Creativity of - Music Business Research

Paper for the Young Scholar’s Workshop at the Vienna Music Business Research Days, Okt. 2014
Research proposal for the doctoral thesis of Georg Fischer, Free University Berlin
Doctoral thesis: „Urheberrecht und Kreativität in der Musikproduktion“
Contact: [email protected]
+++ THIS IS A DRAFT. PLEASE, DON’T CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION! THANKS! +++
Creativity of „getting around“ or getting around of creativity?
On the Urheberrecht’s effect on the production of music
Research Proposal
In my doctoral thesis I am studying contemporary practices of music production to find out
how creativity and innovation are regulated by the German copyright („Urheberrecht“). For
this purpose I want to use the qualitative method of „focused ethnography” developed in the
social sciences. Today’s practices of versioning music like sampling, remixing and covering
are seen as essential methods in the music industry and as common practices in popular
genres like HipHop, House, Techno and others. While covering refers to re-playing of
existing musical figures like rhythms or melodies, with the method of sampling it is possible
to use concrete sound fragments from existing songs. Nevertheless, the practice of sampling is
still happening in a very critical legal area. From a legal point of view it is easier to clear the
exploitation rights for cover songs than for sample-based tracks. Against the background of
these different legal situations and clearing possibilities, the question of my dissertation
project can be put as following: Which effect do the legal factors of the Urheberrecht take on
the aesthetics of the actual practices of music production? Is the Urheberrecht’s effect
constraining or stimulating ways of creating musical novelties? Are there any „tricks“ or
special knowledge in music production to avoid copyright infringements, like alienating or
disguising the used original sound material? In which cases decide musicians to use samples,
when do they tend to cover musical material? Following this idea of „getting around“ as a
special form of creativity the leading question can be put more pointedly: Can these strategies
of avoiding legal problems stabilize and transform into aesthetic strategies, that are accepted
generally or in a specific musical community as legitimate and creative? With empirical
findings from my ethnographic approach the project wants to shed light on the actual
practices of music production to contribute to a theory of creativity and its legal regulation.
Keywords: Music production; Urheberrecht / copyright; creativity; innovation; regulation;
ethnography.
1
Creativity and Music Production – Theoretical Framings
In the social sciences, there is wide consensus that the phenomenon of creativity can not only
be explained by an individual creator personality in the sense of an original genius. Instead,
the social framings as well as the discursive and situational conditions of creativity must
always be considered (Csíkszentmihályi 1999; Reckwitz 2012; Bröckling 2004; Göttlich
2006; Degele 1997). Already common phrases such as „flash of inspiration“ or the famous
„Kiss of the Muse“ imply factors that take influence from an external point
(Platzgumer/Neidhart 2012: 21). With this perspective from the social sciences, it is possible
to problematize the so-called „creatio ex nihilo“ and the overrating of an author, that is only
and originally creating out of hisself (Stalder 2011; Foucault 1969; Woodmansee 1984). In
favor of a more differentiated perspective of creativity and innovation, the processes of
genesis, adaptation and diffusion of a novelty should be explored (Miettinen 2006; Groys
1992). It seems more plausible to explain creativity from the interplay of various factors that
takes the internal assessment criteria of a productive collective serious (Willis 1991; DeNora
1995) and brings the temporal, social and material relations of the phenomenon of newness
into account (Rammert 2010).
If one accepts the fundamental intersection of creativity and newness, then creativity
can be understood as an „human capability“ (Bröckling 2007: 156; see Popitz 2000) to
produce connectable novelties by deriving them from the existing. „Connectable“ (German:
„anschlussfähig“) here means that the novelty can be connected to the actual practices,
semantics or thinking of other people. It must be possible to establish a link between the
novelty and the existing to embed the novelty into the action routines, semantics and contexts
of everyday life. The more radical a novelty appears, that means the further it moves away
from what is already available, the more difficult it is to link it with the existing (Feige 2012).
The new is always operating in this relationship of familiarity and foreigness, of the ordinary
and the extra-ordinary of everday life. Creative novelties are thus distinguished by the fact
that they are perceived by other actors as original, startling or surprising, but also valuable
enough and connectable to link them to the existing structues of the social fabric (Groys 1996;
Polanyi 1962).
In addition, researchers also highlight the special role of experiments for the creative
process, as experiments appear in the processes of exaptation (Johnson: 2013: 156) and
serendipity (Merton 1980: 24). With these experimental approaches, one can recognize and
explore new aspects and points of connectivity within the existing. In contrast to this,
2
novelties that haven’t any current connectivity to the existing appear as too foreign or
abstract. In this view, they can’t be embedded into the existing social structures and so they
are classified here as non-creative (Fischer 2013: 32f.; Fischer 2014a: 72). For a differentiated
theoretical perspective, it is also important to differ between the concepts of creativity and
innovation. Even though both creativity and innovation are related to the phenomenon of
newness, they must not be confused: while creativity addresses the human capability to
produce new but connectable novelties, innovation refers to the phenomenon of diffusion and
implementation of a novelty in the areas of social action routines, semantics and rules
(Rammert 2010). However, creativity can also contribute to innovation processes, since both
creativity and innovation are closely linked to the dimension of social action. This theoretical
two-stage separation helps to look more precisely at the different processes of creating
novelties and establishing them into the social fabric.
