Good Copy, Bad Remix Part II

Where is the common ground? The article "Rhetorical Velocity and Copyright" examines the trials and tribulations of Maggie and her campaign for work that did not involve sweatshops and what followed. What became interesting is the conversation regarding the commons, public domain, and how we define, or should define, it. A person who was photographed in a time of protest was then used as an advertisement for the school she attends.

The entire article examines this case and if it should side with Maggie, the school, or meet in the middle. The arguments strain from how Maggie's protest was then taken out of context after the fact to then benefit someone else with their concerns. With that said, in the documentary Good Copy Bad Copy there is talk about how this sampling and remixing with creative works should be done because it creates a new art form. Was this the same case with Maggie? In a step-by-step sense, maybe. Artists like Girl Talk rip and cut work from other artists and rearrange and layer on top of each other to create something else entirely with a new message. What did the school do? The exact same thing. They cut Maggie from a photo she was in where she was happy. Only she was layered on top of the main page of her school's website and other pages to create a new message.

Like the artists who have their work taken, Maggie feels her "work" from protesting was taken as well. They both were, and something else was created. The argument has been meddled over extensively in both works. The film and the article examine the boundaries of what is and should be able to be used in sampling.

One of the more compelling pieces from the article is regarding the possession of bones and how that could be construed as ownership. More examples include the space of the action that was taken, the middle of the university is open and not a private space and thus, she lost her privacy. This conversation is rather off putting with some of the subjects we have learned. One thing I would love to understand is how association and disassociation can be addressed in these regards (also signification). The actions done by Maggie are associated with the protest because of the time and place and because articles told us so. Afterwards, once the decision was made there was a new association and perhaps a disassociation. The association of Maggie is now with the "great" school of Michigan State and not the protest. Is this ultimately what happens because of remix? New associations and disassociations would be dealing with new creations that have nothing to do with each other. So, these remixes with music or even Maggie are new creations. The only question is, is this right and does credit need to be given where it is "due"?