I have no idea of the proportion, but there are certainly some glaring examples. Images of indigenous people for some sports teams and use of behavioural displays for example: Washington Redksins, Cleveland Indians, tomahawk chop, cartoon Chief Wahoo (I believe this last one is dropped). Basically using a people as mascots.
There's also questions about white people playing other racial groups, just like there is about sexually nondiverse people playing diverse people.
We also have indigenous art designs being appropriated/stolen in Canada and sold by others.
It is hard sometimes to know where cultural appreciation stops and appropriation starts. I'm also reminded of Good Friday "Christian Seders".
Where the difference lies, imo, is that indigenous groups in North America have had their lands/culture/people taken from them, and then whatever is left (or thought of as "exotic" or "interesting") has been commodified, which really cheapens cultural items or practices that are highly regarded by them. That isn't really the case for European countries.
Well, Europeans, as in people born in Europe or living in European-owned colonies, DID play a pretty significant role in the land and culture grab that took place in the Americas, even if the final bloody push was ultimately carried out by their American and Canadian descendants.
So if there still are any Brits, French, Spanish etc. who are appropriating indigenous clothing, music for purposes of exoticization, yeah, I'd say they can be held to more or less the same criticism as white North Americans.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I'm referring to elements of European culture (such as food or clothing) being used by people not part of those cultures.
Oh, okay. You mean no one has stolen European land and culture the way N. American indigenous culture was stolen, so appropriating European culture isn't really a problem. Gotcha.
Thanks for the clarification.
That's right, and I've never heard of the idea of "appropriation" of European cultures, although if someone does tell me there is an issue there I am happy to be corrected.
Don't know about appropriation. I do know I don't have to live in Ireland or be part of an Irish community to witness any number of global celebrations of St Patrick's Day by non-Irish people. Irish dancing, traditional dress, Irish music? Sometimes even political ideologies about the status of Ireland. All pretty much worldwide public property. Must be because Ireland is such a powerful colonial empire with no history of being subjugated often ruthlessly for several centuries by conquering neighbouring nations, right?
Of course, Patrick himself was a slave, taken by Irish pirates from his native Wales...
I have no idea of the proportion, but there are certainly some glaring examples. Images of indigenous people for some sports teams and use of behavioural displays for example: Washington Redksins, Cleveland Indians, tomahawk chop, cartoon Chief Wahoo (I believe this last one is dropped). Basically using a people as mascots.
There's also questions about white people playing other racial groups, just like there is about sexually nondiverse people playing diverse people.
We also have indigenous art designs being appropriated/stolen in Canada and sold by others.
It is hard sometimes to know where cultural appreciation stops and appropriation starts. I'm also reminded of Good Friday "Christian Seders".
Where the difference lies, imo, is that indigenous groups in North America have had their lands/culture/people taken from them, and then whatever is left (or thought of as "exotic" or "interesting") has been commodified, which really cheapens cultural items or practices that are highly regarded by them. That isn't really the case for European countries.
Well, Europeans, as in people born in Europe or living in European-owned colonies, DID play a pretty significant role in the land and culture grab that took place in the Americas, even if the final bloody push was ultimately carried out by their American and Canadian descendants.
So if there still are any Brits, French, Spanish etc. who are appropriating indigenous clothing, music for purposes of exoticization, yeah, I'd say they can be held to more or less the same criticism as white North Americans.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I'm referring to elements of European culture (such as food or clothing) being used by people not part of those cultures.
Oh, okay. You mean no one has stolen European land and culture the way N. American indigenous culture was stolen, so appropriating European culture isn't really a problem. Gotcha.
Thanks for the clarification.
That's right, and I've never heard of the idea of "appropriation" of European cultures, although if someone does tell me there is an issue there I am happy to be corrected.
Don't know about appropriation. I do know I don't have to live in Ireland or be part of an Irish community to witness any number of global celebrations of St Patrick's Day by non-Irish people. Irish dancing, traditional dress, Irish music? Sometimes even political ideologies about the status of Ireland. All pretty much worldwide public property. Must be because Ireland is such a powerful colonial empire with no history of being subjugated often ruthlessly for several centuries by conquering neighbouring nations, right?
Well, from everything I've heard, the socioeconomic conditions of 21st Century Irish people, at least in the Republic, is not really comparable to that of Blacks in the USA or First Nations people in North America generally.
Just for starters, according to the CBC(Canada's public broadcaster), the life-expectancy for indigenous Canadians is 15 years shorter than that of other Canadians, and their infant mortality rate is two to three times higher.
