Copyright issues in relation to
sampling in music and film is a topic that I’ve been familiar with for a while
now. It’s always been something that’s discussed in an academic setting during
my colligate career. In the film, “Good Copy, Bad Copy,” Andreas Johnson and Ralf
Christensen show how new texts are possible through the implementation of
sampling. This was interesting for me because I’ve never actually seen the work
in process before viewing the film “Good Copy, Bad Copy”. After viewing the
process and how this type of music or film is invented, I’ve come to appreciate
the hard work that goes into its creation. I recognize that is its own form of
creativity and construction.
The first moment of invention that
really impressed me during the film was at
11:15 in the movie. Here, we see the DJ Girl Talk creating a mix that
he’ll feature during one of his shows. He walks the audience through the
process of layering music samples, adding beats, and adding vocals. It’s an
extremely intricate process in which a new product is created. In relation to
textuality, here Johnson and Christensen show us an example of how this new
invention, in its own right, hardly resembles any of the original pieces
featured. It is now its own type of text. There’s a new creation that is
completely taken from old pieces and samples.
Later on in the movie, we witness
another type of sampling. At 42:52, we witness a group of Latin men remix the
song “Crazy” by Gnarls Barkley. Instead of taking this song and mixing it with
another piece, they create their own tracks and layer them over the song. They
slow down the beat and add a different type of sound to the song. In the end,
the only really recognizable piece of the music is the lyrics. This also can be
argued to be a new piece of textuality. Here, Johnson and Christensen show a
different type of creation. This time, there’s more of an argument in terms of
copyright infringement. It’s possible to point to how there’s a type of
infringement here since the main portion of the song still remains in rhythm
and lyrics.
Johnson and Christensen aren’t
necessarily creating an argument for complete and utter free reign and use in
regards to copyright. Instead, they highlight some of the processes to
invention and touch on the arguments that both sides present in the
conversation. At 30:00, Charles Igwe, a Nigerian film producer discusses some
of the factors that go into the creation of a Nigerian film. He explains that
the rate of production for films in the country is exponentially higher than
that of in the USA, yet the quality in film and acting is far lower that the
American industry. It’s a dichotomy for his industry which is consider both
advanced and behind the Western counterpart. In relation to invention, this
shows how quality and time are in direct relation with each other. For the USA,
there’s a focus on quality while, for the Nigerian industry, the focus is one
production.
These different factors such as quality, production, and
sampling, lie out how much it really takes for the invention of a new type of
text. Johnson and Christensen’s film explain how there’s a specific creative
process for the invention of remediated texts. In the scope of the argument of
copyright laws, it is a factor of production quality and ability. There’s different
resources available to different creators of remixed texts. The film highlights
the different types of productions which further complicates the current notion
that all these texts, like pirated films or sampled music, are the same in
nature.
-Kiernan Doyle
Kiernan,
ReplyDeleteI agree that this film opened my eyes to the creative process that goes into creating a remixed track. Regardless of whether or not a DJ creates a certain beat or them self, what they do is definitely a creative art that requires talent and practice. You’re right – this new art form is a new type of text. At 6:35 in the film it is said that the new form has “been highly manipulated and the context is so different” and I think that’s a great way of saying it. It’s a completely new text. I wonder if it could also been seen as a new genre? Miller calls genre situated action, and I would certainly say that that’s what this intricate process is. Sitting down, listening to specific tracks, attempting to figure out which tracks sound good with each other, and putting it all together is a time-consuming process that I would call a situated action and thus a genre.
It’s important to point out the ad infinitum nature of these remixes. As you mentioned, there is a Brazilian remix of “Crazy” by Gnarls Barkley. The people who originally remix this song could be said to be infringing upon copyright laws. The DJ Girl Talk then takes it one step further and starts remixing that song! I believe that this is a case of copyright infringement gone right. As a believer in the power of music to unite and move people, I have a high level of respect for this occurrence. Not only did the Brazilian remixers feel a connection to the song and want to put a spin on it that reflected their own culture, DJ Girl Talk felt a connection to that remix and wanted to put his own spin on it. The whole process of music is inspired by cultures all around the world (as this film also demonstrates by traveling to many different continents), and that’s what gives it its agency.
- Sarah Davis