I've been writing a weekly series about music for the past three weeks. Until this week, it had nothing to do with the law. Now, that trend is over!
I spent a lot of the day out of the office, meeting with clients, but there was still a chance to enjoy an album or two. Today's big listen was Girl Talk's new release, All Day - available as a free download. I've been exploring it for a couple of weeks, now, but really had a good opportunity to pay attention to it today while driving around.
Originally posted at D. J. Marcus's Law Blog.
It seems that Barry Ritholtz and I are in slight disagreement about this album, especially in comparison to Kayne's newest release, My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy. While Kanye pulled together a much better effort after 808s and Heartbreaks, All Day seems a bit forced in comparison to some of Girl Talk's earlier releases. Yes, it's still a 70-minute party and it certainly has some high points. Mr. Gillis mashes up some samples one would have never thought to mash and creates some great sounds. But, Feed the Animals, for example, seemed, plainly, tighter.
It's always fun to explore the open-source efforts of Illegal-Art artists; Girl Talk always posts charts that diagram the samples that went into each track. All Day is no different (click the graphic for full size):
Everyone from the New York Times to TechDirt to Congressman Mike Doyle to the IP and Entertainment Law Ledger of NYU's law school have explored the same question: with the RIAA suing everyone and their mothers for music piracy, how has Girl Talk not incurred the litigious wrath of the record industry? It comes down to the doctrine of "Fair Use," defined in the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. Girl Talk and other artists from the Illegal-Arts label claim that the samples are so short and altered from their original character that they are more a comment on the original tracks than a sample. Fair Use allows literary critics to quote books in their reviews and film critics to show clips. I don't know if Girl Talk's sampling follows the same logic that the legislature used to justify Fair Use. It doesn't seem to be a comment on the original music. Rather, I think that Girl Talk's art should be considered more a collage of sound - a new, artistic creation using elements from previous songs. Consider Peter Blake's collage for the cover of The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and the recognizable faces contained within. Copyright law considers this to be a "derivative work," defined as "a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work"." 17 U.S.C. § 101.
The legal issues surrounding derivative works are complex enough to require their own post and I may enlist someone more well versed in copyright law to do just such a post in the future. For now, check out Girl Talk's music, especially his older albums. And, I'm glad that economists listen to interesting music.