I guess I could be wrong, and maybe the Irish are experiencing similar imbalances in well-being, but if so, I'd be interested to hear about it.
Don't know about appropriation. I do know I don't have to live in Ireland or be part of an Irish community to witness any number of global celebrations of St Patrick's Day by non-Irish people. Irish dancing, traditional dress, Irish music?
If you have Irish immigrants in the US maintaining their cultural heritage, that can't be appropriation, or in any sense unreasonable - it's theirs just as much as it belongs to their neighbours who remained in Ireland. Where it gets a little more interesting is when what you have is the great-great-grandchildren of an Irish immigrant, who still want to maintain aspects of their ancestral culture. As for Irish dancing, I've met a couple of people who teach it in the US. They have both claimed some ancestral links to Ireland, which is what drove their interest in the first place, but they teach it to paying customers of all backgrounds.
I think there's a bit of a difference between Irish dancing, and for example the Haka. As I understand it, the Haka has spiritual significance to Maori people - it's not just a traditional dance - so even if I could find someone with Maori ancestry to teach me, I shouldn't start putting on Haka concerts.
Cultural appropriation occurs when a dominant or colonising culture takes things from other cultures as the dominant power chooses, often with no understanding or appreciation of the history or context or meaning of the element to the culture it's taken from, and no proportional recompense. ..
...The example that immediately comes to mind for me is the history of the song Mbube (the Lion).
In the late 1920s in South Africa, Solomon Linda, a cleaner for record company Gallo, wrote, performed and recorded his song Mbube which included the line and refrain:
In the jungle, the mighty jungle, the lion sleeps tonight...
Your example is of an individual who creates an atom of culture. In this case a song, but it could be an item of clothing or a foodstuff or a story. Of such things is culture built.
The creator has a moral right to intellectual property, you say. Which means what ? Not that others may not sing it or wear it or eat it. But only that if someone learns it from the creator and then makes money from it, that some share of that money is owed to the creator.
With that share somehow proportional to the contribution that the original creator makes to what it is that is sold. So that in the case of a song, the singer gets a share and the arranger gets a share etc.
Is that what we think ? In the easy case when the creator is a person and the one who profits is a person and one gets it straight from the other ?
So then what happens if there is a chain of people in between ?
B, C, D, and E all sing the song or make and eat the dessert or make and wear the garment, for their own pleasure. And then F comes along, gets the idea from E, and finds a way to make money from it. Are B, C, D entitled to a share of F's money ? Or only A if he/she can prove the chain ?
As I recall it, this issue was dealt with by an Irish court at the time of he who became St Columba. He had borrowed a copy of a book, and made his own copy of it. The owner of the original took him to court for doing so, and the court decided that he should give his copy to that owner, because the calf is the property of the cow. Or something. As a result Columba took off to what would become Scotland in a huff.
But on that judgement, A should be recompensed by F, and B, C, D, and E should also do so. It is the originator who is owed, not the transmitters.
Copyright and cultural appropriation haven't got a great deal in common.
Copyright infringement is publishing or performing something that someone else owns the copyright to without their permission and without paying them. Unless they've sold it to someone else, copyright belongs to the person who originally created the work. In most of the world except for the USA copyright is automatic and lasts for the lifetime of the creator + x years, x varying between 50 and 70 years by country. A legal personality, having no life just gets the x years. How the copyright period is calculated in the US is completely different and is mystifying to the rest of us. I think also that in the USA you have consciously to assert copyright in some way.
After the copyright has expired, it's free for anyone to do what they like with what was previously yours.
If nobody knows who originally wrote something, there is nobody to assert copyright in it or to demonstrate when copyright runs from or expires.
Cultures are amorphous. They can't have a copyright, or for that matter any other sorts of rights, in anything. Nor is there anyone who can take any action on their behalf beyond complaining/accusing/moaning etc. Nor does any period seem to limit their advocates' complaints.
I've not heard the St Columba story before, but it sounds a bit odd. Copyright hadn't really been thought of in 500 AD. It would only be relevant now if it was the original writer of the book who sued. Owning a book that someone else wrote wouldn't give those sort of rights even if what one owned was a handwritten copy and very valuable.
In most of the world except for the USA copyright is automatic and lasts for the lifetime of the creator + x years, x varying between 50 and 70 years by country. A legal personality, having no life just gets the x years. How the copyright period is calculated in the US is completely different and is mystifying to the rest of us. I think also that in the USA you have consciously to assert copyright in some way.
