subscribe to this page
Call#: Van Pelt Library KF2979 .M348 2005
Mcleod begins by recounting the tale of Negativeland, a sound collage collective, whose album, entitled U2, was subject to a confrontation with Island Records, the label and home of the Irish rock band in which the album was burrowing its namesake and a considerable amount of material. Mcleod, the media studies scholar who trademarked the phrase Freedom of Expression when he was an undergraduate, chronicles many a tale of artistic rebellion in the face of draconian copyright infringement laws and fair use controversies. Mcleod adamantly reminds his readers that, “we live in consumer culture, which sometimes obscures the fact that we first and foremost live in a democratic society. Giving up control is part of the democratic bargain, and it is also part of the copyright bargain written into the U.S. Constitution.” Moving on from the chronicles of Negitiveland, Mcleod discusses the work of the Dadaists, and particularly Marcel Duchamp, the artist who repeatedly constructed objects of everyday life into art, the most memorable being the urinal or copy of Mona Lisa with a moustache. Mcleod argues that his works were, “clever pranks to sober up the art world, they also directly attacked Romantic notions of originality and authorship that are central to copyright” (128). This idea was later taken and comodified in the pop art of Andy Warhol, an artist subject to many a copyright infringement himself. Mecleod briefly explores these issues of authorship in the context of the work of French Philosopher and father of deconstruction, Jacque Derrida. To conclude the chapter he discusses the growing amount of corporations filing copyright lawsuits, such as Disney or Mattel.
Relevance
Issues of fair use are outside of my research interest, and many of the works Mcleod describe in this chapter fall under protection of fair use, within the various copyright acts. However, his argument, larger in scope, is illustrating the growing pressure from corporations or other authors regarding their ‘rights’ as copyright holders. He brings to light through his discussion of the Dadaist’s, Warhol and the work of Derrida about the increasingly intangible notion of author in society and in the arts. So when cultural theory tends to cry for ‘death of the author’ or questions it’s function and role in scholarship it seems that copyright holders respond by demanding for more rights, and although Mcleod doesn’t tackle this issue head on in this chapter, he does achieve a fine analysis in compiling a number of works and artists that have benefited from the benefits of the protection of ‘derivative works’ and fair use. Much of our culture is a derivative of previous work and cultures. Especially in the last one hundred years, where scholars and critics, such as Frederic Jameson, have argued that artwork in postmodernity, for instance, can be characterized by it’s utilization of pastiche, a sampling and burrowing from a mixture of other work, ideas, and expressions. Much of the earlier work of this century, unfortunately, is frozen by current copyright acts where fair use might not be an issue, but accessibility to these works, once again, becomes a struggle.
Call#: Van Pelt Library KF2979 .M348 2005
Freedom of Expression is a very recent book in the tradition of Free Culture and The Future of Ideas. McLeod describes how the two main enemies of the creative public are the CTEA and the DMCA. He has a more optimistic view than we see in Lessig’s writings – he believes that individuals do have options when it comes to “overzealous copyright bozos”. Fair use is expensive, but should be used in court cases, following the principle of “use it or lose it”. And individuals should not back down when confronted with frivolous threats or lawsuits – they should do their research, educate themselves and others, and explore spaces and holes in the law. He also gives examples of free speech cases where the “copyright bozos” lost, including Nader v. MasterCard, “Victor’s Little Secret” v Victoria’s Secret, and Annie Liebowitz’s case against the Naked Gun franchise.
McLeod’s book is a veritable encyclopedia of examples from every aspect of modern life as to how the privatization of our culture is harming us irrevocably. He goes over sampling and music, collage art, book publishing and education, filmmaking, the internet and online content, the privatization of nature and public spaces, and electronic voting. He explains how in today’s world such innovators as Woody Guthrie, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Muddy Waters would be copyright infringers of the highest order. He argues that “freedom of expression” (which he trademarked for the book as an example of the extreme to which private ownership has gone) needs to have greater meaning to public life. This ownership, branding, and franchising of life impedes innovation and creativity. It is better for business, but worse for creative people. Society as a whole needs the existence of “the commons”, because the alternative goes against our cultural traditions. In the discussion of folk and blues music, he stresses the importance of building on tradition, and states that “a rented future forgets the past”.
McLeod explains how compulsory licenses in music would help artists and the market, and how Creative Commons licenses are good for society because they increase the public domain. He advocates for moderation, and a balanced public policy that takes into account private and public interests. This book is Free Culture’s “hip” younger brother, and could educate younger generations and pop culture experts to the current state of copyright in the US.