Towards a theory of creativity that attempts to define the phenomenon considering the
relevance of working routines and their regulation structures in the intermediate area of
production and reception, the field of music production offers a variety of indications. After
all creative musical novelties of music industry and „underground“ cultures usually offer new
aspects and little surprises (Hutter 2011) as they sound in some way new and „unheard“ – but
likewise they also sound familiar and typical to a certain extent to leave impression and to
help to build a bridge in the aesthetic reception between the known and the unheard. Thus, in
the production, distribution and broadcasting of music a number of typical elements can be
found which serve as receptive anchor points (see Kawohl/Kretschmer 2006: 189; Hepp
1998: 77ff.; Hickethier 2003). Such anchor points can be placed in textual, aural, stylistic,
rhythmic, melodic features or in a specific genre aesthetics, but also in the presentation,
marketing and performance of musical pieces. Against this background it is not surprising that
practices of versioning and re-using musical materials can be found in many different genres.
These practices are a significant way to create musical novelties and innovations from the
fundus of the existing (Döhl 2014; Tschmuck 2012; Reynolds 2012; Pendzich 2004).
The use of musical versioning practices does not necessarily lead to a mere copy or
repetition of what already exists. It can cause creative further developments or even
innovative consequences like whole genres (for example Mashup, HipHop or House). We can
also find network-like digital structures of producing and distributing music (like Soundcloud
or ccMixter), that lead to continuous, reciprocal and transformative „access“ (Hutter 2012; see
also Uzzi/Spiro 2005) in aim of a collaborative development of the used samples and musical
3
ideas (Kühn 2011; Navas 2012; Gehlen 2011). Through variations and re-combinations new
aspects of the existing music pieces can be forced and explored. Mixing, chopping, looping or
re-arranging musical sound fragments can bring together formely unconnected sound layers,
melodies and rhythms. Through all these practices creative potentials and innovative
processes can be initiated (Fischer 2013: 122; Fischer 2014b).
Music Production and Copyright – Heuristic Findings
Within the production of music, the methods of sampling and covering are perceived as
central practices of versioning (Reynolds 2012; Pendzich 2004). While sampling means to use
concrete sound fragments of existing „sound continuums“ (Diederichsen 2006), covering
refers to the re-playing of existing musical figures like rhythms, melodies or short phrases
(„hooks“, „riffs“). Both sampling and covering are methods of music production that access
pre-existing musical materials like melodies, rhythms or sounds in a direct, referential or
recontextualizing manner to derive new musical pieces from the existing. They take place in
professional environments as well as in the area of amateurs. Hence, they can be understood
as an expression of a general social transformation process from a „read only culture“ to a
„read and write culture“ (Lessig 2008; see further Williams 1961). Due to the extensive
transformations of digitization and the Internet (see Dolata 2008), this situation seems even
expand to a „read, write and publish culture“ (Stalder 2011).
Since the 1980s sampling can no longer be considered as a singular fashion
phenomenon nor as an inner-city fad, but rather as stabile „standard technology of music
production“ (Kawohl/Kretschmer 2006: 204). Although the current portion of sound samples
in popular music is estimated conservatively to be around 15% (Rutter 2011: 75), drastic legal
problems can arise without consistent licensing, even from the use of very short excerpts
(Salagean 2008; McLeod/DiCola 2011). Of course, today’s music producers and musicians do
have an awareness of the need for the clarification of license rights (process of „sample
clearing“, see Schloss 2004, Morey 2012 or Djordjevic 2008). However, this method has
proven in practice to be very complicated or partially impossible, since the licenses can be
rejected or set arbitrarily high from the rights holders (Kawohl/Kretschmer 2006;
McLeod/DiCola 2011).
Many music producers and labels therefore try to clear the sample rights or instruct
lawyers to do so before they release their music. So lawyers can have an influence on what is
4
actually published in the sample-based tracks. For example, the American HipHop producer
RJD2 explained about the legal handling of the samples used by him: „The label has hired a
lawyer to assess the legal risk. When I make a record, I describe her exactly what is it, where it
comes from, who performs and who wrote it. This is a very exhausting process and at the end
she says, 'Ok, the risk is so high.’ After that it is up to us to decide whether we take the risk
or not.“ (RJD2 cited after Simon 2005: 57, own translation). In contrast to this, there is a
different legal situation for cover versions in Germany. As long as the compositionally defined
melodic characteristics that have an own „threshold of originality“ („Schöpfungshöhe“) are
not significantly changed in the adjustment, it’s no processing („Bearbeitung“) in the sense of
§ 23 of the Urheberrecht. A simple licensing for the GEMA (German society for musical
performing and mechanical reproduction rights) ensures in this case of covering music for legal
certainty (Pendzich 2004: 155).1
The basic idea of intellectual property and the German Urheberrecht are based on an
idealistic singular author and creator concept from the 18th century (Peifer 2008; Ginsburg
2003; Woodmansee 1984), but not on the technological possibilities of lossless digital copies
or effortless global file distribution via the Internet (Harke 2000: 340; Bach 2004). The
German Urhebergesetz (UrhG) in its current formulation from 1965 protects in particular the
original creative actors like artists, authors, componists, etc. It also protects connected service
providers and recyclers such as phonogram producers, broadcasting entrepreneur, publishers
or labels via the related property rights from the „Leistungsschutzrecht“ (ancillary
copyrights) (see Dreier/Nolte 2008: 46; Häuser 2003: 103). Within the meaning of § 2 Abs. 2
UrhG, protection are only eligible for those products that are equipped as personal creations
of a human person with intellectual content, perceptible form and a sufficient degree of
1
Three examples can illustrate these different legal situations: In 2013 the German crooner Heino
published his album „Mit freundlichen Grüßen“ („With best regards“) which was even on Nr. 1 of the
German album charts. The album contains only cover versions from famous German Pop, Rock or
HipHop artists sung by Heino. All the texts, melodies and rhythms were exactly transferred from the
original scores. The album is a completely replay of the original songs, but thanks to the easy licensing
via the GEMA it's not a legal problem at all (see Borcholte 2013). In 1997 the German HipHop
producer Moses Pelham used a 2 second lasting sample from Kraftwerk's „Metall auf Metall“.
