From: Eli Horwatt (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Jun 08 2008 - 12:41:56 PDT
Not to veer too far off of the original discussion topic, but I think it's
worth addressing Myron Ort's comments about using materials of the public
domain.
To refresh, Ort wrote:
Perhaps "found" footage refers to how the filmmaker "obtained" the material
rather than anything inherent to the footage, like who might actually own
the rights. Hopefully a "found footage" or "collage" film would be
constructed from material in public domain. Just because you "found" the
footage in a dumpster so to speak doesn't mean it is free from copyright
restrictions. Generally the term "found footage" implies that the filmmaker
didn't shoot it, not that it is necessarily legal to use. Maybe "stock
footage film" might be a useful term. Often even "stock footage" is
credited, having been leased from the so-called "owner".
So what do you do if you happen to see that someone "found" your work on a
dvd, re-edited it, and presents it perhaps without proper credit on
Youtube.? Maybe they even say that it is their film.
Myron Ort
My reply: Distinctions should be made between plagiarism and appropriation.
Attempting to pass off another artist's work as your own is a far cry from
appropriating components of that work for critique or even into a new art
work. Much of early found footage filmmaking was made from ephemeral
materials which (to my knowledge) didn't instigate copyright owners to file
lawsuits. Today however, it is a different case. First, found footage, like
appropriation (as Hal Foster argues in "Recordings") should be understood as
a form of cultural resistance. This resistance is protected when it falls
into the category of parody (according to the famous 2 Live Crew Lawsuit
*Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music,
Inc.)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music%2C_Inc.>
*
Also, we should acknowledge appropriation can be a form of quotation. It is
legal for me to quote brief passages of a textual work without owing
royalties. Why does this not also apply to visual and even auditory media?
To return to the idea of resistance, filmmakers and artists like Nam June
Paik, Mark Rappaport and Craig Baldwin have voiced variations on the idea
that found footage (or media appropriation) is a powerful tool of resistance
against the mainstream media. Nam June Paik wrote "Television has been
attacking us all our lives, now we can attack it back." Rappaport has said
that if prosecuted for copyright violations, "My excuse in a court of law
would be that these images have corrupted us and it's our turn at bat." Both
used appropriation as a tool to critique mainstream media, or as Baldwin
suggests, use images of the media against itself as a form of media
jujitsu. The problem with getting the rights to use other people's media is
that 1) people will attempt to prevent anyone from critiquing their work
(such as the famous case of "The Wind Done Gone" update of "Gone with the
Wind" told through the eyes of a slave which was brought into court by the
estate of Margaret Mitchell) 2) the rights to such works are often unfairly
high and 3) the progress of culture is based on a certain amount of
recycling, adaptation, parody and appropriation.
In the end, I don't think found footage should necessarily come from the
public domain-partially because copyright laws right now are Draconian but
mostly because the most powerful critiques are likely to come from
contemporary works currently under copyright. I'm not advocating that people
break the law, just that the law as it was intended suggests that parody,
quotation, critique and fair use are all facets of copyright law.
Sorry for the long rant!
Eli Horwatt
M.A. Student - York University
Cinema Studies
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Matt Helme <email suppressed> wrote:
> Sue them!
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Myron Ort <email suppressed>
> To: email suppressed
> Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2008 3:00:58 PM
> Subject: Re: the term found-footage
>
> Perhaps "found" footage refers to how the filmmaker "obtained" the
> material rather than anything inherent to the footage, like who
> might actually own the rights. Hopefully a "found footage" or
> "collage" film would be constructed from material in public domain.
> Just because you "found" the footage in a dumpster so to speak
> doesn't mean it is free from copyright restrictions. Generally the
> term "found footage" implies that the filmmaker didn't shoot it, not
> that it is necessarily legal to use. Maybe "stock footage film"
> might be a useful term. Often even "stock footage" is credited,
> having been leased from the so-called "owner".
>
> So what do you do if you happen to see that someone "found" your
> work on a dvd, re-edited it, and presents it perhaps without proper
> credit on Youtube.? Maybe they even say that it is their film.
>
>
> Myron Ort
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2008, at 9:31 AM, Marcel Schwierin wrote:
>
> > Dear Frameworkers,
> >
> > does anybody knows when, where and by whom the term "found-footage"
> > was invented, replacing the older term "collage" for those films?
> >
> > Thanx in advance for any hint,
> >
> > Marcel
> >
> > Marcel Schwierin ::: curator ::: filmmaker
> > Chausseestr. 11 ::: 10115 Berlin ::: Germany
> > email suppressed
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________________
> > For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.