No, copyright is automatic in the US upon creation of the work. A copyright can be registered with the Copyright Office to provide evidence of copyright, but registration is not required to create copyright. It is, however, a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit for trademark infringement.
Copyright in the US, at least for works created after January 1, 1978, generally lasts the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years. For works for hire or anonymous creations, copyright lasts 120 from creation or 95 years from publication, whichever expires first.
Well, cultural appropriation might be too obscure or 'amorphous' a concept here, so perhaps copyright is a better topic for discussion.
Kenneth Goldsmith, the avant-garde American 'literary provocateur' argues that in the digital age there there's no such thing as plagiarism, just repurposing and cites the collapse of copyright protections for musicians as inevitable. In a widely emulated course called Uncreative Writing now run at U Penn and in writing workshops in the UK and South Africa, students are encouraged to steal and mash-up or 'repurpose' the work of their peers and teachers as well as anything found on the Internet. The general consensus from students who've done the course is that it's empowering and fun to use anything from others but feels wrong when done to you yourself.
Well, cultural appropriation might be too obscure or 'amorphous' a concept here, so perhaps copyright is a better topic for discussion. ...
Wouldn't that be the ultimate in complete tangents on the OP and the thread title? My point wasn't that we should be discussing copyright but that copyright doesn't offer a good analogy that has any relevance for discussing cultural misappropriation.
Going back to the lion sleeps tonight as an exemplar - having now read up. I suppose the distinction I would make, possibly wrongly, is as follows:
Using someone else’s work without crediting them or entitling them to a share of the profits = plagiarism/theft possibly enabled by racism.
Inventing a random word “wimoweh” because you can’t pronounce Xhosa - disrespectful, if you can’t sing the original language you translate rather than mangle it. Arguably racist to do this.
Cultural appropriation - and this I think is the bit that is controversial about the idea of cultural appropriation - can be seen as singing a song from a culture you are not a member of and which your community has a history of exploiting.
The reason I say I think that it is controversial, is that - as in your example of Paul Simon and Ladysmith Black Mambazo - intercultural collaboration can be respectful and creative. Also, because many countries and communities attempt to export and spread elements of their culture as part of their tourism and diplomatic efforts.
(Is is also the case that westerners can learn to pronounce Xhosa https://youtu.be/YlocO29uud4 and just assuming it’s impossible from the get go is dodgy too.)
Going back to the lion sleeps tonight as an exemplar - having now read up. I suppose the distinction I would make, possibly wrongly, is as follows:
Using someone else’s work without crediting them or entitling them to a share of the profits = plagiarism/theft possibly enabled by racism.
Inventing a random word “wimoweh” because you can’t pronounce Xhosa - disrespectful, if you can’t sing the original language you translate rather than mangle it. Arguably racist to do this.
Cultural appropriation - and this I think is the bit that is controversial about the idea of cultural appropriation - can be seen as singing a song from a culture you are not a member of and which your community has a history of exploiting.
The reason I say I think that it is controversial, is that - as in your example of Paul Simon and Ladysmith Black Mambazo - intercultural collaboration can be respectful and creative. Also, because many countries and communities attempt to export and spread elements of their culture as part of their tourism and diplomatic efforts.
Yes, the difference between cultural exchange and appropriation is sometimes obvious and sometimes not. That's always the danger with taking specific examples. There 's a large body of literature, for example, dealing with the history of the 'theft' of black music by the West, probably best articulated in post-colonial discourse, but so long as the debate is framed in terms of eventual monetized advantage and belated credit or 'benefit for all', that appropriation will continue to be viewed as normalised and ubiquitous. And if a colonised or formerly enslaved black or indigenous culture is seen as non-existent in itself as a culture, the debate ceases to exist.
Well, cultural appropriation might be too obscure or 'amorphous' a concept here, so perhaps copyright is a better topic for discussion.
Kenneth Goldsmith, the avant-garde American 'literary provocateur' argues that in the digital age there there's no such thing as plagiarism, just repurposing and cites the collapse of copyright protections for musicians as inevitable. In a widely emulated course called Uncreative Writing now run at U Penn and in writing workshops in the UK and South Africa, students are encouraged to steal and mash-up or 'repurpose' the work of their peers and teachers as well as anything found on the Internet. The general consensus from students who've done the course is that it's empowering and fun to use anything from others but feels wrong when done to you yourself.
I think there's still a distinction to be made between "stealing" something to re-purpose it in order to comment on the original item, and stealing something to pass it off as your own.
