Development of the Creative Commons Sampling license (or license option)

[mark / negativland <markhosler AT bellsouth.net>]

At 7:40 PM +0100 4/20/05, David Meme wrote:
> This strikes me as a weird attitude. You are 
> saying that if it were legal to copy and reuse 
> stuff you wouldn't want to.


I wasn't so black and white. I said "it's less interesting".



> Rather than looking for interesting sounds from 
> all over you seem to be making the odd point 
> that you'll only do it if it causes a fuss - 
> which seems somewhat cynical to me.


Cynical?? No, we're unrealistic idealists! :) 
I'd say you sound more like a "realist". And I 
said nothing whatsoever about intentionally 
making a fuss, so be careful not to add things 
into what I actually said.

Do you make art yourself?? I am guessing no. If 
you do, you might understand my comments a bit 
better. My comments were not so  much bout being 
logical or politically effective in making change 
( all good things, and why we agreed to work with 
CC to create the sampling licence). I am merely 
expressing the feelings that can lurk behind the 
choices artists make. It's all about what 
inspires you to create!

 Perhaps you think Negativland are activists 
first and artists second?? If so, you have it all 
backwards! :) While the activist aspect of our 
work is very important and  clear to us (check 
out NO BUSINESS, our new IP related CD/book 
project that comes out in late May), none of us 
are about to move to DC! Our first and foremost 
concern is in making good smart art. So, for me, 
I am not inspired to create anything I would like 
by taking things from NIN, for example!

 Do I want to make a "mash-up" of David Bowie's 
music because he mounts a big add campaign 
telling me to? No. ( yet I can still see the 
bigger picture value in having a mainstream 
artist like Bowie promoting the idea of letting 
folks re-use his stuff). And while we have on 
occasion used stuff from public places like the 
Prelinger Archive, again, it becomes less 
interesting to use because its so widely 
accessible. We are trying to have a unique voice 
in how we appropriate, so, quite often, the more 
obscure the better. Does this make sense?

Our "U2" single, the very thing that ultimately 
led to us being involved with CC in the first 
place, would never be made today because, in 
2005,  any out takes of a celebrity guy like 
Casey Kasem would be all over the web as mp3s. 
Back in 1991, this was not the case, and hardly 
anyone had those tapes. So we were inspired to 
use them.

While, from an aesthetic angle, the U2 single was 
it was it was because we liked how it sounded, we 
*also*   did all the stuff  we did on that single 
*precisely* because they all seemed like things 
we were not supposed to do. So it was both 
things. Art, pranks, shit-stirring, activism. 
Pretty much in that order. It was FUN to do it 
that way!  We were inspired! And we thought it 
made for some very funny and very smart art.  An 
real all-around spiffy package, if I say so 
myself.

There will always be a small percentage of 
artists who are dangerously drawn like moths to a 
flame to do work like that. And, historically, it 
is what moves art forward. In retrospect, I can 
see that that role is essential for a healthy 
culture, both aesthetically and politically.  But 
it also means that once everyone is doing it, and 
it becomes safe and easy ( the world CC is trying 
to create) , it is automatically not so exciting 
or inspiring  any more. Does that seem to be a 
bit juvenile of an attitude to have?? Perhaps it 
is, but I don't really think so- if I ain't 
inspired, I simply ain't makin' it. So I gotta be 
inspired! Following  rules and joining clubs 
doesn't  inspire me too much. That's just the 
kind of person I am, and I'd say all the past and 
present members of Negativland are cut from the 
same cloth.









>  Additionally, we might as well just have 
> full-on copyright and close down any reuse if we 
> extrapolate your argument.


Yes, but lets not be so binary, okay? My argument 
is what it is, and I wasn't askin' ya to go 
extrapolatin' it! :)


>  That way *all* samples would be interesting to you.


Hell, yes!!! :) That's been how we have been 
making music for 25 years!! Hee hee!! :)

> I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I think this 
> statement of intent is a kind of 
> pseudo-anti-establishment fight against the 
> system that needs that very system in order to 
> have meaning in your art. In other words, you 
> negate any possibility of radicalism in what you 
> are doing.


I can't actually follow what you say in this last 
paragraph. I don't see how we negate anything. 
Please explain.


Negate-ative-landly yours,

Mark



> David
>
>
>
>
>
> On 20 Apr 2005, at 18:55, mark / negativland wrote:
>
> > FYI- in a kind of reply to some earlier posts 
> > here, as a long time collage artist, I can tell 
> > you that any media or art out  there that has a 
> > CC license attached to it is automatically 
> > less interesting for us to work with! :)  It's 
> > an aesthetic thing. With a few notable 
> > exceptions ( our "U2" being the biggest one), 
> > we are more drawn to things that are quite 
> > obscure and harder to find, so that our "found 
> > sounds" are more unique to us and our work. 
> > Anything that is officially up for grabs, like 
> > with a CC license, is also up for grabs to 
> > *anybody* out there. So, this makes it less 
> > unique, and thus, artistically, less desirable 
> > to work with. And so, while of course we 
> > support this "re-use" attitude ( and strongly 
> > espouse it in our own work as well), it makes 
> > the found things less appealing. For example, 
> > I'd never want to do anything in a million 
> > years with any NIN stuff. *Especially* if he 
> > made it available for all to use!  While  we 
> > get sampled all the time ( and of course don't 
> > mind if folks do it), it seems like a rather 
> > imaginative way to go- appropriating from folks 
> > who appropriate! Kinda boring, if you ask me!
> >
> >  We get asked all the time to make our raw 
> > samples available to people to use themselves, 
> > but ( and some of you might be surprised by 
> > this) we have no interest in doing this. Go and 
> > find your own cool samples, ding dang it! 
> > Jeez.... :) :) ;)
> >
> >
> > Mark


--

© © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ©

The truly creative people I know all live lousy 
lives, never have time to see you, don't take 
care of themselves properly, have weird tastes in 
men/women and behave badly. They don't wash and 
they eat disgusting stuff, they are mentally 
unstable and are absolutely brilliant.
   - Toke Nygaard


© © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ©

"Radical shifts happen, not through the 
complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, 
but through the creative maladjustment of the 
non-conforming few."
  - Martin Luther King, Jr.


© © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ©

A young girl aged six asked her mom to tell her 
what she did at the university where she went 
every day. "I am in the art department. I teach 
people to draw and paint," replied her mother. 
Astonished, the girl asked, "You mean they 
forget?"