I agree..

Just to point out how long artists have been doing this sort of thing:

• Hexstatic have been chopping up videos for years. Of course, they didn?t have YouTube in those days.
• Emergency Broadcast Network did this even earlier on. They were even commissioned to do a video for U2.
• found art goes back to Picasso, Duchamp and others.

In short, anybody who tries to downplay the significance of this sort of thing as art is talking through their arse.

So, you believe then, that copyright effectively defines what is and is not creative? That congress, when they defined the laws, were not influenced by lobbyists, business, and interest groups, but in fact, by a keen understanding of the nature of creativity?

Good, we agree on one thing. It is one potential measuring stick, but not THE measuring stick. So your original assertion is not supported prima facie.

Your new assertion (that copyright law can play a part in determining how original something is) makes little sense. You can subjectively assess how much of one (or more) works are used to create a new work without ever considering copyright. They are independent issues. For example, if I took a public domain work, changed one word, and called it a new work–most would argue it was unoriginal. And yet the concept of copyright was never needed for the assessment.

My point is, the assessment of originality did not require even a wisp of copyright. So your assertion includes two independent concepts.

And since determining originality does not require copyright, copyright is not necessary to assess creativity.

Then your original assertion is invalid–you cannot judge creativity based on whether something infringes.

“If your “new work” relies so much on previous old work, that it runs afoul of copyright law, then it must not be as mind-bogglingly creative as you wish it was.”

I figured that would be what you would do–try to redefine the argument once you ran out of responses.

Let’s see, the above referenced assertion contains no examples as you state in your previous response. Fail #1. I created no strawman as I simply concluded (and you agreed) that degree of copyright infringement cannot be a judge of creativity.

Perhaps you need to learn to read better?

“if want to try and disprove something, make sure you work on what you were given, not what you wish it was.”

Look in the mirror my friend. I love how you’re using pretty much a checklist of weak-minded things to use in a debate:
1) Ignore all points made
2) ad hominem – it’s really precious when you misspell words in the process
3) Throw out the strawman word without defining and explaining the specific straw man argument. But… But… straw man!
4) Speak down to the other individual by giving them “advice”
5) Redefine what you’ve said to what you think it should be

“Funny, I agreed to nothing of the sort.”

Ok, let’s grant you that–although you did not dispute it either. In fact all you’ve really done is stamp your foot and say your assertion stands. You have also given no reasoning that would lead anyone to conclude that copyright has anything to do with creativity let alone be a yardstick for it. And since copyright and originality have nothing to do with one another (again, something you have not disputed), not sure where you’d like to go from there.

0. Once again, TAM, you ignored all prior points and argued whatever the heck maintains your worldview

1. I’m impressed! You looked up “desperate” in the dictionary!

2. I’m not Karl, but I take that as a major compliment.

3. If I’m desperate for calling out spelling or that says quite a bit about your continued ad hominem attacks.

4. I can do nothing but pity you at this point.

5. Booyah!

Is one of those troll types who contributes nothing to the discussion but is in love with what he presumes to be his insightful commentary. While thoughtful people can disagree rudeness is the insecure person’s idea of power. Thanks for this – I would not have found these examples otherwise.