I should be able to do a parody cartoon of Disney's Cinderella with a few risque stills thrown in, to spoof the saccharine views of romance promoted by that movie. I arguably should not be able to make my own children's cartoon with a few stills of the original thrown in, just because I liked the look of them and I was too lazy to finish my project.
The first example is comparable to quoting a few passages from a novel in a book review, so as to let the reader know what you think about the book. The second is like taking those passages and putting them in your own novel, without attribution.
And this distinction predates the internet. There was a SCOTUS case in the 1990s about a rap song that sampled Roy Orbison's Pretty Woman. They ruled that the sampling was okay because the parody was a critique of the original song(I believe it was called Ugly Woman or something).
I think there's still a distinction to be made between "stealing" something to re-purpose it in order to comment on the original item, and stealing something to pass it off as your own.
I should be able to do a parody cartoon of Disney's Cinderella with a few risque stills thrown in, to spoof the saccharine views of romance promoted by that movie. I arguably should not be able to make my own children's cartoon with a few stills of the original thrown in, just because I liked the look of them and I was too lazy to finish my project.
The first example is comparable to quoting a few passages from a novel in a book review, so as to let the reader know what you think about the book. The second is like taking those passages and putting them in your own novel, without attribution.
And this distinction predates the internet. There was a SCOTUS case in the 1990s about a rap song that sampled Roy Orbison's Pretty Woman. They ruled that the sampling was okay because the parody was a critique of the original song(I believe it was called Ugly Woman or something).
I agree. Having written or composed something shouldn't entitle anyone to control, prevent or demand a rent off any criticism of their work or how or if it inspires anyone else's independent creativity.
Nor, once genuine inspiration/creativity intervenes, and this does have a small amount of relevance to arguments about cultural misappropriation, should it give them a right to say which inspiration they approve or and which they don't.
And if "white people playing other racial groups" is a reference to, for example, the scandal about Scarlett Johanssen playing a "Japanese" anime character, someone utterly forgot to tell actual Japanese people to be upset about it. The character in question was not truly Japanese, and anime has a long history of drawing characters in deliberately non-Japanese ways. Asian Americans complained, but when Japanese people were told there were protests they genuinely did not understand why.
I rather think the experience of being Japanese in Japan is quite different from the experience of being Japanese in the US. If you're Japanese in Japan, you are a member of the dominant culture, in a society that is fairly racially exclusive. Getting upset about foreigners adopting the culture that you have sold to them makes about as much sense as an Englishman getting upset about people playing cricket.
If you're Japanese living in the US, you have a very different experience. So I think it's not surprising that Asians in the US might be more sensitive about this kind of thing than Asians in Asia.
Like so many things, many "cultural appropriation" arguments are picking the wrong target for a real issue. I've mentioned above the whole thing about white actors playing non-white animated characters, which arises from an understandable frustration with the lack of roles for non-white actors and "solves" it in entirely the wrong way.
I don't think the issue with Apu in The Simpsons was solely that the actor playing him was white, but also that Apu often drifted into crude stereotype, whether that be the accent, the mannerisms, or the plot lines. That reflects a paucity of Indian Americans in the writers' room and in the writers' wider circles. It also has unpleasant overtones of the minstrel show. Other minority characters have been recast, but Apu was removed because they'd have to not just change the actor but reinvent the character. What is the better, "right" way to solve this issue?
While I accept that there can be problems with stereotypes, it rather does mystify me that:
1. There's some kind of problem with a character having an accent. Immigrants do tend to have accents. Do we want everything to pretend that immigration doesn't exist? Are we confused over the difference between Indian Americans, born in America, and Indians who moved to America?
2. There's similarly some kind of problem with recognising that different cultures have different 'mannerisms', and an immigrant doesn't miraculously lose all of these and become a 'normal' American. I mean, as far as I can recall one of these 'mannerisms' is that Apu is Hindu. Should they have got him to go to Reverend Lovejoy's church with all the other characters?
3. There's some kind of problem with having an immigrant character running a supermarket, when any historian can tell you how immigrant communities frequently end up in particular jobs they can access, often as a result of the attitudes of the people around them. That's not stereotyping, that's observation. Many years ago I saw a fantastic one-man show by a Greek Australian where it was a running joke about how nearly every member of his extended family, upon arriving in Australia, opened a fish and chip shop.
4. More generally, that there's some kind of problem with Apu often being one of the more intelligent characters. Because as far as I'm concerned he was.
