Randomness Abounds
I am well aware of the fact that it is five in the morning. I am also well aware of the fact that I have to get up at nine thirty. But I have a random thought/question that seems to be somehow plaguing me, poking me in the ribs to be thought through, and writing it down seems to be the only way to do that. So, here it goes.
I have lately been confronted, on an unusually high number of occasions, with the concept of homage poetry: poems written with a similar form, structure, tone, or even basic idea as another poem written by a great, popular, or personal favorite poet. In trying this concept for myself, I fell upon "You're" by Sylvia Plath and decided to write a poem for her and also for another regular, earthly human being for whom I care a great deal. I did so, and have found that, while I used entirely different language, and while my poem was about a friend (as compared to Sylvia's version being about, I think, her son), Plath's style seemed to run rampant throughout the relatively short work of poetry.
I wondered aloud to myself, "Is it just me, or does this feel like plagiarism?" I squashed that thought immediately, having, frankly, offended myself by even suggesting that anyone would be so heartless as to attempt a crime such as this against someone so dear and wonderful and brilliant. And I proceeded to include a note at the top, clearly stating that this was meant as a token of respect, albeit small, to one of my favorite artists, so as to avoid such a thought from creeping up on anyone else. I thought this conversation with myself would be over, never to surface again, but alas, it has come back with a vengeance. Where is that ever elusive line between kudos and counterfeiting? It is certainly not a thick, black mark with barbed wire on each side, but, I wonder, when you get down to it, is it possible for there really to be any sort of separation at all? I feel as though there is not.
I should warn you, I'm about to make a Pop Culture reference that is, honestly, as far from a good representation of my tastes as law and physics will allow but, nevertheless, it is the only example in recent history that comes to mind. A while back, as some of you may recall, Jenifer Lopez put out a music video for a song who's name escapes me at the moment, that clearly mimicked the plot of the 80s flick "Flashdance". It was riddled with images, costuming, even camera angles that undoubtedly had been modeled after (if not blatantly copied) from the original movie. Naturally, the writers of this fine film were insistent on raising a broohahah about the whole thing, and threatened to sue Ms. Lopez's fat ass from here till Thursday if she didn't take it out of the running (or, most likely, share some of the loot accumulated along the way, if one can even really accumulate any sort of said "loot" at all in the music video business).
Needless to say, that music video is no longer on the air, at least not to my (obviously boundless) knowledge. This is not meant in any way to be an essay on the merits of poorly written, homogonized latin pop (or for that matter 80s movies in general), but I feel that this sequence of events is vaguely tragic. I say, hip hip hooray J-Lo. Hazah to you and yours for choosing to express your artistic passions in a genre overflowing with half-naked women shaking their posteriors in public places for no apparent reason. Frankly, it is a travesty that this woman was so brutally crucified for paying tribute to "Flashdance" in all its glory. Maybe Jenifer relates to a half welder/half ballerina with a knack for taking off her bra in front of a relative stranger without breeching obscenity. And what could possibly be wrong with displaying your admiration for someone's work. The writers, directors, producers should all be thrilled.
As for the legal aspects, I could understand taking action if someone had come out with a movie in recent date with the same themes, music, and a similar script, trying to pass if off as original work. THAT would be copying. I don't know if you all have had the pleasure (and I use that word loosely) of viewing this music video, but, to be perfectly honest, there is no way in all of heaven and hell that anyone in their right mind could think Jenifer Lopez and "her people" were attempting in any way to make this music video seem like an original concept. You would have to be blind, retarded, or tripping off acid (more likely, all three) in order to not see this video and go, "Oh, that's just like Flashdance!" So, it is my humble opinion that the video, in and of itself, is a Works Cited page, stating clearly who is responsible for the impetus and imagery. No one with half a brain would see it and say, "Wow, J-Lo is so original and talented." (By the way, did that last phrase hurt as much to read as it did to write?)
It is not to say that anyone can go around remaking films and songs and poems exactly like the work of others without paying a bit of penance. But, after seeing that music video, I personally had a nagging desire to go watch "Flashdance", so therefore, the music video could be somewhat construed as advertisement. Maybe the "Flashdance" people should be paying Jenifer Lopez! Secondly, the music video is clearly a different genre than the original film, so it seems to me that this could be related in a way to a person quoting a book in a movie, or vice versa. Is this something we need to be paying rights for? And if so, than doesn't that also apply to quotes made in conversation? Do I need to send Kurt Vonnegut a nickel every time I say "So it goes"?? Not to mention, if I say something in most definitly not my own words (such as "Free at last, free at last, thank God almight, I'm free at last") in a poem, will I be sued for all I'm worth if I don't inlude a byline or a footnote stating the publishing information? If so, I am afraid my getting a book of poetry printed would be more trouble than it is likely worth.
In essence, all I am trying to say is that, obviously J-Lo's lawyers thought the "Flashdance" people had a case. But I disagree. So, how can one really say what is plagiarism and what is not? If me and J-Lo's lawyers (who, I'm sure, are glorious people) can't agree, than who can? How can anyone at all really say where that between props and cheating lies? How, people? HOW??
