I’m going to bring a little get-off-my-lawn energy to this.
There’s a big difference between creating new value from existing IP and creating new foundational IP. A remix can contain original, protectable expression, but it doesn’t somehow sever itself from the work it depends on.
That distinction gets even more important as the argument moves from sampling to UGC to generative AI. “Remix-friendly” can be a very good business model. But it still requires someone to decide what can be used, on what terms, and who participates in the economics.
So yes, DJ culture offers a useful precedent for extending IP. I’m less convinced it offers a playbook for redefining it.
I'm fuzzy on the legalities, but an official remix also usually means the owners of the original tracks get compensated, right? Meanwhile, an AI "remix" of The Godfather from Kay's POV would presumably get sued into oblivion by Paramount. I'm all for innovation, mashups, and good faith sampling to make something new, but I don't know that remix culture and AI theft are a great apples to apples comparison when it comes to artists consenting to and benefiting from the creation of derivative works.
Yes, and that’s exactly why I think the DJ analogy breaks down when Camarda moves from licensed remix culture to AI. The remix model works because the underlying rights remain intact and the economics can be shared. AI training and generation often start by collapsing that distinction.
I’m going to bring a little get-off-my-lawn energy to this.
There’s a big difference between creating new value from existing IP and creating new foundational IP. A remix can contain original, protectable expression, but it doesn’t somehow sever itself from the work it depends on.
That distinction gets even more important as the argument moves from sampling to UGC to generative AI. “Remix-friendly” can be a very good business model. But it still requires someone to decide what can be used, on what terms, and who participates in the economics.
So yes, DJ culture offers a useful precedent for extending IP. I’m less convinced it offers a playbook for redefining it.
I'm fuzzy on the legalities, but an official remix also usually means the owners of the original tracks get compensated, right? Meanwhile, an AI "remix" of The Godfather from Kay's POV would presumably get sued into oblivion by Paramount. I'm all for innovation, mashups, and good faith sampling to make something new, but I don't know that remix culture and AI theft are a great apples to apples comparison when it comes to artists consenting to and benefiting from the creation of derivative works.
Yes, and that’s exactly why I think the DJ analogy breaks down when Camarda moves from licensed remix culture to AI. The remix model works because the underlying rights remain intact and the economics can be shared. AI training and generation often start by collapsing that distinction.