I haven't watched the Simpsons much, but I think the very first one I saw involved Apu mentioning his thesis at Fermilab, the computer work for which was on cards, which Bart took out of the shoe box they were stored in when Apu brought it out from under the counter, and scattered them about in disorder. I was impressed by Apu. It sounds as though they didn't use him as well as they could.
That's not stereotyping, that's observation. Many years ago I saw a fantastic one-man show by a Greek Australian where it was a running joke about how nearly every member of his extended family, upon arriving in Australia, opened a fish and chip shop.
Just addressing this particular point, there's a fairly big difference in the dynamic between a <minority group> comedian mocking stereotypes of <minority group> and a <majority group> comedian making the same jokes.
Copyright in the US, at least for works created after January 1, 1978, generally lasts the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years. For works for hire or anonymous creations, copyright lasts 120 from creation or 95 years from publication, whichever expires first.
It's been remarked that copyright in the U.S. lasts the creator's lifetime + x, where x represents the number of years since the debut of Steamboat Willie.
No, copyright is automatic in the US upon creation of the work. A copyright can be registered with the Copyright Office to provide evidence of copyright, but registration is not required to create copyright. It is, however, a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit for trademark infringement.
Copyright in the US, at least for works created after January 1, 1978, generally lasts the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years. For works for hire or anonymous creations, copyright lasts 120 from creation or 95 years from publication, whichever expires first.
@Nick Tamen how does one have copyright in an anonymous creation? If a person doesn't, or won't, identify themselves, there's no one to assert copyright and no one whose permission to seek if one wants permission to use it.
Here a corporate body such as a company can create a work with copyright, but that's not anonymous. However, because it hasn't got a life, it gets a straight x period from publication without the life first.
Also what's the difference between a work for hire and a work that somebody happens to get licensed to use for a period rather than indefinitely?
While I accept that there can be problems with stereotypes, it rather does mystify me that:
1. There's some kind of problem with...
Either these sort of "problems" are subjective, or they're cultural, or they're objective. Maybe it would help if you knew which ? Get it wrong and you can tie yourself in knots.
If I have a subjective problem with something you've written, there doesn't have to be any logic to it. I can feel a problem if you agree with me, or if you disagree with me, or if you do neither - you're ignoring me !
There is no rule you can obey which will guarantee that I won't feel that your writing is problematic.
So what would you do ? If my subjective problematising prevents that relationship of mutuality, person to person.
Just stop engaging with me, I guess.
No, copyright is automatic in the US upon creation of the work. A copyright can be registered with the Copyright Office to provide evidence of copyright, but registration is not required to create copyright. It is, however, a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit for trademark infringement.
Copyright in the US, at least for works created after January 1, 1978, generally lasts the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years. For works for hire or anonymous creations, copyright lasts 120 from creation or 95 years from publication, whichever expires first.
@Nick Tamen how does one have copyright in an anonymous creation? If a person doesn't, or won't, identify themselves, there's no one to assert copyright and no one whose permission to seek if one wants permission to use it.
I may be approaching my depth here, if I’m not already there, but as I understand it, “anonymous” in the copyright context doesn’t mean completely unknown. It means the author’s name doesn’t appear on the work, is not publicly identified. An example would be the 1996 book Primary Colors. It was published with the author listed as “Anonymous.” The Washington Post subsequently identified Joe Klein as the likely identity of “Anonymous,” and he eventually admitted that he was the author. But it is an example of a work published anonymously in the copyright sense. Anonymous works (in this sense) can be registered with the Copyright Office.
Also what's the difference between a work for hire and a work that somebody happens to get licensed to use for a period rather than indefinitely?
A work for hire is something an employer writes/creates for his or her employer in the scope and course of employment (such as a newspaper story written by a staff reporter) or a work specifically commissioned by the party paying for it. My understanding is that for it to meet the latter definition, certain other criteria must be met, including express written agreement that the work will be considered work for hire.
And with that, if I wasn’t already out of my depth, I surely am now.
All I know is that on St. Patrick's Day everyone in America turns Irish if for a day. Same with Cinco De Mayo, Celebrated widely in the US. In Mexico, meh, Just the other day my wife and I were talking about the towns throughout the United States that have Native American names. I think I have six dream catchers in my house. Plus I have other trinkets given to me from people who have stayed with us as exchange students. I hear the new Secretary of Interior who happens to be Native American may even suggest that all the National Parks in America should be returned to the Native Americans because they were all holy grounds for surrounding tribes and nations.
