The Rage of Remix:
On Limitations of Fair Use
“It started in music with hip hop samples and extended dance versions. It moved to movies, with director’s cuts and Tarantino-style swipes from other films. Now it’s spread to TV, games, music videos – even cars and fashion. From Kill Bill to Gorillaz, from custom Nikes to Pimp My Ride, this is the age of remix.”
- Introduction to the “Remix Planet” issue of WIRED magazine (Derecho 8)
Click on this audio player to listen to the contents of this page:
Click on the images below to see the four ways to remix
Remix is all around us. From fashion trends, art, photography, performances, literature, music, to TikTok videos. Remix is inescapable. But what is remix? The simplified definition of remix is creating something new by using existing material. If you have ever studied Shakespeare, you know what I am talking about.
Shakespeare is considered one of the greatest playwrights of all time. However, almost everything (if not everything) he wrote was either taken from other authors or derived from socio-political and historical incidents. He tweaked these narratives to add in his own flavour and made them unique. Romeo and Juliet, Antony and Cleopatra, King Lear, the historical plays, to name a few, are all remixes of their original sources. The result? He has been on the literary canon for over 400 years. So, why is it that when artists today remix others’ works to create something different, they are slapped with copyright infringement suits, and yet, Shakespeare is heralded as a genius?
​
The answer lies with John Locke and his ideas of private property and ownership. But before we get into that, we need to understand the concepts of invention and originality.
​
Many of us still believe that invention occurs in solitude and only solitary geniuses (let us continue to think of Shakespeare) can create truly original work. Solitary does not necessarily mean physically alone. It means in isolation from societal influences. But as Burke-LeFevre concludes, “an invention is a social act” because “the inventing ‘self’ is socially influenced.” (33-4) Anything we create originates from something that we may have heard, watched, read, or experienced. Therefore, everything is copied from something. Don’t get me wrong, I love Shakespeare, but was he really inventing things? Not really. He was diving into his social context and using his discoveries to create some of the most well-known and loved plays of all time.
​Then, is originality a myth?
It's not. When we copy someone else’s work and transform it into something different using our own flair (a.k.a remix), we create an original piece of work. How does one transform (remix) other works?
​
According to Edwards, there are four ways to remix existing material:
Think of it this way: If you take parts of various Shakespearean plays, you can produce your own Game of Thrones! Will offers us witches and prophecies, heroes, warriors, conspiracies, assassinations, women gouging people’s eyes, a lot of sex, wars, love, tragedy, jealousy, social hierarchy, and more. Just add a couple of dragons and you are good to go!
​
Today, digital advancement has made it easy to assemble, reappropriate, redistribute, and bend genres to create music, art, literature, fashion, and everything else. The future of digital rhetoric is moving towards making current work remixable by future generations.
​
Ridolfo, Jim and DeVoss argue (in many big words) that there is a need for a “conscious rhetorical concern for distance, travel, speed, and time, pertaining specifically to theorizing instances of strategic appropriation by a third party.” (“Composing for Recomposition: Rhetorical Velocity and Delivery”)
They mean that in order to allow for reappropriation in the future, digital texts today need to anticipate how these texts will be rewritten in the future and enable that transformation, thus creating rhetorical velocity. Why do we need to anticipate reappropriation you ask? Technology is mutable. Therefore, our work needs to be made in a way that it enables future generations to recreate tomorrow what we create today. To achieve rhetorical velocity, we need to look into how today’s texts are created.
Note that our texts may already appropriate other texts. Before future reappropriation, our texts come together through Edwards four ways of remixing mentioned earlier combined with Ball and Eyman’s theory of:
Rhetoric, Design, and Code
 |  |  |
|---|---|---|
 |
“The purpose and argument forwarded by the writer/performer/ designer, the needs and expectations of the audience, and the overall sociocultural context of the communication, regardless of medium.”
“Design is a rhetorical function that plays an important role in each of the canons of rhetoric, most obviously related to style (particularly in terms of visual rhetoric), but also of organization.”
“Code is the underlying structure that has to function properly in order for a digital text to achieve its design goals and support the rhetorical functions of usability and accessibility.”
To enable reappropriation, it is imperative that the rhetoric, design, and code of current digital works facilitate that change. Establishing a more welcoming environment for future remix, creators today, should anticipate the future remixing of their work and incorporate the necessary levers that will help future creators.
However, while many creators may be open to future reappropriation of their work, remix has become the bane of existence for some and an emblem of artistic superiority for others. The reason behind remix’s notorious reputation is mankind’s obsession with the protection of private (intellectual) property.
Thanks, John Locke!
Click on the button below to know more about Intellectual Property and Fair Use.