IMO.

The argument that “the Christian religion has done X, therefore this is fair game” is completely irrelevant. It’s not being rude to the Christian religion, it’s being rude to one person, and apparently a very nice person at that.

Moreover, by posting the remix, you’ve encouraged him to remove some of his work from the commons, and probably chilled him from contributing in the future. If the guy was offensive or a jerk, I’d consider that a plus. As it is, I think it’s a terrible outcome, and not in keeping with the spirit of remix culture.

It appears you have every right to do what you did in accordance with ccmixter rules. The artist has no reason to expect his work not to be modified in this way. It’s impossible to know what will happen with anything we post to the internet and we should all be prepared for such repercussions.

It’s a pretty cool remix, too.

However, I can’t help but think about how I personally would feel hearing my voice saying things completely contrary to what I believe. Even if it was made clear that it was modified. For instance, if someone made me sound anti-gay or racist. Ouch. The fact that the artist was so rational and gracious about your work and that he removed his original content to prevent future use in this manner would make me lean toward removing your work. If he’d been a jerk, I’d be much less inclined.

On a personal note, the cynic in me finds this to be hilarious.

Cheers!

That said, I don’t see (correct me if I am wrong) a link to the original artist, which I would include (unless the site deems this unnecessary, I suppose, though I still might).

There was a link to his site/original vocals, but because he removed the original vocals, it automatically removed the “Uses samples from:” link.

But if someone else is singing it, all’s fair. Who hasn’t sung reworked holiday songs?

I don’t know what the license agreements on that site are, but it seems to be at least an implied license to do whatever you want. He didn’t have to put it there. If the site use agreement says something like “if you upload, you give license to anyone to modify provided they don’t change the original intent” then you’d be in trouble, but I can’t imagine anyone making an agreement like that for a general artistic site.

First let me say , from a re-mixers point of view your mix is very creative and good.

While we all have our various opinions on religion and our belief and or disbelief’s, we are offended by your remix. Maybe it wasn’t such a good ideal to upload a Christian Hip Hop track to this site. I guess we take a chance when up loading any thing on the net. We never know what direction it’s going to go.

While I ( J. Lang ) have up loaded and remixed many different styles, including material deemed offensive. I don’t think i have ever change the artist original message.

I’m not saying what you did was wrong, i just don’t agree with it.

With that in mind i have removed the Believe it or not pella.

(Some background: The song contains a couple loops of someone chanting “Christianity is stupid!” and “Communism is good!” The original context for these samples was from a movie called “If Footmen Tire You, What Will Horsemen Do?” (or something to that effect) which warned that if we don’t praise JAYSUS and fight off the evil commies, we’d be forced into labor camps with those things echoing from loudspeakers constantly.)

An amusing reversal, and it probably pissed off the original creator of the work… which is what Negativland seems to excel at.

Back on topic, I’d say when in doubt, you should ask the original artist. Granted, they’ll probably say “no” in such a case, but that’s just how it goes. As for the legal ramifications, I’m not clear on how sampling/parody works, so I’ll just stop blathering now.

Travis may choose to inform the artist he sampled from, but he is not obligated to do so. However, I do not think he is obligated to remove the song if the first artist dislikes it. After all, in this case, the artist put up the song with the intention of allowing free mixing. The case would be different if Travis took a song from another site, or hacked someone’s computer and took a private file and remixed it. If he were making money from the song (let’s say he is the actual band Travis, and he is sampling from Michael W Smith) then I could see an argument that he should offer some part of the profits to the person he is sampling from, who could choose to accept or reject those profits. I am guessing he is not making profits.

That said, I don’t see (correct me if I am wrong) a link to the original artist, which I would include (unless the site deems this unnecessary, I suppose, though I still might).

A better question: Is it unethical to try to get more hits and comments on your song by posing an ethical question to an atheist blog? Inquiring minds want to know.