Here it is, plain and simple: every violent moment from the 2010 Super Bowl commercial bonanza mashed together by Whirled. During the recent Super Bowl, amid the anti-choice controversy, CBS ran hundreds of ads, many of which we see after watching this remix, rely on physical violence to communication their message.

Now, compared to the guns, blood and guts we’ve become accustomed to in Hollywood movies, this may seem like light-hearted slapstick but this remix highlights the fact that violence has been so normalized in mass media to the point where we often don’t even notice it. After experiencing all the clips of hitting, punching and tackling put back-to-back it becomes clear that violence on TV is the preferred form of humor, communication, entertainment, plot device and conflict resolution.

UPDATE Feb/18/10: Today the Media Education Foundation (MEF) posted clips from their documentary entitled “The Mean World Syndrome” about media violence & the cultivation of fear. In this clip from the film Dr. George Gerbner explains how Hollywood writers are pressured into creating violent stories.

They have global marketing formulas that are imposed on the creative people in Hollywood and I’m in touch with them and they hate it, they say ‘don’t talk to me about censorship from Washington, I never heard about that, I get censorship everyday. I am told put in more action, cut out complicated solutions, apply this formula because it travels well in the global market.’ These are formulas that need no translation and essentially image driven and speak action in any language and of course the leading element of that formula is violence.

Category: montage
Topic Tags: advertising, commercial, gender, identity correction, television, violence

Desiree D’Alessandro examines the commodification of natural resources in this remix, addressing the imminent crisis of the worldwide water shortage. Her source footage, which includes tv commercials, new segments and documentary footage, has become a major point of contention with her university, the University of California Santa Barbara. (More on this below)

UCSB declared D’Alessandro’s endeavors in acquiring and utilizing copyrighted source materials for creating remixes an “offense” as it violates the university’s Terms of Services. In order ‘to protect itself and its students’, UCSB considers any sharing of copyrighted material (music, movies, software and books included) a DMCA violation, even if, as in this case, the result is a fair use. The university also added that

appeals leads to serious legal procedures (in the past four years, no one at UCSB has ever filed ‘counter-notice’, the procedure with which people can appeal with a fair-use claim.)

The trend of policing university networks for DMCA violations is worrisome, as it usually urges the school to locate and save all student information related to the case. Thankfully, the University of Wisconsin, MIT and Boston College have refused to turn over student information and be a middle-man for groups like the RIAA who continue to endorse such network management policies.

From this debacle has come new work: D’Alessandro created a short remix that mashes screen shots of UCSB’s DMCA internet ban and scenes from the movie Step Brothers. She says,

Regardless of this incident, I am certain the Political Remix Video genre is moving toward a direction of net-neutrality, open-source access, and the deterioration of copyright restrictions.

Category: short film
Topic Tags: activism, consumerism, environment, News

In early January, Jonathan and I were invited to speak on a panel at  World’s Fair Use Day in Washington, DC to provide the perspective of artists who use copyrighted material in their work. Our panel followed Congressman Mike Doyle’s (D-Penn) keynote address on defending Fair Use against ongoing attacks from corporate media interests. It was also a great opportunity to chat with our friends, Mark Hosler from Negativeland and Dan Walsh from Garfield Minus Garfield.

It was the very end of a long day when we were pleasantly reminded of these two remixes brought to our attention by cultural critic Mark Dery, who coined and popularized the term Culture Jamming:

Scary Mary, created by MovieMker, remixes Mary Poppins into a horror film. It is not overtly political but it is a fun example of how additive text and a new soundtrack can turn the carefully crafted Disney-fied world on it’s head.

It’s Raining Men is a simple yet articulate comment on the prevalence of men (and scantly clad ones at that) in the movie 300. Suburbala paired the film’s footage with the famous song by the same name, queering the gaze of the Trogans and satirizing their hyper-masculinity to reveal the homoerotic subtext of the movie.

For more on the one-day conference hosted by Public Knowledge, check out the web-cast from the First Annual World’s Fair Use Day.

Category: About Remixing
Topic Tags: fair use, government, negativland

Remix artist Diran Lyons, who’s work we have featured on this site before, has just completed an ambitious remix project critical of President Obama’s foreign policy entitled “Jake Gyllenhaal Challenges the Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize”.

The piece is a remixed narrative that combines two Jake Gyllenhall films (Donnie Darko & Jarhead) with news footage of President Barack Obama. As the President wins the Nobel Peace Prize, Gyllenhaal’s character becomes disillusioned with Obama’s increasingly pro-war rhetoric, escalation of the war in Afghanistan and the failure to withdraw troops from Iraq.

After Diran uploaded this video to YouTube is was instantly removed with the following message:

We think this is a particularly hilarious use of the word “decided” considering YouTube runs a fully automated content ID matching system which does automatic takedowns seconds after a video is uploaded AND the remix is a fair use of any NBC content making it totally legal.

Diran went through YouTube’s online “dispute” process and after a few hours got his video back online. However NBC Universal may still decide to have it removed again via a DMCA takedown notice. We hope this remix stays put, as it is clearly a fair use of any NBC material, but as we all know, just because a video is a fair use does not mean it will stay on the internet. Take a look at Takedown Hall of Shame.

If something similar has happened to your remix video the Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF) has put together a fantastic Guide to YouTube Removals which will tell you everything you need to know about getting your video back online.

