Remix and Copyright:The Punk Collage of the Internet

My husband used to be really involved in the underground SLC punk scene, which has been interesting to learn about. A big part of the culture is making your own punked out denimn jacket with patches of bands you like and lots and lots of studs. I read parts of a book about punk culture that he has and it talks about how a lot of iconic punk looks come from collage because artists were too broke to do anything but cut stuff out of magazines and glue it together. Fans have a very collage look to themselves as they piece together outfits from stuff they find from friends, at thrift stores, or on the streets. 

The salt of the internet is populated with people who have a basic understanding of a photo or video editing software (even ms paint). The internet has thrived on people digitally cutting out things and pasting them back together in interesting ways. Sometimes the result is a polished artist like Pogo, who has become well known for sampling. (His music is entirely made up of sound fragments from movies. He's done a lot with Disney movies.) +Derrick Clements might appreciate some of his Pixar songs. 

 This is called "Boo Bass"

For a while my brother was really into "YouTube Poop", which has grown to be a whole genre of videos you can find where people take footage from different shows and make them really, really weird. This is mostly done through mixing up the footage (not in a musical way like Pogo), repeating phrases or sounds, and zooming in on a face in silence or even something in the background. There are even some running jokes through all of them with sound bits from well known old videos, like an old episode of a super mario brothers cartoon that everyone quotes. I would link to some examples but the majority of them have vulgarities at some point or are just loud and upsetting at parts. The thing is, they don't claim to be masterpieces. That's why they're called "YouTube Poop." They know they're garbage. There's something about their admittance to the fact that they're trashy and the artistic quality of their mixing at times that I would almost argue that they're truly avant-garde. I almost hate myself for trying to put YTPs in with Dada works, but what's more experimental than some 17 year old turning an episode of Blue's Clues into a trippy nightmare? (Okay, I'll link, but content warning.)  

As ugly as some of this remix art can be, it's very Dada. We come up with the same questions here as have been discussed in a million art classes when faced with Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain." 

Can a urinal signed "R. Mutt" really be considered art? Where do we draw the line between beautiful things and gross slapped together garbage? I'll let you think about that while I move on to the next point. 

How does Copyright fit into this puzzle of collage culture and remix? I really like some of the discussions we've had so far in class and on the blog. I'm not sure who posted this (I think it was in a book review but there have been so many posts it all kind of runs together in my head) but someone in our class mentioned how Copyright law might not be so bad and that people should take more advantage of the Fair Use act. +Mary Wright Layton even wrote this post with a very helpful, basic puppet video to help us understand when we are allowed to use the materials of others.  

I liked how in class we talked about when copyright infringement is actually harmful. That is, when a product is meant to compete with or replace an existing product. That's when artists turn to copyright to protect them.

I'm still not sure what the answer is for cover songs, though. My husband is facing a situation similar to the experience +Gideon Burton related about his wife being forced to shut down her cover songs on her blog. My husband created a chiptune cover of the Pixies song, "Where is My Mind?" He has gotten a ton of views on the video and was making money through YouTube until a content flag thing happened and realized it was a cover song. The Pixies would not be hurt if Chris made some money with the views from his video. It's not really a competing project. But is it right to make money from a song that you have performed in your own way, but you didn't write? As obnoxious as it is to pay the 1 cent per video view for the rights, doesn't that make sense if someone worked really hard on that song? (New argument for songs people didn't work hard on.) 

Bonus: My husband and I went to our friend's house downtown this weekend and made some collage art. 

This was painted over a print of a flower vase originally meant to be
hung in the home. Is this copyright infringement? Nope. 

These collages were made from video game manuals but the materials are completely
unrecognizable from their original form and they're not meant to replace what is being sold.