1. RIP: A Remix Manifesto
Katie Parkhurst
Music Copyright and Publishing
Full Sail University
2. In RIP: A Remix Manifesto, Girl Talk had the most developed storyline. He uses
different songs and takes them apart to put them back together in new, mixed up ways is
probably the easiest way to demonstrate copyright infringement. He does not have any
permission to use any of the songs he does. The question posed by the documentary is whether or
not he needs permission and who would have the right to grant that permission. Both sides of the
argument surrounding Girl Talk are understandable. On his side he feels he should have access to
this art to build on, transform, and make something new to pass along for some to do the same
with in the future. On the other side of the argument is credit is due to whomever originally
created these works. However, the problem with that is the credit, financially speaking, isn’t
generally going to the authors of the work. It goes to the financiers. It now creates the dilemma
of if Girl Talk did go through the current legal channels, he would spend an exorbitant amount of
money and the true author may never see a dime of that. Therefore, he waits until he is served
with a lawsuit to truly concern himself with copyright laws and what his possible defenses could
be.
I feel mashups should be legal. However, I also tend to be a fan of artists responsible for
their own work, musically speaking anyway. With that being said, I want to see song writers and
musicians credited for their work, but I don’t want to stifle someone else’s creativity either.
Currently to sample work, there is either a fee to do that, or it’s done in hopes of not getting
caught or a defense like fair use will work. Even Girl Talk himself said “I think with my work,
you're allowed to sample without asking for permission if it's under fair use, which is in
basic copyright law. But figuring out whether it qualifies under fair use or not is something
where I don't know of any way to go about that unless you're actually challenged by someone -
so unless you're actually sued.” (LeBoeuf, 2015)
3. In 2017, Drake won a copyright lawsuit over sampling as well. He was being sued for
unlawful sampling and the judge used the four factors test to determine whether Drake’s fair use
defense was valid. The judge found Drake transformed the work he sampled, Jimmy Smith Rap.
Drake didn’t take the “soul” of the piece he sampled, or negatively affects the market for Jimmy
Smith Rap. Therefore, Drake won his fair use agreement (Masnick, 2017).
If Girl Talk were sued and came before the same judge as Drake, he would probably
stand a good chance of winning his case. There’s no guarantee, or he could end up with a jury.
This is a could be a big step in changing the landscape of what is protected and what is not. Had
Drake’s case gone the other way would it be easier for other parties to claim copyright
infringement when it doesn’t exist? How minute could copyright infringement become? Would
Van Halen be able to sue Drake next because they already have a song titled Poundcake and
that’s the name of Drake’s song in question? Although Drake’s song is Pound Cake, not
Poundcake, very important distinction in the court of law I’m sure.
I think, like almost anything else government involvement, has gone too far in copyright
laws. I don’t just mean government as in the actual US Federal government, I mean the
governing bodies and organizations of the industries mainly affected by it. As much as I am a
rock and roll fan to my core, I also believe Metallica, specifically Lars Ulrich, ruins everything.
The men who drafted and signed the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution,
were absolute criminals. If caught and captured they faced death. No theatrics, they would most
likely be hanged, possibly drawn and quartered. Copyright was important enough that they
included it in the first article of this brand-new nation’s constitution, and in such a way to help
protect authors but foster growth and expansion of society. Now this has grown into corporations
suing children for copyright infringement. That’s way too far. The RIAA has claimed they’ve
4. stopped pursuing copyright infringement cases on illegal download situations but tis that too
little, too late? Girl Talk is a little bit different. He is using works be other to make something
new, however, those older pieces are still very present. Maybe there could be a little bit more of
a medium like he could pay the mechanical license fee rather than the full sample fee. I’m not
sure how that would work in his specific case because he will combine so many songs at a time
and will only be played so much for each time one of his songs is played. He could potentially
still end up in debt. Where do we draw the line though? There is no specific measurement to say
how much constitutes copyright infringement. Memes could easily be copyright infringement if
they feature a still from a show or movie, a character, obvious song lyrics.
To bring it back to Lars Ulrich and Metallica, he was more or less the poster child for the
movement against Napster. He was concerned his band was going to lose out on money because
of what Napster did. That’s fair. Some of that money does not go to who the public sees as the
artist. They have many people behind the scenes they have to worry about. In that sense, I am not
being critical of him at all. There was probably a better way to handle the situation though.
Napster was willing to deal with labels. He could’ve helped fostered that relationship a little
more. He also turned out to be wrong essentially. What the record companies didn’t want to do
with Napster they ended up more or less doing with all the streaming services we have now. He
was a little hostile towards the public about the situation. (Graham, 2000) He seemed angry in a
lot of interviews. Maybe justly so, but it isn’t good PR. If the situation were to exist today, he
really wouldn’t have the option to react that way. He, and the rest of Metallica, would be
‘canceled’ so fast. The recent video of Dogg Face proves that. He had Fleetwood Mac playing in
his video. They could’ve probably easily had a copyright lawsuit on their hands. How would it
have looked for them to sue a man that has nothing over enjoying one of their songs? Instead
5. they realized how much everyone was loving the video. They saw a major bump in their sales.
They embraced the video, making their own versions. Everyone was making money. What if he
was listening to Metallica? Would a lawsuit have come his way? This is also what copyright
what create exactly for. Fleetwood Mac made their song, had their initial success with it. Dogg
Face skateboards to the song and has his own success with it. Since Dogg Face reminded people
of the Fleetwood Mac song, the band now experiences success a second time with the same song.
Commercially everyone is making money. As far as public relations go it’s a story everyone is
feeling good about. The original authors were protected, but a new work was also created
featuring that older element. Dogg Face would still most likely be found guilty of copyright
infringement if this did go to court.
Maybe this instance, and other videos and memes are helping people like Girl Talk
change the copyright landscape. It took criminals doing what they knew was right to create our
original copyright laws, maybe we need criminals to reform the current situation. Record labels
as well as other industries, have been turned on their heads by the changing technology and
struggle to find ways to stay relevant and financially healthy. Copyrights may be them grasping
at straws. We may never be to a place where no copyright exists, perhaps we shouldn’t. We
definitely seem like we’re at least moving from guarded control to protected collaborations.
6. References
Jefferson Graham. (July 11, 2000, Tuesday,). Industry drumbeat pounds Napster Congress,
courts set to hear arguments. USA TODAY. https://advance-lexis-
com.oclc.fullsail.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:40PH-86N0-00C6-
D0F3-00000-00&context=1516831.
Sarah LeBoeuf -The Daily Reveille. (October 26, 2015 Monday). Q&A: Girl Talk reveals
upcoming projects, Voodoo performance plans Q&A: Girl Talk reveals upcoming projects,
Voodoo performance plans. The Reveille: Louisiana State University. https://advance-lexis-
com.oclc.fullsail.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:5H7K-X1J1-DY7P-
T00V-00000-00&context=1516831.
Mike Masnick. (June 6, 2017 Tuesday). Drake Winning Sampling Case Over Fair Use Is Big
News... But Still Demonstrates The Madness Of Music Licensing. Techdirt. https://advance-
lexis-com.oclc.fullsail.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:5NR3-V061-
JCMN-Y4YG-00000-00&context=1516831.
