Wax, Twitch and Videos of Insects

I wrote most of this post before realizing I hadn’t actually explained what twitch is or how it works, and for a lot of people not into gaming or being online, it may be something new. Twitch is a live streaming platform, predominantly known for people streaming video games. More recently the site has also become a popular place for art, political content and IRL streams (which involve the streamer recording from out in the world). The easiest platform to compare twitch to is YouTube, which boasts around 2 billion users, Twitch though only has a modest 140 million average monthly users. Unlike YouTube, which has started to move into live streaming, twitch’s format is reversed, with live streaming being at the forefront, and recorded content being accessible but not the focus.

For people unfamiliar with Twitch it can be daunting to interact with, and maybe hard to see the appeal, it certainly took me a long to understand how I could enjoy the platform as a viewer, let alone a creator. My partner sometimes watches me streams and talks to me from the chat, she has never used twitch before but is super supportive, she’s likened the experience to having a nice low effort podcast on in the background, but one you can interact with in real time. This is really the selling point of twitch, and how people monetize the platform, with each streamer basically being in control of their own schedule and programing. ‘Chatters’ as the audience is commonly referred to on twitch have a direct line to the streamer, and a whole array of options to donate and support them. For some bigger streamers a donation or subscription becomes necessary to interact with the streamer and have your message stand out, though this meta is always evolving as attitudes change, along with the interface of the site itself.

Each streamers goal really is to create a community under themselves, to support their stream, and create an ecosystem of viewers who will create content and reinforce the stream. This is just a basic rundown of how twitch works though, I think to explain deeper we would have to get into the dynamics of para-social relationships, but that’s not really what this post is about. If you want to learn more about these relationships there is a great video by Shannon Strucci that gives a brief introduction to the concept.


At the start of the first lockdown, I decided to give becoming a twitch streamer a go. It was a chaotic time, and a lot of the conversation surrounding lockdown revolved around how best to use this time, and how you could maximize your output with a totally free schedule. I started streaming painting, I had a plan all laid out, I would paint on stream and turn the streams into time lapse videos, creating a pipeline of content I could use to help grow my online presence. It didn’t last long, I remember doing about 5 streams before my mental health rapidly started to deteriorate from the stress of lockdown.

Time-lapse from my 2020 stream

Something was missing in my first foray into twitch and live streaming. While I had thought a lot about how I would use the content and what I would create on stream, I hadn’t thought about how this process could be enjoyable to me. Something that has become clear to me over this last few months of streaming, is that unless the process is fun for me, there isn’t any point in doing it.

My most recent dip into the twitch ecosystem has been more relaxed, and with less pressure for it to be productive. There are a lot of nice thing’s I would like to get out of streaming, but I’m worried speaking them out loud might scare them away. At the moment with each stream I’m reacting to how the last one felt for me. An example, in my first few streams, if there was no one in the chat, I got really bored, so I put music on! But then parts of my audio kept getting muted due to copyright, so then instead I put on some interesting YouTube videos, not only for me, but for everyone watching. Now I’m getting overwhelmed by media when I stream, so things are changing again. The key point is that the streams serve my enjoyment first, the audience second, and my practice third.

Here is a VOD (video on demand) from one of my latest wax streams, I wouldn’t recommend watching the whole thing, from memory it was pretty dull, but it gives an idea of the kind of content I’ve been streaming. It’s not obvious from a cursory glace, but the whole process of creating publicly changes how I make work. This happens in two ways, the first being from the instant feedback of people in chat, usually I will make something and post it, trying to gauge how people are feeling about what I’m making. The second is that I’m constantly consuming content on stream, this wouldn’t usually affect my work, as like most millennials I surround myself with media and screens at all times, but when streaming I feel the need to interact with the media so much more for the audiences sake, and this bleeds more and more into what I’m currently making.

Currently this practice of streaming what I’m working on heavily revolves around projects done for my degree, though after this semester I’ll have to figure out what’s going and what’s staying. In keeping with the ethos I’ve laid out above, it will really come down to what is enjoyable for me to create on stream, but it would by unfair to myself not to consider how the content translate through an online platform. Something I notice when I see other creatives who present work made through traditional methods on digital platforms, is that they have trouble communicating exactly what is interesting about what they are doing. I know as someone who paints the joy of applying paint to canvas, the subtle sounds, and seeing the work emerge, but translating that experience to an audience is a difficult task. In my streams I’m trying to capture wax work, which is quite hard to do without a lot of great equipment and a versatile setup. The odds of wax work being a staple of my streaming moving foreword is low, but sculpture as a medium for stream holds a lot of potential; the immediacy of clay and other malleable mediums means a lot of room for bombastic motions and spontaneous creation.