Category: short film
Topic Tags: hollywood, obama, peace, presidency, violence, war

This remixed trailer re-envisions the 1990 romantic comedy film “Pretty Woman”. The original movie stars Richard Gere as a wealthy businessman and Julia Roberts as women who prostitutes herself on the streets of New York City. The original film was supposed to be a dark drama dealing with the difficult lives of sex workers but was rewritten into a Cinderella-type romantic comedy prior to production.

“Pretty Woman” reinforced and glamorized a myth that prostitution is a way to find a wealthy husband, a myth that conveniently conceals the harsh realities of sex work on the street. It also hinds the fact that woman often enter the sex trade as a way to economically support themselves when few other options are available.

Here, FunkyBeccaBecca re-edits the movie trailer re-imagining it in a more appropriate genre, horror. She adds a new soundtrack and with it re-frames Richard Gere’s character transforming him from “wealthy savor” to violent controlling predator.

Category: movie trailer
Topic Tags: gender, hollywood, sexism, sexuality

Public Knowledge has just released their new series of four video interviews called “We Are Creators Too” that focuses on artists who push the boundaries of copyright law. First to be featured was Nina Paley whose Sita Sings the Blues feature film (set to music from the Public Domain) reveals the timelessness of an old Indian folk tale while simultaneously exposing the archaic nature of copyright. Francesca Coppa, fan, academic and keeper of women’s vidding herstory is also featured along with Jonathan and myself.

Public Knowledge is a great resource for remix artists and vidders because they acknowledge that Fair Use is a right, not a privilege. As artist, we can only continue making new work with the hopes that the product and process decreases copyright confusion and encourages the use of new media technologies to sustain media literacy and critical thinking about popular, and proprietary, culture.

Part 4 – Francesca Coppa

Part 3 – Jonathan McIntosh

Part 2 – Elisa Kreisinger

Part 1 – Nina Paley

Category: About Remixing
Topic Tags: activism, copyright, corporations, fair use, REMOVED, rights, television, vidding

Why it Takes Three Weeks to Post Your Youtube Video

In the year 2009, copyright disputes have been taken over by robots.

On July 21^st I posted a remix video to Youtube called “Super Pork and Beans All-Stars.” It was a remixed version of Weezer’s popular Pork and Beans music video, which is owned by Universal Music Group (UMG) – my version was made of new footage that I manipulated to match the song.

Immediately after the upload, Youtube’s copyright bots recognized the UMG song on my soundtrack and disabled my video. Youtube has a built-in online tool for copyright disputes, so I used that to tell them that my work was fair use and should not have been removed. My movie was put back online right away,  but the dispute process wasn’t over.

YouTube forwarded my dispute to UMG and I was surprised to find out that UMG replied back only a day later. They told Youtube that they owned the song and that I was not allowed to use it without permission. Such a quick response from UMG makes me suspect they’re using more bots to respond automatically to Youtube’s built-in disputes. After UMG’s response, my movie was automatically taken down once again.

Luckily for me I had already learned how to deal with this from Owen Gallagher, who runs totalrecut.com and has successfully fought other Youtube takedowns. On July 23^rd, I followed Owen’s example and sent Youtube a DMCA counter-notice. These counter-notices need to be formatted in a specific way to be considered legitimate, otherwise it’s at Youtube’s discretion whether or not they ignore you. You can find a guide to how the DMCA counter-notices work at Chillingeffects.org.

I was finally notified that my video was going back online on August 12^th — around 21 days after my original posting. A big chunk of that was spent waiting for UMG to meet their DMCA-imposed deadline to seek legal action against me if they found my video to be infringing. Thankfully, nobody has yet invented a bot that can take you to court, so the deadline lapsed and my video back went online, hopefully for good.

In the year 2010, copyright disputes should be handled by people.

So I got a happy ending, but imagine if I was a career artist who wanted to dedicate more time to creating than to looking up copyright law and counter-notice procedures. Or imagine I had kids, or school, or any number of things that might be more important to me than being a copyright geek. How willing would I be to dig through Youtube’s site to find the automated dispute process? And once that automated dispute got rejected, how willing would I be to research the precise criteria required to send my counter-notice in a format that Youtube couldn’t ignore? And if I had to do this for multiple videos, and wait three weeks per submission, who could blame me for concluding that Youtube just wasn’t the place to reliably distribute my work?

Youtube is actually one of the more obliging sites for providing tools and instructions on how to exercise your fair use rights, but even there it’s a small research project for any user who may want to fight back. Meanwhile major labels aren’t even bothering to hire staff to make sure they’re not taking down legal videos. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has sued other content companies for abusing copyright in this way, but that has not been enough to deter the massive automated takedowns.

Others have already proposed an important step toward fixing this problem: replace the current “notice-and-takedown” laws with “notice-and-notice” ones. If UMG wants to take people’s videos down, users should have a chance to dispute it  before the content is removed. There should be no pressure on service providers to take down legal content. This ought to be a minimum, uncontroversial step, even if we put aside other legitimate arguments for expanding fair use and reducing copyright terms. Internet users should not have to fight uphill battles to keep legal videos online just so a handful of labels can save on staffing costs.

[This is a guest post for PRV by video remixer IKAT381]

Category: articles
Topic Tags: copyright, corporations, fair use