Comments on: Kuleshov effect and remix culture

By: LawGeek

LawGeek — Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:58:54 +0000

Seventh Circuit Dug Kuleshov Effect

A week ago, I wrote about the Kuleshov Effect and The Law in response to danah boyd’s post about remixing culture. Thanks to an anonymous commentor (thanks commentor!) who points us to LEE v. A.R.T. COMPANY, 125 F.3d 580 (7th

By: LawGeek

LawGeek — Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:58:23 +0000

Seventh Circuit Dug Kuleshov Effect

By: space invader

space invader — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 15:33:02 +0000

well, mostly it depends on whether or not the remix is authorized. authorized remixers are generally given pretty much complete control. so when i see an ed rush remix of an adam freeland track, musically i think ed rush, not adam freeland. when adam asked ed rush to remix, he fully intended for it to be completely repurposed. from an artistic standpoint, this encourages listeners to explore different artists (check out the b-side), and enables artists to explore each other’s territory a little. from a commercial standpoint, it’s diversifying the expected sales base (ew, i feel dirty).

now unauthorized remixes, which i assume you’re more concerned about, that’s obviously a different story. but i feel like that’s fairly cut and dry. if it’s unauthorized, it’s illegal in most of the world. so if the original artist (or their label’s legal team) feels strongly about it, they can take action against you. obviously this doesn’t stop unauthorized remixing, but it contains it and provides a framework for seeking redress. when ils remixes pink floyd, he can’t release thousands of copies and put it on compilations and make money from it. he releases a small number of white labels, gives a lot of them away as promos, and no label takes credit for it. and he hopes that pink floyd doesn’t notice. if they do, it’s not really worth their time to do anything about it. their lawyers cost waaaay more than ils made from the track. had he done a large commercial release, he knows he would be at risk.

as far as distribution, i may not correctly understand the issue, but i don’t see it having an effect. i mean, ils didn’t have any special materials from pink floyd– i’m pretty sure he just lifted some samples off the cd. hell, give me an old steve miller band 8-track and if i’m hell bent on remixing it, you’re gonna be gettin’ down to “fly like an eagle” next time you hear me spin >_<

By: Mark Federman

Mark Federman — Fri, 02 Jan 2004 12:18:45 +0000

This illustrates Marshall McLuhan’s notion of figure and ground perfectly: Meaning is created via the interplay of what we notice (figure) and everything else, in particularly that which we don’t notice or pay attention to (ground). It’s a way of saying that “context is everything,” recognizing that much of what we take for granted is context/ground – our cultural heritage, our parents’ birthplace, what we had for supper last night, the clown that terrorized us as a chile, and so forth. Some of these may have less influence at a particular time and/or relative to a particular figure; some may have more. But meaning cannot be achieved from the figure alone.

This has profound implications, not only for the new CC sampling license and moral rights (which are recognized in Canada, btw) but for the semantic web as well. Most semantic web metadata, that intends to convey meaning through a machine-interpretable mechanism, focuses on a very small subset of ground-made-figure information (eg. FOAF, RDF), from which all sorts of possibly erroneous meaning can be made. While understanding ground context is essential, and was the natural practice in ancient oral cultures, we are presented with an interesting and somewhat different challenge in a global village age of new orality. “Understand your neighbour as yourself,” becomes the new commandment in an interconnected world society.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 02 Jan 2004 07:21:52 +0000

This reminds me of this page which takes a random pic from the news websites and then overlays either random EBay feedback, or a random news headline over the image.

It frequently results in something with a very strange connotation that is very different than the original context – and occasionally makes entirely too much sense.

By: Zenarchery.com

Zenarchery.com — Fri, 02 Jan 2004 06:38:23 +0000

All Is Quiet (Mostly) On New Year’s Day

Erm. Got rather drunk New Year’s Eve, woke up this morning blonde. Yes, blonde. Looks pretty cool, actually — sort of like Egon from The Real Ghostbusters cartoon from the ’80s. Found myself puzzling this evening over the Kuleshov effect, which — in …

By: Antoin O Lachtnain

Antoin O Lachtnain — Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:45:24 +0000

well, you could probably do these wonderfully expressive things in they privacy of your own home if you wanted, without violating the law.

By: LawGeek

LawGeek — Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:09:57 +0000

We fought the Kuleshov effect and The Law won?

danah boyd, who I met briefly at the Creative Commons party, has posted some interesting thoughts about an aspect of remix culture called “The Kuleshov effect”. Danah explains it thusly: Lev Kuleshov was a Russian filmmaker. Because of the political

By: Your Guess Is As Good As Mine

Your Guess Is As Good As Mine — Thu, 01 Jan 2004 11:25:51 +0000

Kuleshov Effect

art as exploration of our humanity

By: joe

joe — Thu, 01 Jan 2004 10:23:17 +0000

Apropos your last paragraph… in Europe artists have what are called “moral rights”. These rights mean that you can’t purchase a painting and then subsequently pee on it or light it on fire without the consent of the original artist… so much for free culture! I love setting things I buy on fire…