Brilliant editing and subject.

Well done!

this is awesome!

My nature is to feel somewhat defensive, as Mr. Plympton does. Having Plympton's comments as balance here, however, serves Ms. Paley's position well. Nicely done doc.

this was totally inspiring.

corporations should stop lookin forward getting complicated systems to make people lots of money to apreciate art.-

what u did is remarkable.

as a future designer marine, you are my hero.
lots of love from Buenos Aires

She's free to give her own art away. She's not free to take copyrighted material from those who own it. It's as simple as that.

She's very talented, and I wish her well. But she's 100% wrong in saying copying and distributing other's art without providing the established or otherwise agreed upon level of compensation is not theft. I'm troubled by this notion that someone who wants something that belongs to someone else should be able to just take it, and I have yet to hear even marginally convincing rationales to make me feel otherwise. I do agree with some of the proposed changes I've heard regarding copyright law, but artists especially should be on guard.

In this case, a key point for me is this. Ms Paley is clearly a gifted artist, and when she desires to utilize the creations of others in her own work, she also becomes a consumer. She has the responsibility to compensate the holders of the copyright for any creation she desires to consume. And she certainly has no right to distribute the creative fruits of others without first coming to an agreement with the copyright holders. To do so is, quite simply, theft.

Marine, hola!
Soy Kike, desde los madriles...
¿Cómo estás?
Guau, me ha encantado el docu!
Voy a moverlo para que lo vea la peña...
Un beso.

One can't just assert that copying digital media without trying to sell it on afterwards is theft. In practical terms most digital media is infinitely copyable at no cost or harm to the original copy. If you had any other product that did the same thing noone would be expected to pay you for owning or creating the original. Maybe it's us as filmmakers who have to deal with this reality instead of hounding governments to pass draconian internet copyright laws.

Interesting question time: What's your definition of Capitalism? Surely it includes the strictly for-profit, copyright-protected activity of Bill Plympton. But does it also include the Creative Commons world of Nina Paley? What's more capitalistic? What's more free (as in speech, not as in beer)? It might be that what Nina does is MORE in keeping with a free society that allows a free market than the previous scarcity-based model.

Marine, great little video! Felt sad about you and your husband. Worse, though, you have Sonny Bono to thank for the fact that you had copyright issues on old music. Yet another sad case of the Hollywood elite having the WRONG effect on Federal officials: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

Ewan, the medium is of little importance. Painters don't sell canvases. Photographers don't sell silver halides and dyes. And videographers don't sell electrons. It's all about the ideas given life in each of those media. If someone is so moved by the ideas given life by another artist that they wish to use a copy of the original work, the original artist needs to be dealt with. I may agree that the market for a given work of art may or may not be compromised by distribution by a third party. But ultimately, that is and should be up to the copyright holder.

Rick, I wholly support anyone who wishes to give away their art. I should have been more clear. My issue is with the ideas illustrated in her song (toward the end of the video) about how others should not have their copyrights protected. Also, I find the stance that Nina Paley takes when stating she welcomes people copying her work a little confusing given that she excludes any commercial presentation. She says she welcomes all exposure, but makes this one odd exception. Is her stance mainly against money? That too would have a certain nobility I guess. Just leaves me a little confused.

Anyhow, I support her use of Creative Commons. And I support others' copyrights. My only concern here is the idea that copyright holders should have the decisions about the distribution of their creative fruits made by others. And I don't know what's so draconian about copyright laws (as stated by Ewan). It's just a song, after all. Songs are written every day. But Ms Paley wants THAT song. Cool! Come to an agreement with the copyright holder. Otherwise, she should write her own song. If the song she wanted for the film is over-priced, surely an even better song could be written for a fraction of the cost. And the value of that song can be compared to the original song Ms Paley desired. So in that sense, protecting the copyrights of the original song ensures that the talented people today writing songs can make a living. If we could just nick songs at will, who would bother hiring musicians for new projects? Very few. Point is, the value of an artist's work is properly determined by the copyright holder (be that the artist or a party who has compensated the artist for future copyrights).

David, if Sonny Bono's songs are over-priced, write your own or pay someone else to write one. Frankly, I'd pay to NOT hear his music again : )

Without copyright protection for old songs, new song writers would all be unemployed. Without copyright protection, creating art would be even more of a grind than it is today. That is why I stated in my first post I believe artists especially should be on guard when it comes to protecting copyrights.

