1. Chapter 4: Visual and Sound Collage vs.Copyright and Trademark Law
McLeod
Chapter 4:
Visual and Sound Collage vs.Copyright and Trademark Law

2. Appropriation in the Arts
Validates the notion I offered earlier that IP law tends to care a lot less about protecting intellectual property than about following the money.
Art doesn’t get main stream exposure.
Art doesn’t generate the revenue stream.
So artists generally continue with traditional patterns of intertextual appropriation, generally unfettered.

3. Sound Collage
Artists used as experimentation, since the very beginnings of recorded sound, what we would now have to call “sampling” (over which one is forced to pay extensive fees and obtain tough permissions).
By the late 1980’s artists in this genre were targeted intellectual-property holding companies.

4. A practical problem in the law: Which infringements should we promote
A practical problem in the law: Which infringements should we promote? Forbid? Must we thereby silence all?
Sound collage artists.
Snips, mixed, a “new” thang.
Hip-hop style recording artists.
Often borrows the underlying backbone
Not for profit thief.
For profit thief.
Cultural Garfinklers (copyright liberation fronts)

5. Visual Collage and Appropriation Art
Centuries, not decades.
Mainstream (though avant-garde at the time)
Satire and parody often get “art” off the IP hook.

6. “Intertextuality is central to many different practices of cultural production, but various intertextual modes of cultural production directly conflict with the logic(s) of intellectual property law (with its situated notion of authorship and ownership). p. 140