Kraftwerk sued for the use of the simple metal sound and won the case. The German
Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) assumed in its decision that the use of this sound sample
infringes the ancillary copyrights of Kraftwerk's label. In 2013 the Danish DJ's Den Skorte Skol
published „Lektion III“, a 90-minute lasting collage with about 10.000 Samples. Nevertheless, their
album couldn't be released on a proper label yet, because the complicated and long-terming sample
clearing process couldn't be finished till today.
5
individuality (Salagean 2008: 69ff). The Urhebergesetz protects these personal intellectual
creations and prevents the recycling of mere copies – but it also prompts creativity, since it
requests distant derivations from the original source respectively new ways of creating. So the
Urhebergesetz regulates in a special way with offering protection against non-permitted
commercial copies – and it acts excluding against users who want to „saddle up“ on existing
pieces, develop them further or create something that leaves the old recognizable in the new
(see Dobusch/Quaack 2010: 14). Nonetheless, this special relationship between the new and
the old is one of the core elements of remix culture (von Gehlen 2010; Döhl 2014).
Some studies in the English-speaking world already deal with the musical practice of
versioning as a legal and music-economic problem. For instance, the American lawyer Michael
Schuster examined the economic impact of sample-based pieces on the sampled originals on
the example of Girl Talk. The music producer Girl Talk had sampled numerous well-known
pop songs for his very successful album „All Day“ from the year 2010. He artfully combined
the original sources with each other while leaving their ownstanding musical character
identifiable. Contrary to the assumption that sampling is mere theft of intellectual property
and has exclusively negative impact on the sales of the original pieces, Schuster provides in his
statistical analysis that the sampled originals used by Girl Talk sold significantly better in the
year after „All Day“ (Schuster 2013: 38). On the other hand, Kembrew McLeod and Peter
DiCola showed in their study „Creative License“ on the example of various sample heavy
albums like „The Grey Album“ by Dangermouse (2004), „Paul’s Boutique“ by The Beastie
Boys (1989) or „Fear of a Black Planet“ by Public Enemy (1990), how complicated, stressful
and costly the process of sample clearing actually would be for music producers. For these
reasons the authors identifiy the strategy of „flying below the radar“ as one the musicians’
key marketing practices to avoiding legal problems caused by sampling. Music producers can
also use fewer samples, replays or substitutes of the desired samples, or find other marketing
models. But „for all musicians who sample, the changing legal and business environment has
altered the creative process and the constraints on that process.“ (McLeod/DiCola 2011: 201).
Besides this, the British research project „CREATe“ focuses on the relationship of
copyright and new business models. The project brings together researchers from law,
business and economic studies with colleagues from the social sciences, cultural and musical
studies. One subproject brings the „Digitisation and the Politics of Copying in Popular Music
Culture“ into focus. Here, the British musicologist Keith Negus and his team concentrate
6
explicitly on the actual practices of British music producers and their attitudes with legal
complexities through the method of qualitative interviews. Although the musicians play a
decisive role in the creation and utilization of music, they are still quite underrepresented in
the research (Negus/Street/Behr 2014; Negus/Pickering 2004: 60). On a similar assumption,
the study of Justin Morey explores the practice of remixing via qualitative interviews with
music producers from the British Electronic Dance Music scene. Morey confirms the
assumption that music producers take high effort in their „copyright management“ in terms of
clearing rights and well-considered decisions regarding the use of samples (Morey 2012).
Besides these studies that are mainly based on interviews with music producers, the
ethnographic study from Joseph Schloss (2004) brings the cultural conditions of the music
genre into account. With his long-term ethnographic approach, Schloss found out that the
music producers researched by him aim their productions mainly to the rules set by their own
HipHop culture instead of copyright laws. This complex ethical system of „Diggin’ in the
Crates“ and „Beat Mining“ focuses rather on the searching and finding of rare, unused and
original samples. Schloss states that the processes of producing and selling respectively
distributing music must be differentiated under the specific influences caused by the cultural
affiliation:
„Nevertheless, sample clearance – in principle – has little effect on how people
produce records. Many producers, for example, make beats that they know in
advance will be impossible to clear. [...] While such songs are not released, they are
valued precisely as an indicator that a producer’s work is unfettered by legal or
monetary restrictions. The fact that producers make music that they cannot sell
shows their lack of concern for the marketplace.“ (Schloss 2004: 180).