Two wax’s made during a recent early morning stream

Looking back on this last month of streaming, I definitely see it as a valuable addition to my practice, not only for the work it’s produced but for the archiving and community aspects. For the moment my main goal with streaming is to be consistent, I think a lot of people drop out of these projects because they don’t see results fast enough. I truly believe the people that are most successful in any industry, besides the lucky few, are just the people who stick around.

Fair use? Fair Dealing? Fair Enough!

click here for an audio reading of this post!

One of the largest concerns I faced while working through this latest collage project, and really it’s a concern I’ve had whenever I’ve worked with collage. What are the moral implications of using images that I didn’t create? I didn’t make the images I cut out, and I don’t have any copyright to them, so how can I justify using them?

I’ve listened to a lot of discussion surrounding this over the years, but mostly in the context of YouTube’s fair use policy, and it’s effect on creators. Specifically there was a fairly public dispute between Matt Hosseinzadeh (Matt Hoss), and Ethan and Hila Klien [1]. The Klien’s ran a popular YouTube channel, called H3H3, which produced satirical content, poking fun at others on the YouTube platform. After a releasing a few videos on Hoss, who ran his own channel producing short films, with himself as the lead, he filed a lawsuit against the Kliens. This was a lengthy saga, and stirred up a lot of conversation on what exactly constitutes fair use, and how exactly parody and satire function.

I should mention this all happened in America, where the law governing copyright is called “fair use”, which is a different system to what we have in place in Australia.

Ultimately the Kliens won the lawsuit, but it was a long and arduous journey, which clearly took it’s tole on the two of them. They won the case after the courts applied a four step analysis, this is the process used to determine if a work that contains the work of another is appropriate. [2]

Factor 1: The conditions of use
This step identifies how the material is being presented in this new work

  • In the context of someone criticizing or commenting on the original work
  • For the purpose of reporting, researching, teaching or in the context of a scholarship

If any of these factors are satisfied, It bodes well for fair use to be found. Often courts will use the term “transformative,” which asks if the work takes on new life, instead of being merely a reproduction of the original material.

Factor 2: Nature of the work
As best I could determine, this step aims to identify the nature of the original material, in order to determine how the fair use rules apply. So typically, creative works are often given heavier weighting towards the copyright holder, as opposed to non fiction materials.

Factor 3: Amount of original material used
This factor loops back to the idea of a work being transformative. Generally speaking, the less of the original material you use, the better the case for fair use. But context is also important, such as in the Klien case, this factor ruled in the Klien’s favor, as the court found they only used enough material as to accurately criticize the original material. Time is not the only factor, but also resolution of image, or any factor regarding how recognizable it is.

Factor 4: Does the new work diminish the value of the original material
This is the most complex of the factors, as what determines value can be hard to determine. In cases where the new work is commercial in nature, this can be made simpler, as value can be deemed as income gained. But if it has a different purpose than the original material, or operates in a different market, things again become unclear.

So that’s fair use, and It was, up until writing this very post, what I thought my works would be judged against. But it turns out we operate under a different law in Australia, called Fair Dealing.

Fair Dealing works in a similar way to fair use, but is considered to be more restrictive on what is an acceptable use of copyrighted works. Even if you’re work falls under the categories defined above, there are often extra conditions that muse be satisfied. In the case of criticism, where you must site the original authors and the name of their work. While using literary texts, even for research and scholarship purposes, there are limits on how much you can use before it falls outside of fair dealing. [3]

The Australian Society of Authors actually thinks very highly of Fair Dealing, and is worried about the Australian governments apparent desire to import Fair Use. Fair dealing gives greater protection to the original copyright holders, and as the laws are more restrictive, results in lower legal fees when it comes to protecting your own works [4]. I can completely understand this perspective, and it would feel dishonest arguing against it, solely because fair use would benefit me in my practice. Though I don’t think anyone could argue, that in a modern world of YouTubes and TikToks, that a legal code written in 1968 really cuts it anymore.

So what does this all mean for me and my work?

I have no idea

the end.

Nah, but actually this system seems so complicated, it feels like some insurmountable obstacle to sort through what is appropriate and what isn’t. But as a jumping off point, from what I’ve read, my collage work is most likely to fall under the satire / parody provision of fair dealing. Though this does in it’s own way present problems. For starters, satire is not the central driving point of my work, though it is a part of it. Does this mean I have to play up the satirical element? Can I only use these images in my art if I’m making fun of or criticizing them? Can’t I make work as a love letter to the printed image?

Not to mention my complete lack of book keeping when it comes to image sourcing!

For the moment, and probably foreseeable future, I’m just going to keep expanding my practice, and following my own moral compass for what seems appropriate. I very much like to think my work is transformative! But a jury of my peers may not agree.

References

  1. Matt Hosseinzadeh v. Ethan Klein and Hila Klein
  2. “Fair Use”, Columbia University Libraries
  3. “Fair Dealing and Fair Use: How Australian Copyright Differs from the USA”, Lawpath.com.au
  4. “Fair Use”, Australian Society of Authors