I really enjoyed this little profile. Brings up some interesting issues on copyright.
The sad fact is, laws in place are against piracy, and as a result of this, fair use of content for artistic purposes, be it music in film such as here, or showcasing clips, is subject to the same regulations.
It's one thing to expect people to pay to consume a product, at the very least for the sake of the artist, and another to penalise other artists for what is more often than not, extremely limited use of the piece in their own work. Copyright as protection, is supposed to prevent other people from profiting from your work. But in other circumstances, any exposure surely only serves to proliferate the consumption of that piece of work and therefore protects the flow of income. I can't say how many times i've heard a song in a film or commercial and wondered who it was, researched, tracked it down and subsequently purchased for myself said piece of music after discovering the album it was on, so to think that not only is money being made from consumption from all channels, but that the people who help to create that awareness of other pieces of work are basically paying to make the other guy money ($220,000 for an obscure artist, who is now a bit more known as a result which could no doubt lead to more money for the rights holders!) seems a bit unfair.
I understand the purpose of it, and as an artist myself I appreciate its presence, but in certain cases, there should be some sort of compromise I think... thanks for sharing, and now i'm going to track down Sita sings the blues!

@Giorgio - "Also, I find the stance that Nina Paley takes when stating she welcomes people copying her work a little confusing given that she excludes any commercial presentation."

I don't exclude commercial presentation , I encourage it. Where did you get the idea I put non-commercial restrictions on the film? I use a CC-SA (Copyleft) license.

Nina,
My bad. What's odd is when I previously looked into the licensing, I found a Creative Commons prohibition on commercial use. I had not realized that Creative Commons has prohibitions on some licenses and not on others.

I'm curious as to your thoughts on the points of my posts. As stated, I completely support artists giving away their fruits if they wish. Do you support others deciding to maintain "traditional" copyright protection should they desire it? And do you agree that the essence of a work of art is not the electrons organized to display it, rather the ideas and the effort taken to animate those ideas? And if so, how do you propose allowing artists to maintain market protection for their specific creations (if they want to)? As I see it, distributing someone else's art (with electrons or otherwise) without coming to an agreement with the copyright holder, is an exercise that threatens the livelihoods of creative people. Your thoughts?

Here's my Official Position on Copyright:
blog.ninapaley.com/2009/03/18/my-official-position-on-copyright/

Everything & everyone is "inspired" by what has gone before. The idea that "copyright" becomes a "thing in itself", ie a transferable right, extending beyond the artist's life is ultimately the ownership of culture. Is that where "we" want to go? I think of people who took native designs and got them covered by "copyright"... and about the USA "buying" Alaska from the Russians. This is simply another version of (to take liberties with Vince Lombardi's pronouncement) "monetization isn't Everything; it's the ONLY thing". Bullshit. It's "corporate personhood" being utilized to manipulate the creativity of others, for the enrichment of people whose creative drive rests in creating securities that are unintelligible- even to some of their peers- but that are "legal"-- as "legal" as the purchase of "Louisiana" or "Alaska" was.
The Law has to be based in words... the "letter" of the Law. But if the Spirit of the Law is violated, then the Law in question is doomed (but not, unfortunately, until the "spirit" of a great many otherwise moral beings is trammeled). ^..^

Giorgio: I am disturbed by this comment in particular:

"David, if Sonny Bono's songs are over-priced, write your own or pay someone else to write one. Frankly, I'd pay to NOT hear his music again : )

Without copyright protection for old songs, new song writers would all be unemployed. Without copyright protection, creating art would be even more of a grind than it is today. That is why I stated in my first post I believe artists especially should be on guard when it comes to protecting copyrights."

The entire purpose of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was to retard the passing of new works into the Public Domain by 20 years. Copyright terms have been extended repeatedly in the past 40 years. Are you seriously against the idea of the Public Domain? Do you seriously believe that copyright should be forever?

If so, that is serious folly. If the legend of Faust were copyrighted, Goethe would need to secure permission for his masterpiece. Also, James Joyce would have needed to secure permission from a hypothetical estate of Homer for Ulysses. And you can forget about West Side Story, whose creators would probably have been sued by the estate of Shakespeare.

Also, don't forget what the purpose of copyright is in the constitution: it's to "promote the progress of useful arts and sciences". If it means here preventing such works to be created, then copyright as it is is not a mechanism of progress, but a brake thereon.

I am not one of those people who is suggesting an abolition of copyright. Not in the least. But I do think lawmakers should realize that copyright is supposed to be a utilitarian proposition and not an ethical one.