Although I disagree with you about the video, that's not the point.
Even good artists make bad art. That's part of the process. That's how they learn to make better art. So a remix or appropriation artist might make a lot of bad remixes, each time learning something new about editing and their source material, before they make something phenomenal. That's how art gets made. Even the people our culture considers to be genius artists made some crap, but that gets filtered out by time, art critics, and those who write the art history books.
So what fair use people are fighting for is the right to engage with the creative process without fear of litigation, the right to participate in our culture and comment on it and not get sued for it.
You make some good points, and I don't disagree that, depending on the intention of the remix, other sources might be better. But I believe that when someone is remixing mass-media products, a large part of the underlying point is to comment/critique these sources specifically, to talk back to the media that shapes our lives. There's an implicit statement about how meaning is created both by original content producers and by viewers.
I've been influenced by TV my whole life and my work is about unpacking how TV affects the individual. So I use remixed clips from TV to comment on how meaning is made while watching TV, to show the connections between shows that I see. TV is my subject matter, so that's why I choose that source.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Stacia.
Re: Re:
Although I disagree with you about the video, that's not the point.
Even good artists make bad art. That's part of the process. That's how they learn to make better art. So a remix or appropriation artist might make a lot of bad remixes, each time learning something new about editing and their source material, before they make something phenomenal. That's how art gets made. Even the people our culture considers to be genius artists made some crap, but that gets filtered out by time, art critics, and those who write the art history books.
So what fair use people are fighting for is the right to engage with the creative process without fear of litigation, the right to participate in our culture and comment on it and not get sued for it.
Re: We can work with the current legal framework.
You make some good points, and I don't disagree that, depending on the intention of the remix, other sources might be better. But I believe that when someone is remixing mass-media products, a large part of the underlying point is to comment/critique these sources specifically, to talk back to the media that shapes our lives. There's an implicit statement about how meaning is created both by original content producers and by viewers.
I've been influenced by TV my whole life and my work is about unpacking how TV affects the individual. So I use remixed clips from TV to comment on how meaning is made while watching TV, to show the connections between shows that I see. TV is my subject matter, so that's why I choose that source.