|
Articles Conference Reviews |
K.24 CopyrightK.24 Remixing, Remediating, Recomposing, and Reregulating Copyright Two of the presenters were not in attendance (Danielle Nicole DeVoss and Steve Westbrook). John Logie began the presentation by referring to the number of references to composing agents in CCC from 1950-2006. Words like student (approximately 4,000 references), teacher (~3,000), writer (~2,500), professor, instructor, and author were the most frequently used, but as Logie pointed out, the word “composer” hardly shows up at all—even poet, artist, journalist, and playwright show up more often. Only 33 articles in the history of CCC have used composer as a term for the author (at this point, Logie jokingly noted, “Even potters and painters get more than composers!”) The rest of Logie’s presentation focused on the question, “Why hasn’t composition claimed the word composer?” First, what is a composer? (According to Logie composers are, “Musicians—usually German and dead.”) Well, what was a 20th century composer? Duke Ellington and Philip Glass—but what about Prince and Joni Mitchell? Negativland and Jam Master J? Clearly the issue of being a composer is more complex than it may at first appear. What, then, is a 21st century composer? Baz Luhrman, Lady Gaga, DJ Danger Mouse, Girl Talk—all composers who remix, reuse, and recycle beats and samples to make new creations. Logie then examined Computers and Composition from 1985-2010 looking for composer as the agent of composition, finding only 45 articles that used this particular term. Given the theme of the conference and our changing understandings of what it means to be a “composer,” Logie posited that our field may be ready to embrace composer as a term for authorship. He closed his presentation by emailing Cindy Selfe, co-editor of Computers and Composition, asking that composer be accepted as part of the house style of the journal. Martine Courant Rife’s presentation focused on “the commons,” asking what can be appropriated as part of the commons. She focused on several examples: Kennewick Man and the question of ownership brought up by the resulting court case; the Orphan Works Act of 2008; Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd. (questioning whether George Harrison’s “My Sweet Lord” infringed upon Ronald Mack’s “He’s So Fine”); and The Wind Done Gone. For each, she pointed out that different stakeholders were involved and that each case reopens claims of authorship. Ultimately, these two presentations offered interesting perspectives on copyright and authorship, though the panel would have been even more compelling with the participation of all panelists. I particularly enjoyed John Logie’s multimedia presentation—how often do you hear “Decomposing Composers” by Monty Python at an academic conference? |