In summary, and in view of the German legal area, it can be said that a differentiated approach
like the one from Schloss is needed for the German debate on copyrights. Such an approach
takes the legal, cultural and inter-musical conditions and contexts seriously and explores
precisely the influence of legal restrictions on the production of musical pieces. Since the legal
areas between the USA, Great Britain and Germany have several differences, a transfer on this
point can not be made without further notice. However, the studies and projects mentioned
above show that in English-speaking countries a differentiated scientific discussion of the legal
7
implications on the production of music takes place in order to detect the actual practices,
attitudes and strategies of the musicians themselves. Such a specific research project is missing
in the German-speaking academia.
Goals and Questions of the Dissertation Project
If one understands law as a dynamic social entity, which should take technological
innovations, ethical changes and social transformations into account to remaining practical and
legitimate (Granstrand 2005; Peifer 2008; Czernik 2008), the actual adaptations of copyright
rules should always be re-examined. My research project’s goal is to contribute to a better
understanding of the impact of property rights to current and actual creative processes.
Against the background of continous reuse of existing musical materials, the field of music
production offers illuminative examples for the study of the relationship between own and
external materials, and therefore for the processes of creativity. A study that provides
empirical reliable information about versioning practices in the field of music, can possibly
give generalizable hints also on the relationship of „copy and paste“ practices from other
artistic, scientific, media and cultural contexts that deal with copyright implications. Legal
entanglements in creative work and innovations occur regularly in many cultural areas where
it is possible or needed to saddle up directly or indirectly on the elements of third parties.
Examples can be found in areas such as fashion, design, literature, film, journalism, science,
art and others. Usually, such problems take place around the boundaries of plagiarism,
originality and own contributions (Döhl/Wöhrer 2014; Lessig 2004). If we abstract copyright
or Urheberrecht as socially negotiated rule structures that prompt for certain actions and limit
others, the research project can also provide insight to the question what impact do rules have
on creativity, its social validation and the placement of creative novelties.
The overarching question of the project is: What effect does the Urheberrecht have on
the creative strategies and categories that are applicated in the production of an artistic work?
To concretize this abstract question, it should be asked, if the requirements of the
Urheberrecht to reaching an own individuality are perceived as creativity-promoting factors
or as immediate hurdles? To contrast this: which influence on creativity have the
requirements of the specific culture or genre? Is the required distance between the original
and the derivative work, between the new piece and the existing material, rather caused by
cultural or legal factors?
8
And even more focused on the field of music: What strategies use music producers who
operate with copyrighted music material to encounter any legal problems and copyright
infringements? Do they tend to avoid „sensitive“ samples or musical ideas? In which
situations and why? Is the Urheberrecht’s effect constraining or stimulating ways of creating
the musical new?
Besides these questions that are mainly adressing the practices of music production it
should be asked which role the knowledge plays: Are there any „tricks“ or special knowledge
in music production to avoid copyright infringements, like alienating, disguising or
processing the used sound material? In which cases do music producers decide for the recreation of a sound, when for replaying a tune, when for a direct sampling? And focused on
the subsequent processes of releasing and distributing music: In which relationship are the
processes of producing and releasing music to each other? Which role do disguising releases
and distributing strategies play?
Following this idea of a creativity of „getting around“ the main hypthetical question can
be put more pointedly: Can these strategies of avoiding legal problems stabilize and transform
into aesthetic strategies, that are accepted generally or in a specific musical community as
legitimate and creative?
Methodology: Focused Ethnography
It is crucial, that my project is not conceptualised as a mere desk study rather than a field
report. It should deliver „valuable insights“ (Graebner et al. 2012: 278f.) from the circle of the
music producers themselves. With the help of an exploratory ethnographic study,
differentiated knowledge should be gained about the actual and current strategies of music
producers. This includes group-specific problem awareness of copyright entanglements,
personal understanding and attitudes on intellectual property as well as on the relationship
between originality and creativity. Of course, besides the sociological approach my project
also touches musicological and jurisprudential questions. However, it still sees itself as a
sociological project that is analyzing musical creativity under specific legal conditions and as a
social phenomenon.
To answer the research questions, the sociological method of focused ethnography will
be applied. Originally, the method of ethnography was developed in ethnology and
9
anthropology for the systematic and descriptive study of foreign peoples and societies. It is
characterized by the fact that the structures and interrelations of a particular culture are
studied and explained from its very own and internal perspective. The researcher dives into
the lifeworld of the researched social reality. As a participant he attempts to structure and to
understand the internal knowledge, semantics, social structures and commonly shared
practices „from the inside“ (Fettermann 1998). This „low-brow“ approach, as it is designed in
the ethnological and anthropological ethnography, claims ongoing knowledge development on
the part of the researcher as well as a special sensitivity for the studied social reality.
Ethnography also provides methodological potential and explanatory power for the
exploration of one's own society and its various cultures. In this context, the sociological
ethnography is particulary suitable for specific social groups, collectives or other cultures
with „lived sociality“, where its members act on the basis of shared symbolic knowledge
stocks. The collection of data occurs during the researcher’s participation in the social life of
the studied culture and is a fundamentally open and conscious iterative process. Through
questions, observations and practical physical participation, the typical situations,
relationships and contexts of these „small worlds“ are identified, described and classified
(Flick 2007: 284; Willis 1991; Becker 1971). If a specific section of a society or a precise
research interest should be taken into view, the method of the focused ethnography is
appropriate. Focused ethnography requests shorter field stays, while it places a strong
emphasis on a particular aspect of a culture, and in particular on the socially valuable
background knowledge (Knoblauch 2001).
