Copyright Law and Remixing

This week in Business of Music, I gave a presentation on the issue of copyright law and remixing, or mashups. The art of remixing has been around for years, since the beginning of recorded music. Artists used to take jazz standards and rearrange them and this is considered a very premature variation on remixing. Today, however, remix and mashup artists have exploded in popularity in recent years and many of the most popular artists have come under fire for potential copyright infringement.

Artists, such as Gregg Gillis (better known as Girl Talk) use dozens of unauthorized samples of pre-recorded music in their works. Naturally, critics like to refer to their work as "lawsuits waiting to happen". Gillis fights back against these critics and states that they're "creating an issue where there really isn't one". Many artists defend their work by citing the fair use doctrine as protection against being convicted for copyright infringement. Additionally, an influx of artists have begun to use the non-profit Creative Commons to produce their work freely without restraints from copyright law. Creative Commons is devoted to encourage collaboration and the free use of works in the public domain.

With fair use, however, determining if a mashup or remix is suitable for use under protection of copyright law becomes a little bit tricky. The fair use doctrine allows for the use of copyrighted material without the permission of the rights' owner. It uses a four point balance test to determine whether or not works are safe under copyright law:

Purpose and character: This determines whether the use in question helps to foster a creative environment for the enrichment of the general public or if the work is being used for the artist's personal profit. An example here is that Girl Talk originally started producing his work free on the internet rather than looking to make money off of it. A key characteristic also to note with this point is whether or not the work is transformative or just derived from the original work, making it sound too similar to the original.

Nature of the copied work: How relevant certain aspects of the copyrighted work are and how certain parts of the work are expressed.

Amount and sustainability: How much of the copyrighted work has been imported into the new work. In general, the less of the original work that is used in the new work, the less likely it will be targeted for copyright infringement.

Effect upon work's value: This measures the marketability of the original work after the new work has been produced. So, for example, if Girl Talk used Adele's "Rolling in the Deep" in one of his mashups and Adele for some reason felt she was competing too much with Girl Talk's work to sell her product, she may sue Girl Talk for copyright infringement based on the effect of her original work's value. (This would never happen, by the way.)

A question came up after my presentation that was if Girl Talk has been sued yet for copyright infringement. From what I've read, he never was convicted because of his strong case that cites fair use in order to use the original works. Another reason why he hasn't been sued, especially now, is because of how famous he is and he now has many copyright lawyers on his side that would probably take his case on for free because they know he would win. That being said, it is very unlikely now that Girl Talk will ever be sued, so rage on, ravers.

If you're interested in learning more about this issue or about Girl Talk's life in general, I suggest watching the documentary Rip!: A Remix Manifesto. The documentary talks about copyright law and the world of mashup culture while following the daily life of Girl Talk and his opinions on the industry. It's where I got the inspiration to present and write about this topic and it's also a sweet documentary. Watch it and learn something, people!