In truth, the North American Continent is an amalgamation of many different cultures, indigenous and immigrant. It would be very hard to pick everything apart. Black eye peas anyone?
No, copyright is automatic in the US upon creation of the work. A copyright can be registered with the Copyright Office to provide evidence of copyright, but registration is not required to create copyright. It is, however, a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit for trademark infringement.
Copyright in the US, at least for works created after January 1, 1978, generally lasts the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years. For works for hire or anonymous creations, copyright lasts 120 from creation or 95 years from publication, whichever expires first.
@Nick Tamen how does one have copyright in an anonymous creation? If a person doesn't, or won't, identify themselves, there's no one to assert copyright and no one whose permission to seek if one wants permission to use it.
I may be approaching my depth here, if I’m not already there, but as I understand it, “anonymous” in the copyright context doesn’t mean completely unknown. It means the author’s name doesn’t appear on the work, is not publicly identified. An example would be the 1996 book Primary Colors. It was published with the author listed as “Anonymous.” The Washington Post subsequently identified Joe Klein as the likely identity of “Anonymous,” and he eventually admitted that he was the author. But it is an example of a work published anonymously in the copyright sense. Anonymous works (in this sense) can be registered with the Copyright Office.
Also what's the difference between a work for hire and a work that somebody happens to get licensed to use for a period rather than indefinitely?
A work for hire is something an employer writes/creates for his or her employer in the scope and course of employment (such as a newspaper story written by a staff reporter) or a work specifically commissioned by the party paying for it. My understanding is that for it to meet the latter definition, certain other criteria must be met, including express written agreement that the work will be considered work for hire.
And with that, if I wasn’t already out of my depth, I surely am now.
The original creator can assign their copyright to someone else and can also license it, but here the period remains based on their life and expires x years after they die.
I misunderstood what you meant by works for hire. Commissioned works are an issue here, but not as regard duration. If one forgets to record what's agreed, there tends to be a presumption the rights belong to the commissioner. People frequently get into arguments with architects on this. Architects normally try to retain copyright in their designs, but the effect of that is that they can claim they have to give permission for any alterations in the future.
ISTM there is a problem with the concept of theft used in the context of cultural appropriation, and has to be distinguished from the theft, seizure, of cultural objects and dumping them in museums (trophy halls of the victors), or whatever.
In the case of jazz, for example, the fact that it has become commercialised and diluted (in some eyes) to appeal to a wide multi-cultural audience does not prevent the source culture from continuing and developing the traditional cultural expression if it so wishes.
Personally, I regret the homogenisation of culture as a function of mass consumption, because it eliminates the piquancy of challenging tastes. On the other hand, cultural interaction can be creative in producing novel expressions that inspire and stimulate new ways of thinking: renaissance and enlightenment.
Comments
Don't know about appropriation. I do know I don't have to live in Ireland or be part of an Irish community to witness any number of global celebrations of St Patrick's Day by non-Irish people. Irish dancing, traditional dress, Irish music? Sometimes even political ideologies about the status of Ireland. All pretty much worldwide public property. Must be because Ireland is such a powerful colonial empire with no history of being subjugated often ruthlessly for several centuries by conquering neighbouring nations, right?
Of course, Patrick himself was a slave, taken by Irish pirates from his native Wales...
Well, from everything I've heard, the socioeconomic conditions of 21st Century Irish people, at least in the Republic, is not really comparable to that of Blacks in the USA or First Nations people in North America generally.
Just for starters, according to the CBC(Canada's public broadcaster), the life-expectancy for indigenous Canadians is 15 years shorter than that of other Canadians, and their infant mortality rate is two to three times higher.
I guess I could be wrong, and maybe the Irish are experiencing similar imbalances in well-being, but if so, I'd be interested to hear about it.
If you have Irish immigrants in the US maintaining their cultural heritage, that can't be appropriation, or in any sense unreasonable - it's theirs just as much as it belongs to their neighbours who remained in Ireland. Where it gets a little more interesting is when what you have is the great-great-grandchildren of an Irish immigrant, who still want to maintain aspects of their ancestral culture. As for Irish dancing, I've met a couple of people who teach it in the US. They have both claimed some ancestral links to Ireland, which is what drove their interest in the first place, but they teach it to paying customers of all backgrounds.
I think there's a bit of a difference between Irish dancing, and for example the Haka. As I understand it, the Haka has spiritual significance to Maori people - it's not just a traditional dance - so even if I could find someone with Maori ancestry to teach me, I shouldn't start putting on Haka concerts.