With the help of the focused ethnography it is possible to study the actual lifeworld of
music producers and to catch systematically their practices and techniques, discursive
problems, communicative structures and fundamental stocks of knowledge. For the purposes
of my particular research interest that is outlined above, the research questions will be
applicated in open, guided interviews and within own participant observations. I want to
ethnograph typical situations and moments in the life of musicians where they must balance
the legal implications with their own musical creativity, aesthetic understanding or genre
specific requirements of originality. Thus, the methodological approach focuses such typical
situations, practices and acts of communication, in which the legal dimension of artistic
creation gets neuralgic and visible to show the relationship between the own artistic
10
contribution and its external components. For my planned attendings at music production
sessions it is essential to write down field notices and to develop professional sensitivity for
the observation of the producer’s actions, especially when these actions are non-thematized or
unimpressive (Warneken 2006: 200). The exploratory and investigative understanding why
actors of the musical field are producing music as they produce it – in general terms: why
„something is done the way it is done“ – is in the foreground in accordance with the method.
The methodology of focused ethnography is also a reasoned choice in the sociology of law to
opening out the social and personal anchorings of normative orientations and non-reflected
actions (see Stegmaier 2009: 27).
In order to gain a differentiated view of the actual production techniques of
contemporary popular music, representatives of four popular music genres will be focused.
The genre selections – HipHop, House, Techno and Drum’n’Bass – all deal with legal
problems from time to time, as they are significantly associated with versioning practices. But
it is my expectation that the versioning practices have specific functions in these genres. I
want to focuse HipHop and House as two genres in which music producers use sampling
techniques as citative or referential practices to referring to a typical sound of an musical era,
highlighting a prominent „riff“ or presenting a „musical meme“ like the famous „Amen Break“
(see Pelleter/Lepa 2007; Goodwin 1988). To contrast HipHop and House, I want to focuse
Techno and Drum’n’Bass as two popular music genres, where the citative and referential
character of sampling is mainly subordinated. Instead, in these two genres of Electronic Dance
Music producers want to develop unheard sounds to use them as basslines, drums or other
musical elements. Here, the factor of generating a new sound out of an existing one is more
important. Based on this difference, it is my aim to catch a variety of music production
techniques and strategies.
It is planned to win about 4 to 6 music producers per genre. The total sample size of
about 16 to 20 seems plausible for two reasons: Through the variety of my selection, I can get
to know a certain range of different practices and compare them with each other. In this way,
one can estimate whether a particular strategy tends to be dominant within just one genre or
more. On the other hand there is the presumption that the copyright implications differ from
producer to producer. Depending on how „sensitive“ specific sample practices are, that is,
how much they distant from the used copyrighted material, different producing approaches
11
are applied. In order to obtain a balanced picture of the situation, at least 4 producers per
genre should be ethnographed. Since the methodology of the focused ethnography postulates
rather shorter than longer field stays, the number of ethnographic cases and their analyzes is
good to manage within the schedule.
In sociostructural regard, it seems crucial on the one hand that the focused music
producers publish on the German market where the German Urhebergesetz applies. On the
other hand they should work as professionals or at least as semi-professionals. Neither
amateurs nor beginners are interesting for this research, but music producers that are
experienced to some degree and publish their work with a motivation for their career or to
make a living. They should devote a considerable part of their time to music production on a
regular basis. It is assumed that (semi-)professional music producers need to deal with legal
questions more intensively than amateurs or beginners, especially when they want to publish
their music commercially. The collected data will be analyzed anonymized.
Preliminary Studies and Personal Background
In my diploma thesis I studied the history of the sampling practice in the field of the artistic
Avant-garde and popular culture considering the aspects of creativity, newness and innovation
(Fischer 2013). In this study I developed sociological concepts for the social phenomena of
creativity and innovation to compare the sampling practices in the genres of New Music,
HipHop and Drum’n’Bass. My approach focused the main historical developments and the
rich culture of digital sampling, but left the musical strategies of „getting around“
unanswered. I’m also DJ’ing for about 10 years and playing in a band since 2 years. Together
with friends, we’re running a little podcast series where other musicians can publish
recordings of their live concerts or DJ sets. I also worked as a music journalist for various
German radio stations, print magazins and blogs as well as for the campaign „Right to
Remix“. Through these different activities I already have some contacts in the field of music
production, that will be helpful to conduct my research.
12
References
Bach, David (2004): The Double Punch of Law and Technology: Fighting Music Piracy or
Remaking Copyright in a Digital Age?, in: Business and Politics, Vol. 6, Nr. 2, online:
http://david.bach.profesores.ie.edu/David.Bach/Ficheros/4.pdf (11.03.2014).
Borcholte, Andreas (2013): Heinos Hit-Album. Der Unversöhnliche, Spiegel Online,
05.02.2013, online: http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/musik/spalten-statt-umarmen-warumheinos-hit-album-gar-nicht-cool-ist-a- 881630.html (16.02.2014).
Becker, Howard S. (1971): Außenseiter. Zur Soziologie abweichenden Verhaltens,
Frankfurt/Main: S. Fischer.
Bröckling, Ulrich (2007): Das unternehmerische Selbst. Soziologie einer Subjektivierungsform,
Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
Bundesgerichtshof (2012): Pressemitteilung Nr. 210/2012 vom 13.12.2012, online:
http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgibin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&Datum=Aktuell&nr=62539&linked=
pm (16.02.2014).
