Sweater" in Feed The Animals. It was otherwise worth what I paid for it.</p> I liked his use of “Autumn Sweater” in Feed The Animals. It was otherwise worth what I paid for it.

]]> By: Chris Molanphy http://idolator.com/5083447/the-idolawyer-gives-us-some-real-talk-about-girl-talk/comment-page-1#comment-761712 Chris Molanphy Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:00:25 +0000 http://8ed3770fb4c534c9ed52af477e1c4687#comment-761712 <p>So much haterade! Folks, I don't worship at Gillis's altar either, but that's not the point.</p> <p>Hey, Idolawyer: excellent post. Thanks for the analysis.</p> <p>I <i>would</i> like to see Gillis succeed as a case study for 21st Century copyright. Sooner or later, there's going to be an <i>Acuff Rose</i>/<i>Grand Upright</i> of mashup culture, and Girl Talk is probably the clearest vehicle to get the question settled.</p> So much haterade! Folks, I don’t worship at Gillis’s altar either, but that’s not the point.

Hey, Idolawyer: excellent post. Thanks for the analysis.

I would like to see Gillis succeed as a case study for 21st Century copyright. Sooner or later, there’s going to be an Acuff Rose/Grand Upright of mashup culture, and Girl Talk is probably the clearest vehicle to get the question settled.

]]> By: Anonymous http://idolator.com/5083447/the-idolawyer-gives-us-some-real-talk-about-girl-talk/comment-page-1#comment-761722 Anonymous Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:03:49 +0000 http://8ed3770fb4c534c9ed52af477e1c4687#comment-761722 <p>@<a href="#c8858080">tim_loves_cats</a>:</p> <p>I was going to say it's a sweaty dude with a laptop and some lights trying to be a DJ for a bunch of kids on ecstasy. But you summed it up nicely as well.</p> @tim_loves_cats:

I was going to say it’s a sweaty dude with a laptop and some lights trying to be a DJ for a bunch of kids on ecstasy. But you summed it up nicely as well.

]]> By: Anonymous http://idolator.com/5083447/the-idolawyer-gives-us-some-real-talk-about-girl-talk/comment-page-1#comment-761732 Anonymous Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:52:59 +0000 http://8ed3770fb4c534c9ed52af477e1c4687#comment-761732 <P>I can't wait for this guy's time to pass. He's a glorified friday night dj, he belongs behind the decks at a big 10 sports bar for parents weekend.</P> I can’t wait for this guy’s time to pass. He’s a glorified friday night dj, he belongs behind the decks at a big 10 sports bar for parents weekend.

]]> By: John P Strohm http://idolator.com/5083447/the-idolawyer-gives-us-some-real-talk-about-girl-talk/comment-page-1#comment-761742 John P Strohm Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:48:41 +0000 http://8ed3770fb4c534c9ed52af477e1c4687#comment-761742 <P>"It's not that much of an issue anymore" - it's not an issue until he gets sued! I kinda doubt federal courts are chomping at the bit to apply Acuff Rose to this sort of thing.</P> “It’s not that much of an issue anymore” – it’s not an issue until he gets sued! I kinda doubt federal courts are chomping at the bit to apply Acuff Rose to this sort of thing.

]]> By: Poubelle http://idolator.com/5083447/the-idolawyer-gives-us-some-real-talk-about-girl-talk/comment-page-1#comment-761752 Poubelle Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:44:16 +0000 http://8ed3770fb4c534c9ed52af477e1c4687#comment-761752 <p>I loved all the disclaimers in the first paragraph. Definitely written by a lawyer.</p> I loved all the disclaimers in the first paragraph. Definitely written by a lawyer.

]]> By: TheBeard http://idolator.com/5083447/the-idolawyer-gives-us-some-real-talk-about-girl-talk/comment-page-1#comment-761762 TheBeard Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:16:25 +0000 http://8ed3770fb4c534c9ed52af477e1c4687#comment-761762 <p>Gillis' thoughts on fair use in an Earplug interview from last week: <a href="http://earplug.cc/176290">[earplug.cc]</a></p> Gillis’ thoughts on fair use in an Earplug interview from last week: [earplug.cc]

]]>