Your example is of an individual who creates an atom of culture. In this case a song, but it could be an item of clothing or a foodstuff or a story. Of such things is culture built.
The creator has a moral right to intellectual property, you say. Which means what ? Not that others may not sing it or wear it or eat it. But only that if someone learns it from the creator and then makes money from it, that some share of that money is owed to the creator.
With that share somehow proportional to the contribution that the original creator makes to what it is that is sold. So that in the case of a song, the singer gets a share and the arranger gets a share etc.
Is that what we think ? In the easy case when the creator is a person and the one who profits is a person and one gets it straight from the other ?
So then what happens if there is a chain of people in between ?
B, C, D, and E all sing the song or make and eat the dessert or make and wear the garment, for their own pleasure. And then F comes along, gets the idea from E, and finds a way to make money from it. Are B, C, D entitled to a share of F's money ? Or only A if he/she can prove the chain ?
Where's the logic ?
But on that judgement, A should be recompensed by F, and B, C, D, and E should also do so. It is the originator who is owed, not the transmitters.
Copyright infringement is publishing or performing something that someone else owns the copyright to without their permission and without paying them. Unless they've sold it to someone else, copyright belongs to the person who originally created the work. In most of the world except for the USA copyright is automatic and lasts for the lifetime of the creator + x years, x varying between 50 and 70 years by country. A legal personality, having no life just gets the x years. How the copyright period is calculated in the US is completely different and is mystifying to the rest of us. I think also that in the USA you have consciously to assert copyright in some way.
After the copyright has expired, it's free for anyone to do what they like with what was previously yours.
If nobody knows who originally wrote something, there is nobody to assert copyright in it or to demonstrate when copyright runs from or expires.
Cultures are amorphous. They can't have a copyright, or for that matter any other sorts of rights, in anything. Nor is there anyone who can take any action on their behalf beyond complaining/accusing/moaning etc. Nor does any period seem to limit their advocates' complaints.
I've not heard the St Columba story before, but it sounds a bit odd. Copyright hadn't really been thought of in 500 AD. It would only be relevant now if it was the original writer of the book who sued. Owning a book that someone else wrote wouldn't give those sort of rights even if what one owned was a handwritten copy and very valuable.
Copyright in the US, at least for works created after January 1, 1978, generally lasts the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years. For works for hire or anonymous creations, copyright lasts 120 from creation or 95 years from publication, whichever expires first.
https://opensource.com/law/11/6/story-st-columba-modern-copyright-battle-sixth-century-ireland
Shakespeare made money from his plays by being a part-owner of the company that staged them.
Kenneth Goldsmith, the avant-garde American 'literary provocateur' argues that in the digital age there there's no such thing as plagiarism, just repurposing and cites the collapse of copyright protections for musicians as inevitable. In a widely emulated course called Uncreative Writing now run at U Penn and in writing workshops in the UK and South Africa, students are encouraged to steal and mash-up or 'repurpose' the work of their peers and teachers as well as anything found on the Internet. The general consensus from students who've done the course is that it's empowering and fun to use anything from others but feels wrong when done to you yourself.
Using someone else’s work without crediting them or entitling them to a share of the profits = plagiarism/theft possibly enabled by racism.
Inventing a random word “wimoweh” because you can’t pronounce Xhosa - disrespectful, if you can’t sing the original language you translate rather than mangle it. Arguably racist to do this.
Cultural appropriation - and this I think is the bit that is controversial about the idea of cultural appropriation - can be seen as singing a song from a culture you are not a member of and which your community has a history of exploiting.
The reason I say I think that it is controversial, is that - as in your example of Paul Simon and Ladysmith Black Mambazo - intercultural collaboration can be respectful and creative. Also, because many countries and communities attempt to export and spread elements of their culture as part of their tourism and diplomatic efforts.
Yes, the difference between cultural exchange and appropriation is sometimes obvious and sometimes not. That's always the danger with taking specific examples. There 's a large body of literature, for example, dealing with the history of the 'theft' of black music by the West, probably best articulated in post-colonial discourse, but so long as the debate is framed in terms of eventual monetized advantage and belated credit or 'benefit for all', that appropriation will continue to be viewed as normalised and ubiquitous. And if a colonised or formerly enslaved black or indigenous culture is seen as non-existent in itself as a culture, the debate ceases to exist.
I think there's still a distinction to be made between "stealing" something to re-purpose it in order to comment on the original item, and stealing something to pass it off as your own.