Csíkszentmihályi, Mihályi (1999): Implications of a systems perspective for the study of
creativity, in: Sternberg, Robert J. (ed.): Handbook of creativity, Cambridge: University Press,
pp. 313-35.
Czernik, Ilja (2008): Die Collage in der urheberrechtlichen Auseinandersetzung zwischen
Kunstfreiheit und Schutz des geistigen Eigentums, Berlin: DeGruyter.
Degele, Nina (1997): Kreativität rekursiv. Von der technischen Kreativität zur kreativen
Aneignung von Technik, in: Rammert, Werner/Bechmann, Gotthard (ed.): Technik und
Gesellschaft. Jahrbuch 9, Frankfurt/New York: Campus, pp. 55-64.
DeNora, Tia (1995): Beethoven and the construction of genius. Musical politics in Vienna,
1792-1803, Berkeley et al.: University of California Press.
Diederichsen, Diedrich (2006): Sampling und Montage. Modelle anderer Autorschaften in der
Kulturindustrie und ihre notwendige Nähe zum Diebstahl, in: Reulecke, Anne-Kathrin (ed.):
Fälschungen. Zu Autorschaft und Beweis in Wissenschaften und Künsten, Frankfurt/Main:
Suhrkamp, pp. 390-405.
Djordjevic, Valie (2008): Covern & Remixen. Aus Alt mach Neu, in: Djordjevic, Valie. et al.
(eds.): Urheberrecht im Alltag. Kopieren, bearbeiten, selber machen, Bonn: Bundeszentrale für
politische Bildung, oo. 201-5.
Dobusch, Leonhard/Quack, Sigrid (2010): Urheberrecht zwischen Kreativität und Verwertung.
Transnationale Mobilisierung und private Regulierung, Max-Planck-Institut für
Gesellschaftsforschung, Discussion Paper, Vol. 10, Nr. 6, online:
http://www.mpifg.de/pu/dp_abstracts/dp10-6.asp (31.6.2014).
Dolata, Ulrich (2008): Das Internet und die Transformation der Musikindustrie.
Rekonstruktion und Erklärung eines unkontrollierten sektoralen Wandels. Max-Planck-Institut
für Gesellschaftsforschung, Discussion Paper Vol. 8, Nr. 7, online:
http://www.mpifg.de/pu/dp_abstracts/dp08-7.asp (12.03.2014).
Döhl, Frederic/Wöhrer, Renate (2014): Einleitung, in: Döhl, Frederic/Wöhrer, Renate (eds.):
13
Zitieren, approprieren, sampeln. Referenzielle Verfahren in den Gegenwartskünsten, Bielefeld:
Transcript, pp. 7-19.
Döhl, Frederic (2014): Remaster, Remix, Remake the Beatles. Zur Relevanz der Differenz von
Eigen und Fremd in ästhetischen Urteilen über referentielle Musik, in: Döhl, Frederic/Wöhrer,
Renate (eds.):: Zitieren, approprieren, sampeln. Referenzielle Verfahren in den
Gegenwartskünsten, Bielefeld: Transcript, pp. 201-32.
Dreier, Thomas/Nolte, Georg (2006): Einführung in das Urheberrecht, in: Hofmann, Jeannette
(ed.): Wissen und Eigentum. Geschichte, Recht und Ökonomie stoffloser Güter, Bonn:
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, pp. 41-63.
Feige, Daniel Martin (2012): Wandel in der Kunst. Überlegungen zum Verhältnis der Künste,
in: Deines, Stefan/Feige, Daniel Martin/Seel, Martin (eds.): Formen kulturellen Wandels,
Bielefeld: Transcript, pp. 197-220.
Fettermann, David M. (1998): Ethnography, in: Biekman, Leonhard/Rog, Debra J. (eds.):
Handbook of applied social research methods, London et al.: Sage, pp. 473-504.
Fischer, Georg (2013): Jäger und Sampler. Kreativität und Innovation am Beispiel des
Samplings, Diplom Thesis, Institute for Soziology, TU Berlin. Online:
http://jaegerundsampler.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/kreativitaet-und-innovation-dessamplings-diplomarbeit/ (12.03.2014).
Fischer, Georg (2014a): Von Jägern und Samplern. Eine kurze Geschichte des Remix’, in:
Djordjevic, Valie/Dobusch, Leonhard (eds.): Generation Remix. Zwischen Popkultur und
Kunst, Berlin: iRights.Media, pp. 69- 78.
Fischer, Georg (2014b): Remixing and Sampling in the Avant-garde’s Movement between
1900 and 1970, in: Dancecult. Journal of Electronic Dance Music Culture, Vol. 7., Nr. 2
(forthcoming November 2014).
Flick, Uwe (2007): Qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Einführung, Reinbek bei Hamburg:
Rowohlt.
Foucault, Michel (1969): Was ist ein Autor?, in: Texte zur Theorie der Autorschaft.
Herausgegeben und kommentiert von Fotis Jannidis, Gerhard Lauer, Matias Martinez und
Simone Winko (2000), Stuttgart: Reclam, pp. 198-233.
Gehlen, Dirk von (20111) Mashup. Lob der Kopie, Berlin: Suhrkamp.
Ginsburg, Jane (2003): The concept of authorship in comparative copyright law, in: Columbia
Law School, Pub. Law Research Paper Nr. 51.
