Gregg Gillis, more widely known as Girl Talk, is an artist that creates mash-ups from sampling contemporary and classic music, ranging from all genres, including, but not limited to, hip-hop, rock, and pop. The finished product is a new work completely based on clever arrangements from a number of samples from a number of songs. (Sometimes samples from 20 songs go into 1 of Girl Talk’s songs.) Saxx featured Girl Talk’s musical endeavors as part of her sampling presentation, and explained that he claims that his new creative works are fair use.
Considering the blatant thievery and the fact that artists have been sued over far more trivial uses of samples, I left the room thinking, “why hasn’t Girl Talk been sued by any or many of the copyright holders for the theft of their works that Gillis features in his songs?” Of course, I believe that Girl Talk’s use of the works is fair, based on the fact that they are transformative, don’t harm the market in any way, and most importantly, promote creativity. At the same time, I also believed that N.W.A’s use of sampling in the Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films case was fair use, but unfortunately that argument was not brought to fruition by the court.
As it turns out, some people believe that because of some previous landmark sampling cases that went in the original copyright holders’ favor, the music industry does not want to sue Girl Talk and lose, because of the new precedent that might be set after such an outcome. Says Peter Friedman, law professor at the University of Detroit, “I would advise [an artist] not to sue Girl Talk; Gillis’s argument that he has transformed the copyrighted materials sufficiently that his work constitutes non-infringing fair use is just too good. I’d go after someone I am more likely to beat. Otherwise, I’d lose all the leverage I have with the existence, as yet undisputed in case law, of the decisions in Grand Upright Music and Bridgeport Music.” Others are surprised at the fact he hasn’t been sued and are still waiting for it to happen, claiming that his music does not constitute fair use.
It is not like Girl Talk is flying under the radar and the music industry has not taken notice to him. He has received a lot of press, his songs, although not available on iTunes, are available for sale in the Amazon MP3 store, his concerts are sold out, and he sells merchandise. So it seems as though the music industry, whether musicians, publishers, etc., would have a reason for a lawsuit, or at least a cease-and-desist order, because he is profiting from the use of others’ copyrights. As a side note, if a suit does come at some point, I would recommend that he either insist on signing to a new label, or insist on his current label, Illegal Art, changing their name. The name might not look too good in a case where you are trying to argue legality.
http://idolator.com/5081637/girl-talk-is-not-fair-use
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090707/0237205466.shtml#comments
Sample of his music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7DE8svB3M
Some Rights Reserved
It mystifies me too why Girl Talk hasn’t been sued when they are blatantly using samples, and how other musicians whom have used samples much more cunning yet transformative way, have been sued and lots the rights to their song. It just seems morally unfair. But I think its a great point you make that they don’t want to set a precedent if he is able to maintain fair use. However, I think it is inevitable that he is going to get sued and I think that because of the amount used, even if it doesn’t harm the same market, its still grounds for copyright theft. And I think in a way he acknowledges this with his label name. Although I enjoy his music, I have to ask myself is it morally right for someone to profit when it seems others have worked so hard to make something from nothing. Personally, I think if he were to make his music for free and maybe derive an income I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But when technology makes it easy for someone who has little musical talent to become a “musician” I think its unfortunate for all the talented people out there who can sound good without technology who are still struggling for artist recognition.
I completely agree with both of your opinions. I love Girl Talk and always wondered how someone could compile such a vast array of great music into one track and all on each of the albums. To challenge the point of how “technology makes it easy for someone who has little musical talent to become a musician” i’ll present the question/point: Isn’t it the advancement of technology and the consumers’ wants that will continue to drive the music industry/market and allow for further innovation and enhance rather than hinder it?
I actually agree with the point that musicians with real talent should get credit and that they have a hard time as it is. However, the music industry has been rapidly changing, with decreasing cd sales and increasing mp3 sales. Furthermore, digital music sales are not increasing as fast as cd sales have been decreasing, and, as a result, the market may not stabilize if this continues. Therefore, I see that “musicians” and other artists that are able to utilize this technology, and other types, will be the ones to remain successful in this challenging market.