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

[David Meme <david AT locarecords.com>]

I wonder what you think 'art' is. You seem to have a very well 
developed sense of the romantic artist, both in yourself and the band 
(if indeed they agree with your sentiments). I personally thought that 
what was interesting and radical about collage, sampling and mashing 
was the possibility of challenging these nineteenth century myths by 
self-consciously reusing other people's work (death of the author and 
all that). Building on others in a public way that we in the 20th and 
21st century increasingly seem to have forgotten as we still imagine 
artists and musicians sitting in garrets having nervous breakdowns to 
be the somehow 'authentic' artists. Indeed linked to the question of 
copyright, which is *still* largely justified and legitimated by a 
claim to an 'author' who needs protection - when actually it is a huge 
faceless multinational corporation.

I agree with your comment that CC is a safe world, although for 
different reasons. I actually think that the CC somehow, rather like 
your argument below, *justifies* the very strong IP protections that 
corporations are so hasty to enact and yet have so little evidence to 
support. CC in effect privatises the commons, individualises and 
fragments it into a thousand little pieces which perhaps can never be 
put back together again. The commons (note not necessarily the 
'creative commons') as a project is extremely valuable and I think 
politically and socially important in an age where using DRM protection 
we could have the nightmarish world where even certain words are 
technologically protected - if you don't believe me check out David 
Bollier's blog where he talks about coke cola threatening to sue him 
for using lower case!  Type microsoft into word and see it autocorrect 
you in the correct IP protected trademark format.

The commons is important - but not for romantic artists to start making 
claims about muses, inspiration and breakdowns for them to create 
'original' art ex nihilo. Rather it is important as artists have 
*always* drawn from the past, their peers, their cultural environment 
without having to worry about some huge multinational or hot-shot IP 
lawyer sending them a cease or desist letter. Artists and musicians 
create from a cultural sphere that is slowly being privatised and 
locked-down and the alternative seems to be copyright and patent pools 
that only the 'signed' employee artists will have access to.  In effect 
proletarianising artists and musicians at a time when suddenly everyone 
is talking about creative economies, information societies and the 
creative industries.

Sorry to go for so long, but I think we have to be careful about what 
we are all doing this for. I personally would hope that we seek to 
challenge the crazy out-of-control extension and colonisation across 
all of our everyday lives of intellectual property laws, and most 
importantly to make sure that when the corporations start playing with 
language and making private property equal to intellectual property 
*rights* they are not allowed to continue unchallenged. Claims to a 
romantic author drawn 'like moths to a flame' are playing into their 
hands and the legal justifications they espouse. Realising that a 
shared cultural commons, libre culture, is an important, indeed crucial 
part of our lives and needs us to create culture that we share and 
share-alike.

David

http://www.locarecords.com

---








On 20 Apr 2005, at 20:35, mark / negativland wrote:

> 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?"