Göttlich, Udo (2006): Die Kreativität des Handelns in der Medienaneignung. Zur
handlungstheoretischen Kritik der Wirkungs- und Rezeptionsforschung, Konstanz: UVK.
Goodwin, Andrew (1988): Sample and Hold. Pop Music in the Digital Age of Reproduction,
in: Frith, Simon/Goodwin, Andrew (eds.): On Record. Rock, Pop, and the Written Word, New
York: Pantheon, pp. 258-274.
Grandstrand, Ove (2005): Innovation and intellectual property rights, in: Fagerberg, Jan et al.
(ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford: University Press, S. 266-91.
Groys, Boris (1992): Über das Neue. Versuch einer Kulturökonomie, München/Wien: Carl
Hanser.
14
Häuser, Markus (2002): Sound und Sampling. Der Schutz der Urheber, ausübenden Künstler
und Tonträgerhersteller gegen digitales Soundsampling nach deutschem und USamerikanischen Recht, C. H. Beck: München.
Harke, Dietrich (2000): Ideen schützen lassen? Patente, Marken, Design, Copyright,
Werbung, C. H. Beck: München.
Hepp, Andreas (1998): Fernsehaneignung und Alltagssprache. Fernsehnutzung aus der
Perspektive der Cultural Studies, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Hickethier, Knut (2003): Genretheorie und Genreanalyse, in: Felix, Jürgen (ed.): Moderne
Film Theorie, Mainz: Bender, pp. 62-96.
Hieber, Lutz (2012): Künstlerische und naturwissenschaftliche Kreativität, in: Göttlich,
Udo/Kurt, Ronald (eds.): Kreativität und Improvisation. Soziologische Positionen, Wiesbaden:
VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 263-93.
Hutter, Michael (2011): Infinite Surprises: On the Stabilization of Value in the Creative
Industries, in: Beckert, Jens/Aspers, Patrick (eds.): The Worth of Goods. Valuation and
Pricing in the Economy, Oxford: University Press, pp. 201-20.
Hutter, Michael (2012): Vom Haben zum Greifen. Auf dem Weg in eine digitale
Abrufgesellschaft, in: WZB Mitteilungen, Nr. 136, Juni 2012, pp. 7-10.
Joas, Hans (1996): Die Kreativität des Handelns, Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
Johnson, Steven (2013): Wo die guten Ideen herkommen. Eine kurze Geschichte der
Innovation, Scoventa: Bad Vilbel.
Kawohl, Friedemann/Kretschmer, Martin (2006): Von Tondichtern und DJs – Urheberrecht
zwischen Melodieneigentum und Musikpraxis, in: Hofmann, Jeannette (ed.): Wissen und
Eigentum. Geschichte, Recht und Ökonomie stoffloser Güter, Bonn: Bundeszentrale für
politische Bildung, pp. 189-220.
Kühn, Jan-Michael (2011): Fokussierte Ethnografie: Forschungsmethode am Beispiel der
Untersuchung von Technomusik-Produzenten in Homerecordings-Studio, in: Studentisches
Soziologiemagazin, Vol. 4, pp. 52-63.
Knoblauch, Hubert (2001): Fokussierte Ethnographie, in: Sozialer Sinn. Zeitschrift für
hermeneutische Sozialforschung, Vol. 2, S. 123-41.
Lessig, Lawrence (2004): Free Culture. How big media uses technology and the law to lock
culture and control creativity, New York: Penguin Press.
McLeod, Kembrew/DiCola, Peter (2011): Creative License. The law and culture of digital
sampling, Durham/London: Duke University Press.
Merton, Robert K. (1980): Auf den Schultern von Riesen. Ein Leitfaden durch das Labyrinth
der Gelehrsamkeit. Aus dem Amerikanischen von Reinhard Kaiser, Frankfurt/Main: Syndikat.
Miettien, Reijo (2006): The sources of novelty: A cultural and systemic view of distributed
creativity, in: Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 15, Nr. 2, pp. 173-81.
Morey, Justin (2012): Copyright Management and its Effect on the Sampling Practices of UK
Dance Music Producers, Journal for the International Association for the Study of Popular
Music, Vol. 3, Nr. 2, pp. 48-62.
15
Navas, Eduardo (2012): Remix Theory. The aesthetics of sampling, Wien/New York: Springer.
Negus, Keith/Pickering, Michael (2004): Creativity, Communication and Cultural Value,
London: Sage.
Negus, Keith/Street, John/Behr, Adam (2014): Digitisation and the Politics of Copying in
Popular Music Culture. Online: http://www.create.ac.uk/research-programme/theme-4/wp4c3digitisation-and-the-politics-of- copying-in-popular-music-culture/ (30.7.2014).
Peifer, Karl-Nikolaus (2008): Der Schutz des kreativen Menschen im Recht. Zwischen
Vermögens- und Entfaltungsschutz, in: Schmidinger, Heinrich/Sedmak , Clemenes (eds.):
Innovation – Kunst – Technik. Der Mensch – ein kreatives Wesen?, Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft: Darmstadt, pp. 87-99
Pelleter, Malte (2013): „Chop that record up!“ Zum Sampling als performative Medienpraxis,
in: Kleiner, Marcus S./Wilke, Thomas (eds.): Performativität und Medialität populärer
Kulturen. Theorien, Ästhetiken, Praktiken, Wiesbaden: Springer: pp. 391-414.