Insert exhausted sigh here. I'm rambling. I'm tired. I'm going to bed.
I have lately been confronted, on an unusually high number of occasions, with the concept of homage poetry: poems written with a similar form, structure, tone, or even basic idea as another poem written by a great, popular, or personal favorite poet. In trying this concept for myself, I fell upon "You're" by Sylvia Plath and decided to write a poem for her and also for another regular, earthly human being for whom I care a great deal. I did so, and have found that, while I used entirely different language, and while my poem was about a friend (as compared to Sylvia's version being about, I think, her son), Plath's style seemed to run rampant throughout the relatively short work of poetry.
I wondered aloud to myself, "Is it just me, or does this feel like plagiarism?" I squashed that thought immediately, having, frankly, offended myself by even suggesting that anyone would be so heartless as to attempt a crime such as this against someone so dear and wonderful and brilliant. And I proceeded to include a note at the top, clearly stating that this was meant as a token of respect, albeit small, to one of my favorite artists, so as to avoid such a thought from creeping up on anyone else. I thought this conversation with myself would be over, never to surface again, but alas, it has come back with a vengeance. Where is that ever elusive line between kudos and counterfeiting? It is certainly not a thick, black mark with barbed wire on each side, but, I wonder, when you get down to it, is it possible for there really to be any sort of separation at all? I feel as though there is not.
I should warn you, I'm about to make a Pop Culture reference that is, honestly, as far from a good representation of my tastes as law and physics will allow but, nevertheless, it is the only example in recent history that comes to mind. A while back, as some of you may recall, Jenifer Lopez put out a music video for a song who's name escapes me at the moment, that clearly mimicked the plot of the 80s flick "Flashdance". It was riddled with images, costuming, even camera angles that undoubtedly had been modeled after (if not blatantly copied) from the original movie. Naturally, the writers of this fine film were insistent on raising a broohahah about the whole thing, and threatened to sue Ms. Lopez's fat ass from here till Thursday if she didn't take it out of the running (or, most likely, share some of the loot accumulated along the way, if one can even really accumulate any sort of said "loot" at all in the music video business).
Needless to say, that music video is no longer on the air, at least not to my (obviously boundless) knowledge. This is not meant in any way to be an essay on the merits of poorly written, homogonized latin pop (or for that matter 80s movies in general), but I feel that this sequence of events is vaguely tragic. I say, hip hip hooray J-Lo. Hazah to you and yours for choosing to express your artistic passions in a genre overflowing with half-naked women shaking their posteriors in public places for no apparent reason. Frankly, it is a travesty that this woman was so brutally crucified for paying tribute to "Flashdance" in all its glory. Maybe Jenifer relates to a half welder/half ballerina with a knack for taking off her bra in front of a relative stranger without breeching obscenity. And what could possibly be wrong with displaying your admiration for someone's work. The writers, directors, producers should all be thrilled.
As for the legal aspects, I could understand taking action if someone had come out with a movie in recent date with the same themes, music, and a similar script, trying to pass if off as original work. THAT would be copying. I don't know if you all have had the pleasure (and I use that word loosely) of viewing this music video, but, to be perfectly honest, there is no way in all of heaven and hell that anyone in their right mind could think Jenifer Lopez and "her people" were attempting in any way to make this music video seem like an original concept. You would have to be blind, retarded, or tripping off acid (more likely, all three) in order to not see this video and go, "Oh, that's just like Flashdance!" So, it is my humble opinion that the video, in and of itself, is a Works Cited page, stating clearly who is responsible for the impetus and imagery. No one with half a brain would see it and say, "Wow, J-Lo is so original and talented." (By the way, did that last phrase hurt as much to read as it did to write?)
It is not to say that anyone can go around remaking films and songs and poems exactly like the work of others without paying a bit of penance. But, after seeing that music video, I personally had a nagging desire to go watch "Flashdance", so therefore, the music video could be somewhat construed as advertisement. Maybe the "Flashdance" people should be paying Jenifer Lopez! Secondly, the music video is clearly a different genre than the original film, so it seems to me that this could be related in a way to a person quoting a book in a movie, or vice versa. Is this something we need to be paying rights for? And if so, than doesn't that also apply to quotes made in conversation? Do I need to send Kurt Vonnegut a nickel every time I say "So it goes"?? Not to mention, if I say something in most definitly not my own words (such as "Free at last, free at last, thank God almight, I'm free at last") in a poem, will I be sued for all I'm worth if I don't inlude a byline or a footnote stating the publishing information? If so, I am afraid my getting a book of poetry printed would be more trouble than it is likely worth.
In essence, all I am trying to say is that, obviously J-Lo's lawyers thought the "Flashdance" people had a case. But I disagree. So, how can one really say what is plagiarism and what is not? If me and J-Lo's lawyers (who, I'm sure, are glorious people) can't agree, than who can? How can anyone at all really say where that between props and cheating lies? How, people? HOW??
Insert exhausted sigh here. I'm rambling. I'm tired. I'm going to bed.