With the rise, and rise of digital media and remix culture, are these new processes of content creation fundamentally at odds with traditional media practices and institutions? Or is common ground hidden just below the surface?
REMIX CULTURE- Remix culture is a term employed to describe a society which allows and encourages derivative works. Such a culture would be, by default, permissive of efforts to improve upon, change, integrate, or otherwise remix the works of copyright holders. (Taken from Wikipedia)
I am no digital media expert. I’m still recording TV through a VCR and video cassettes. I can barely comprehend making videos or animations or ‘mashups’ using just my laptop (I had to type mashup into google to check I was using the term correctly). Yet I envy this whole new breed of creative people; people who make their own videos, mix their own songs, and utilise other people’s content to create something new and funny, which in turn is used by others to re-create it once again. Take the “Socially Awkward Penguin” meme (below). It is a simple and brilliantly funny example of how digital media and remix culture is opening up all these avenues for individual creativity. (Excuse the partial crudeness)
I don’t believe this new era of content creation is beyond me, I just don’t know how to do it. It is unfamiliar and therefore hard to get my head around.
This tale of my own inabilities and inhibitions can be used as a metaphor. It is definitely a very simplistic metaphor, but to me, at its heart, it represents the key factor behind the tension between this growing remix culture and traditional media practices and institutions: unfamiliarity and a lack of recognition.
Of course the issues go deeper than this, remix culture and traditional media are definitely at odds (as will be illustrated below). To suggest, however, that remix culture is fundamentally at odds with traditional media implies that these tensions are deep-ceded, irrevocable and potentially unresolvable. This would be a sad indictment, and in reality, simply can’t be true. Traditional media, mainly broadcast, with which remix culture has the greatest clashes, is not about to wither and die. Neither is remix culture going to fade away like some fad. What is needed is a recognition of these differences and a recognition that for the future benefit and growth of both, resolution is necessary.
A Two-Sided Sword
In conducting any research into remix culture it is practically impossible not to run into Lawrence Lessig. Not only did he coin the term, but he is one of the greatest advocates for reduced copyright laws and greater access to original content for all people to remix and recreate. Personally, I was absorbed by a speech he gave at the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Conference in 2007 (take a look if you have the 20 mins to spare)
He speaks of the power and brilliance of digital technology to spur on remix culture and this new era of user generated content and creativity. He proposes the lifting of copyright restrictions on content to be utilized for creative and non-commercial purposes.
On first view, remix culture and the growth of social networks that have the capability to allow us to share this new found creativity appears to be a social revelation, which it is. It is vital, however, for the resolution of the tensions between remix culture and traditional media to gain an understanding of the position and opposition of traditional outlets.
Whether intentionally or not, the wave of support behind remix culture and the highly egalitarian terms with which it is spoken of, has led to a somewhat vilification of traditional media and practices, specifically those that control content. But we have to remember, traditional broadcast media (that is television, radio and traditional music production), have been the dominant content providers for almost a century. Their practices of content distribution that have become inherent are, as Lessig would call it, “read-only”. Technological restraints and commercial interests have prevented any meaningful movement towards remixing content until the end of the 20th century. The dominance of broadcast media has meant the law and commercial regulations have moulded around these methods it utilises. This is how we evolved into a society in which authorship legally entitles you to complete control of content.
Traditional media intuitions and practices rely upon a direct relationship with producers of content for their profitability. In turn producers need to see profitability in their work to continue to create.
So therein lays the tension between remix culture and traditional media. One side, propelled by the developments of digital media and communication, advocates free and shared content creation and re-creation. The other side, whose tried and true practices have been dominant for decades, advocates content control for commercial gain and the protection of intellectual property.
Now to me, there doesn’t seem to be any fundamental conflict. Just two concepts or cultures created from contextually different ideals. As it stands however, remix culture and traditional media are at loggerheads more often than not. But if the two sides aren’t fundamentally at odds, resolution must be possible. So what is the answer? It may seem obvious, but the answer is compromise. A compromise between the commercial needs and property rights of traditional media and content creators, and the social benefits that remix culture provides.
A Case of too many Molotovs
To illustrate my point I want to write about an example where remix culture and traditional media unnecessarily came into conflict.
The example I am writing about is unusual in the context of remix culture vs. traditional media as it isn’t the typical big corporation trying to take down the remixing ‘little guy’, a scenario that continues to play out in courts across the Western world. In contrast, this example involves two people, both who could be considered ‘little guys’ and artists. The difference between them is that one creates in the midst of remix culture while the other is a product of past media practices. What is highlighted is how the ideologies of strict and complete ownership of original content, promoted by strict copyright laws as a product of the practices of traditional media, evoked a conflict that should never have been. All that was needed was some concession and compromise.
Joy Garnett is an American artist who takes news photographs, scientific imagery and military documents from the Net to create paintings. She ‘remixes’ these original images in an attempt to examine the contemporary impacts of a society dominated by commercialism in which media, politics and culture all intersect.