Pelleter, Malte/Lepa, Stefan (2007): ‚Sampling’ als kulturelle Praxis des HipHop, in: Bock,
Karin et al. (eds.): HipHop meets Academia. Globale Spuren eines lokalen Kulturphänomens,
Bielefeld: Transcript, pp. 199-214.
Pendzich, Marc (2004): Von der Coverversion zum Hitrecycling. Historische, ökonomische
und rechtliche Aspekte eines zentralen Phänomens.
Platzgumer, Hans/Neidhart, Didi (2012): Musik = Müll, Innsbruck: Limbus.
Polanyi, Michael (1962): The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory, in:
Minerva, Vol. 1, S. 54- 74.
Popitz, Heinrich (2000): Wege der Kreativität. 2., erweiterte Auflage, Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck.
Rammert, Werner (2010): Die Innovationen der Gesellschaft, in: Howaldt, Jürgen/Jacobsen,
Heike (eds.): Soziale Innovation. Auf dem Weg zu einem postindustriellen
Innovationsparadigma, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 21-52.
Reckwitz, Andreas (2012): Die Erfindung der Kreativität. Zum Prozess gesellschaftlicher
Ästhetisierung, Berlin: Suhrkamp.
Reier, Sebastian (2013): Das Ohr zur Welt. Virtuosen des Samplings: Die beiden dänischen
Musiker von Den Sorte Skole arbeiten rechtlich in einer Grauzone. Sie erzählen ein Abenteuer
in 10.000 Tonschnipseln, in: ZEIT Online, 11.10.2013, online:
http://blog.zeit.de/tontraeger/2013/10/11/den-sorte-skole_16824 (11.03.2014).
Reynolds, Simon (2012): Retromania. Warum Pop nicht von seiner Vergangenheit lassen kann,
Mainz: Ventil.
Rutter, Paul (2011): The Music Industry Handbook, London: Routledge.
Salagean, Emil (2008): Sampling im deutschen, schweizerischen und US-amerikanischem
Urheberrecht, Baden- Baden: Nomos.
Schloss, Joseph G. (2004): Making beats. The art of sample-based hip-hop, Middletown,
Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press.
Schuster, W. Michael (2013): Fair Use, Girl Talk, and Digital Sampling. An Empirical Study
16
of Music Sampling’s Effect on the Market for Copyrighted Works, Oklahoma Law Review.
Online: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2340235 (10.3.2014).
Simon, Jan (2005): HipHop Urheberrecht. Die Rechtssprechung beeinflusst die Kunst.
HipHop würde anders aussehen, wenn Sampling frei wäre. Vier Fälle, in: De:Bug 89, März
2005, pp. 56-7.
Stalder, Felix (2011): Nachahmung, Transformation und Autorfunktion, in: Kroeger, Odin et
al. (eds.): Geistiges Eigentum und Originalität. Zur Politik der Wissens- und
Kulturproduktion, Wien/Berlin: Turia+Kant, pp. 19-32.
Stegmaier, Peter (2009): Wissen, was Recht ist. Richterliche Rechtspraxis aus
wissenssoziologisch- ethnografischer Sicht, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Tschmuck, Peter (2012): Creativity and innovation in the music industry. Second Edition,
Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Uzzi, Brian/Spiro, Jarrett (2005): Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem, in:
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 111, Nr. 2, pp. 447-504.
Warneken, Bernd Jürgen (2006): Leitmotiv Kreativität, in: Warneken, Bernd Jürgen: Die
Ethnographie popularer Kulturen. Eine Einführung, Wien et al.: Böhlau, pp. 91-206.
Willis, Paul (1991): Jugend-Stile. Zur Ästhetik der gemeinsamen Kultur, Hamburg/Berlin:
Argument.
Williams, Raymond (1961): The Long Revolution, London: Penguin.
Woodmansee, Martha (1984): The genius and the copyright: Economic and legal conditions of
the emergence of the ‚author’, in: Eighteenth-Century Studies, Vol. 17, Nr. 4, pp. 425-48.
Discography
Den Sorte Skol: „Lektion III“, Not on Label/Eigenverlag, 2013.
Girl Talk: „All Day“, Illegal Art, 2010.
Heino „Mit freundlichen Grüßen (Das verbotene Album)“, Sony Music, 2013.
Sabrina Setlur „Nur Mir EP“, Pelham Power Productions 3p, 1997.
17
On the author
Georg Fischer, born 1986, studied sociology with a focus on science and technology studies.
In 2013 he graduated with a diploma thesis on „Creativity and innovation in the musical
culture of sampling” at the Technical Institute of Berlin. As an student assistant he worked for
the DFG funded graduate school „Innovation Society Today” and for the Max Planck
Institute for the History of Science, Berlin. In 2014 he began to work as a doctoral candidate
at Prof. Leonhard Dobusch’s chair for Organization Theory at the Free University Berlin.
Georg Fischer’s topic is the effect of the Urheberrecht on the creative production of music and
culture. Besides this, he is working as a DJ, music journalist and writes for the campaign
„Right to Remix” („Recht auf Remix“).
Links and Contact
http://jaegerundsampler.wordpress.com
https://twitter.com/jaeger_sampler
http://rechtaufremix.org
http://www.innovation.tu-berlin.de
https://soundcloud.com/ghostnotesberlin/sets/own-sets
Georg Fischer, Manteuffelstr. 6, 10997 Berlin (private)
[email protected]
+49 – 151 – 14 96 20 71
18