James Bond is the iconic symbol of a debonair, stealthy secret agent who often has his way with the ladies. But this “way” involves the misogynist treatment of women through inappropriate, and at times even violent, acts. This is the argument the video “The Real James Bond – by Veovisjohn (2009)” makes through editing together a series of clips of James Bond mistreating women for selfish purposes. The remix creates the effective argument of James Bond being a misogynist by utilizing the film’s own score that adds a sense of authenticity to the video. The audio track implies that Bond’s new mission is to dominate and use women.
The film begins with romantic pacing and images, but then quickly changes to convey the womanizer Bond is. The choice of clips to demonstrate this argument create a clever mix of examples of male misogyny. The remix video is effective in portraying this message through taking specific clips where Bond is shown to have power over a woman’s body by; for example like Bond repetitively slapping a woman’s behind or showing a series of Bond forcing women to perform actions (like clips when he pushes two women underwater or when he kisses a woman without her permission). During the full length movies we may be able to see and understand why he performs these actions, but when there is no context to these scenes Bond can be understood to be a womanizer. Thus the clips are transformed to portray Bond not as a sleek spy who exhilarates his audience but as a pompous woman hater who should alienate his female viewers as opposed to attract them.
The clips are transformative in the sense that they are not being used to give an adrenaline rush to the viewers as would the full length James Bond movies. Instead of promoting this sense of an action based character that the movies do, the clips portray what the main character is supposed to be in the eyes of the creator of the video: an overpowering misogynist. The clips take on a new meaning that differentiates them from their original form. They are using the clips to prove the point that James Bond does not know how to treat women instead of idolizing him as the best agent known to man.
In watching this video we have learned that repetition can serve as a strong technique to stress a certain point in the argument we are making. Also short clips that share similar action and theme cut back to back can create a strong argument through demonstrating the common recurrence of the point or idea. We also learned that the proper choice of music also serves as an important factor when creating a remix video. Without the proper music an argument can lose strength in its argument. What would not work would be having a variety of scenes that prove different points and have no flow. This leads to confusion and lack of a sharp central point. Maintaining a powerful central point is crucial in creating an effective argument through remix video.
The Real James Bond – by Veovisjohn (2009). YouTube.com. N.p., 29 Mar. 2011. Web. 20 Oct. 2012. <The Real James Bond – by Veovisjohn (2009)>.
Fair use allows an artist to utilize copyrighted materials to create creative works for his or her own innovative purpose. The remix video “Scary Mary Poppins” is a creative piece that cuts together clips and audio from the movie Mary Poppins to create a horror trailer about the nanny from London. Protected under fair use, this video does not infringe upon copyright despite the source of its content is a copyrighted work. The video successfully falls under the terms of fair use.
The video is most definitely transformative because the nature of the video is completely distinctive from the original copyrighted work. The film Mary Poppins focuses on the visitation of a kind and magical nanny that positively changes the lives of a family. This short horror trailer cuts together certain clips from the same film to effectively create an entirely new piece. “The [original] material [has] been recontextualized and re-presented for a new purpose, and to a new audience” (Aufderheide and Jaszi 81). No longer does the material serve to convey the story of a pleasant nanny but rather the twisted story of a psychotic caretaker who goes haywire.
The reinvented storyline demonstrates a new imaginative nature of the work. Although there are those people who do, not many people find Mary Poppins to be a creepy character, but through the inventive use of clips and audio the author has successfully created a new definition for the work. The video is an “imaginative production” that conveys a unique thought through the new use of copyrighted materials (Aufderheid and Jaszi 24). This video takes on a nature of its own apart from Mary Poppins even though it extracts a small amount of clips and audio from the original work.
The amount of material from the copyrighted work in this video is miniscule in proportion to the movie in its entirety. Only one minute and seven seconds long, “the amount of material taken [is] appropriate to the purpose of the use” (Aufderheid and Jaszi 24). The video takes a tiny amount of footage and audio from the film, with most clips being only seconds long. These small clips are far from being called central to the original work. If anything these clips only give a small taste of what the original work may be, but because the use of the clips are so transformative these clips may lack the ability to even do that.
This video makes no threat of taking “market value” from the original work (Aufderheid and Jaszi 24). This video serves a completely different audience than the target audience of the original work. The original work targets families and small children with its strong sense of uplifting and whimsical storytelling. This video does not target this audience; it targets an audience that will be able to appreciate the clips and audio redefined to serve an ironic purpose when compared to the original work. A humorous horror trailer does not affect the outreach of the original full length film.
“Scary Mary Poppins” is an entertaining video on YouTube that has a life of its own. Although it derives its material from a copyrighted original work, the video is in itself an original work due to its transformative nature. The video succeeds in utilizing the four factors and answering key questions of fair use. The video falls under the protection of fair use, and therefore does not infringe upon copyright. This work has the right to be on the internet and remain there.
Aufderheide, Patricia, and Peter Jaszi. Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in Copyright. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2011. Print.
Copyright has come to be known as a tool of controlling the use and distribution of certain creative works in today’s society. William Patry discusses how industries’ yearning to control the use of copyrighted works harms innovative progress in society in Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars. Terms of services are the apparatus through which the consumer’s rights and protections, as well as limitations, are expressed. Whether satirized in the episode “HumancentiPad” of South Park or seen in Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, terms for use of services often do demonstrate an undertone of control and manipulation.
Patry describes the desire of industries “to control all aspects of production, distribution, and consumption” of their products (6). Such industries express this desire through creating terms of services which define the boundaries of the use of their services/content. In the South Park episode “HumancentiPad,” the character Kyle is kidnapped by Apple Inc. because he unknowingly agrees to it by not reading Apple’s Terms of Service (South Park). Ironically something that is supposed to aid in preventing corrupt things from happening, such as copyright infringement, causes Kyle to be caught in a slick situation. The terms of services creates a situation of control for Apple in which Kyle lacks control of his own; similar to how copyright law “stifle[s] innovation” (Patry 38). Copyright law can become convoluted and overwhelming when trying to create something innovative and creative. But if one actually reads the terms of services, then one begin the process of reform.
Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities may seem to have a tone of control with diction like “you will,” but if read carefully critical information can be drawn from it. Facebook’s statement expresses how one can commit copyright infringement but also provides “tools to help protect your intellectual property rights” (“Statement of Rights and Responsibilities”). If one has read this statement then one could have known how to approach copyright law while using Facebook. Unlike how the episode of South Park portrays terms of services to be deceiving, Facebook’s terms actually are there to inform users of how to deal with copyright as opposed to just tricking users into slippery situations. “Framing is the reference point from which judgments and decisions are made” (Patry 15). Copyright law does not always have to be bad.
Despite the importance of understanding the boundaries of terms of services, a large amount of people still choose not to read the terms. Although copyright law and terms of services are currently widely known as a restrictive red tape that inhibit artistic ability and entrap innovators, it is not meant to be that. Patry describes how copyright law is meant to progress innovation, not confuse and trick people like the character of Kyle in South Park. Terms of services, like Facebook’s, may be lengthy but they are important in understanding the boundaries of copyright for that service. Knowing what one is agreeing with is crucial in reforming copyright law. “Agree” to change copyright by reading first.
Parker, Trey. “Humancentipad.” South Park. N.d. South Park Studios. South Park Studios. Web. 8 Sept. 2012. <http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s15e01-humancentipad>.
Patry, William F. Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.
“Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.” Facebook. Facebook, 8 June 2012. Web. 08 Sept. 2012. <http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms>.