In 2003, Garnett revealed Molotov, a painting that depicted a photograph she had found on the Internet.
It was soon discovered that this image was part of a larger photograph taken by Susan Meiselas in 1979. She took the photo whilst working as a photojournalist in the Central America nation of Nicaragua in the midst of the Sandinista Revolution.
Meiselas proceeded to issue a “cease and desist” letter to Garnett, claiming copyright infringement. It demanded that Garnett remove Molotov from her website, transfer all rights of the painting to Meiselas, and credit her in all subsequent reproductions. Initially, Garnett agreed to credit Meiselas on her website but would not transfer the rights of the painting, arguing that she had sufficiently transformed the image and was allowed to do so under her fair use rights (one of the few, but limited concessions of copyright law). After the threat of further legal action Garnett withdrew the painting from her Site and Meiselas did not pursue the matter any further.
What happened next is testament to how, in the age of digital media and social networking, individuals have greater creative freedom, and even power. Traditional media must learn to adapt to this change. News of what had happened to Garnett and Molotov was published on internet sites that promoted new media art. Soon supporters, who were outraged at this use of copyright law to suppress a legitimate artist, began publishing Molotov on their own sites in protest. Through social networks and blogs, the story went global with more and more people either uploading the image on their sites or creating and publishing derivatives of Garnett’s original artwork. It was a loud and clear protest against the suppression of fair use rights. The action taken became known as the “Joywar”.
Here are some of the ‘remixes’ of Garnett’s original ‘remix’:
In this affirmative action we instantly see the power of digital media to defy and protest. In April 2006 Garnett and Meiselas were both asked to speak at a symposium entitled “Comedies of Fair U$e”. Meiselas was given an opportunity to defend her legal pursuit of Garnett. She claimed that as a photojournalist her mission was to provide a cultural and historical context for the images she captured. She argued that in appropriating the ‘Molotov Man’ (as he became known), later found to be a man named Pablo Arauz, her original work had been devalued and that Pablo’s context had been “stripped away”. She said that while “technology allows us to do many things….that does not mean we must do them” and that she felt it her role to protest against the diminishment of Pablo’s act of defiance.
On face value, these seem legitimate and passionate arguments. But the issue is, whilst Meiselas promoted a connection with and an obligation to the subject of her photo, in actual fact she never sought permission from Pablo to take the photo in the first place. Then in her subsequent writings on the photo, not once did she mention the man she professed to have had such a protective connection with. A connection so strong that it prompted legal action when the image was artistically appropriated by Garnett.
If this is the case, where did Meiselas’ objections truly come from? Meiselas is a product of traditional media production; an era dominated by a belief in a right to sole and complete ownership of content. But as Garnett exemplifies, with the rise of the Internet and digital technology, this right may be professed and punishment enforced, but it cannot be fully protected. Nor should it be. Garnett artistically transformed a powerful image for the purposes of creating a powerful message (and certainly some economic interests came into play). She was not ‘ripping off’ Meiselas’ work, nor do the thousands of people who remix original content every day. They are creating something new out of something already created, often for a cultural benefit.
I believe that Meiselas’ position as a photographer, whose work is centred around creating something out of someone else’s personal image, should enable her to not only sympathise with Garnett but respect her appropriation. Evidently she remained indoctrinated by a copyright ideology that is propelled by commercial interests but justified as a protection of individual rights. This may have been viable in the past, but as technology evolves, and remix culture expands, so must the mentality of content creators.
Conclusion
Overall, what I am trying to portray from the above case study is a sense of the needless tension between remix culture and traditional media if compromise is achieved. Garnett did not defile or copy Meiselas’ photograph she effectively remixed it. In essence she created something new. Those who in turn appropriated her painting in support for her were also creating something new. In contemporary culture this is an inevitable cycle that should be promoted. That is not to say that the rights or commercial interests of Meiselas or any other creator should not be protected or acknowledged. But a middle ground exists.
There isn’t enough space here to go into it today, but concepts such as fair use and creative commons licences and the establishment of what is and is not permitted in remixing original content are the key to resolving the tensions between remix culture and traditional media practices and institutions.
As we can see these tensions are not fundamental, they are expected, but resolvable. Traditional media is trapped in a context dominated by copyright laws and as American copyright activist Michael Harrington describes, a “damn accounting hyper-legal mentality.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt0ASo_6Sdg) But this will change as remix culture continues to expand and compromise is achieved. In the end this is the only way forward to an exciting new age of constant creation and recreation in which digital technology allows for so much individual flair and social connection.
All Content and Videos referenced are publicly available at the links provided
The videos incorporated and used for research were:
Socially Awkward Penguin Meme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90NGT6qXHGw&feature=related
Larry Lessig- How creativity is being strangled by the law: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs
Walking on Eggshells: Borrowing Culture in the Remix Age: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt0ASo_6Sdg
The Evolution of Remix Culture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BZ06Kwbi5s&feature=related