I should be able to do a parody cartoon of Disney's Cinderella with a few risque stills thrown in, to spoof the saccharine views of romance promoted by that movie. I arguably should not be able to make my own children's cartoon with a few stills of the original thrown in, just because I liked the look of them and I was too lazy to finish my project.
The first example is comparable to quoting a few passages from a novel in a book review, so as to let the reader know what you think about the book. The second is like taking those passages and putting them in your own novel, without attribution.
And this distinction predates the internet. There was a SCOTUS case in the 1990s about a rap song that sampled Roy Orbison's Pretty Woman. They ruled that the sampling was okay because the parody was a critique of the original song(I believe it was called Ugly Woman or something).
Nor, once genuine inspiration/creativity intervenes, and this does have a small amount of relevance to arguments about cultural misappropriation, should it give them a right to say which inspiration they approve or and which they don't.
While I accept that there can be problems with stereotypes, it rather does mystify me that:
1. There's some kind of problem with a character having an accent. Immigrants do tend to have accents. Do we want everything to pretend that immigration doesn't exist? Are we confused over the difference between Indian Americans, born in America, and Indians who moved to America?
2. There's similarly some kind of problem with recognising that different cultures have different 'mannerisms', and an immigrant doesn't miraculously lose all of these and become a 'normal' American. I mean, as far as I can recall one of these 'mannerisms' is that Apu is Hindu. Should they have got him to go to Reverend Lovejoy's church with all the other characters?
3. There's some kind of problem with having an immigrant character running a supermarket, when any historian can tell you how immigrant communities frequently end up in particular jobs they can access, often as a result of the attitudes of the people around them. That's not stereotyping, that's observation. Many years ago I saw a fantastic one-man show by a Greek Australian where it was a running joke about how nearly every member of his extended family, upon arriving in Australia, opened a fish and chip shop.
4. More generally, that there's some kind of problem with Apu often being one of the more intelligent characters. Because as far as I'm concerned he was.
Just addressing this particular point, there's a fairly big difference in the dynamic between a <minority group> comedian mocking stereotypes of <minority group> and a <majority group> comedian making the same jokes.
It's been remarked that copyright in the U.S. lasts the creator's lifetime + x, where x represents the number of years since the debut of Steamboat Willie.
@Nick Tamen how does one have copyright in an anonymous creation? If a person doesn't, or won't, identify themselves, there's no one to assert copyright and no one whose permission to seek if one wants permission to use it.
Here a corporate body such as a company can create a work with copyright, but that's not anonymous. However, because it hasn't got a life, it gets a straight x period from publication without the life first.
Also what's the difference between a work for hire and a work that somebody happens to get licensed to use for a period rather than indefinitely?
Either these sort of "problems" are subjective, or they're cultural, or they're objective. Maybe it would help if you knew which ? Get it wrong and you can tie yourself in knots.
If I have a subjective problem with something you've written, there doesn't have to be any logic to it. I can feel a problem if you agree with me, or if you disagree with me, or if you do neither - you're ignoring me !
There is no rule you can obey which will guarantee that I won't feel that your writing is problematic.
So what would you do ? If my subjective problematising prevents that relationship of mutuality, person to person.
Just stop engaging with me, I guess.
A work for hire is something an employer writes/creates for his or her employer in the scope and course of employment (such as a newspaper story written by a staff reporter) or a work specifically commissioned by the party paying for it. My understanding is that for it to meet the latter definition, certain other criteria must be met, including express written agreement that the work will be considered work for hire.
And with that, if I wasn’t already out of my depth, I surely am now.
In truth, the North American Continent is an amalgamation of many different cultures, indigenous and immigrant. It would be very hard to pick everything apart. Black eye peas anyone?
The original creator can assign their copyright to someone else and can also license it, but here the period remains based on their life and expires x years after they die.
I misunderstood what you meant by works for hire. Commissioned works are an issue here, but not as regard duration. If one forgets to record what's agreed, there tends to be a presumption the rights belong to the commissioner. People frequently get into arguments with architects on this. Architects normally try to retain copyright in their designs, but the effect of that is that they can claim they have to give permission for any alterations in the future.
In the case of jazz, for example, the fact that it has become commercialised and diluted (in some eyes) to appeal to a wide multi-cultural audience does not prevent the source culture from continuing and developing the traditional cultural expression if it so wishes.
Personally, I regret the homogenisation of culture as a function of mass consumption, because it eliminates the piquancy of challenging tastes. On the other hand, cultural interaction can be creative in producing novel expressions that inspire and stimulate new ways of thinking: renaissance and enlightenment.