http://genyu.net/2009/11/24/bridging-the-gap-mash-up-artists-and-copyright-law/
Music mash-ups have exploded into popularity in the recent decade. Before DJ artists were able to acquire tracks and spin them however they liked for events, clubs, parties, and personal occasions. I assume that most of these DJs would have to legally obtain these songs in oder to put them together in such a fashion, but now that downloading songs has become yesterdays knowledge and as easy as making your morning coffee, original artists are not being paid for the distribution of their songs and in-store CD sales continue to go downhill. Who needs to buy a whole CD that has only a few songs you might really like, when you can download songs and arrange your favorites in certain mixes on a burned disk. Not only is music more convenient to listen to, it also feels more personal, your own mix that you can be proud of. With the right equipment, everyone can be a DJ.
In the last decade, artists have taken total advantage of this ’splice and dice’ technique of songs courtesy of advancing mixing technology and the ease of internet file sharing. Gregg Gillis, the mastermind behind Girl Talk, has gotten a lot attention recently because of his ability to find legal loopholes in order to spread his music and not pay any royalties to the original artists. According to this article, Gillis uses an average of 21 music clips per song, and if he were to pay fully and legally, he would owe $260,000 per song and $4.2 million per album. Wow. Even though I can understand why he is getting criticized legally, if I were able to do what he is doing by technically saying he is not selling the albums for commercial purposes, I would totally keep doing that in order to dodge the hefty user fees for the tracks involved. Could you blame him? But when does a mash-up artist deserve the same rights as a recording artist? Girl Talks 2008 album became the second most popular album of that year, bringing Gillis right up to par with the income being received by recording artists.
So far these mash-up artists have remained in the legal middle ground. Their music is so popular, but marketing companies are to afraid to promote it because of fear of attacks from the legal guys and other record companies. I think there should be a way so that both sides win, as there are always three sides to every case: side A, side B, and what is actually right. Mash-up artists need to stop thinking directly in terms of their popularity to consider the legal damages, and the legal guys need to stop worrying about the amount of royalties being taken away and consider the promotion of a whole new genre that gives variety to popular music and could become the next huge money maker. Copyright laws involving the usage of clips of previously recorded tracks needs to revised. No mash-up artist is going to want to shake hands on paying full amounts of royalties for using clips on a song. What a mash-up artist is doing is taking DJing to a whole new level, they are creating entire new tracks, using pieces of a whole to create new songs. There is an argument for a fair amount of creativity here, but the artist did not create each of the clips. This is where there needs to be a compromise! Laws need to be revised, so that a certain percentage of the royalties could be paid to the record companies, not in full, and so that the mash-up artist may be motivated to pay while still receiving individual benefits for his songs. Girl Talk does not charge a set amount for its albums, but I wonder is there is a minimum? And if not I wonder how many people have tried to put in less than a dollar for a whole album, and how much total album sales would make in comparison to an actual set price.
I have a friend that put together tracks in a genre known as Dub-Step. It’s more individual artist created beats and sounds, but with a few warped clips here and there of bits of tracks done by other artists. If the music is only provided for entertainment at bars without a cover charge, is that considered infringement. I’m sure many would argue yes, but if people are not directly paying to listen to his work then I believe he has rights to continue to play. Although I think there is a line crossed when songs are recorded and put onto an album that people pay for.
At the end of the day, mash-up artists have found ways to get around paying in full for their tracks, and they are not going to want to start paying if they don’t have to. Legal companies are scratching their heads trying to adapt to this new strain of music and possible legal infringement. All I can say is, compromise people! It’s the best way to encourage new developments in music variety, while letting the record companies get some shut-eye at night.
Some Rights Reserved
Thank you for this post-I have always wondered what were the legalities that associate with mash up artists. They are definitely in the grey area since they are copying songs but yet creating new songs out of them. They definitely deserve a credibility because I do not think the original artists could even think of such creativity. However I do agree with you in that there is a need for law change as a way to compromise both parties. In a way mashup artists are promoting the original song but they are accessing those songs in an illegal manner.
Mashups can be great works of art and represent much creativity that we may not see in the mainstream media. Most mashup artist are not seeking profit for their work and do it for promotion and fun; most cases this is covered by “fair use”. However, if the creations of a mashup artist is competing and or reducing demand for the original works, then there might be some legal issues there and it could be hard to claim “fair use”.
May i make a recommendation? I believe you’ve got a little something good right here. But let’s say you supplied a couple of links to a internet page that backs up exactly what you’re saying? Or perhaps you could give us something to take a look at, a specific thing that would be connected what youre declaring to some thing real? Just a bit of advice.