Copyright laws have been around since the 18th century, establishing whose original ideas are whose, and haven hardly changed since. Without laws of copyright infringement, the creative world would be in chaos. But when really thinking about how these laws shape artistic appropriation, there isn't much of a noticeable impact. A lot of the new ideas in today's society are merely innovations of old ideas. One example of this innovation is from the music industry, a case that involves one band, Negativland, using samples from the extremely well known band U2. "I Still Haven't Found What I"m Looking For" was U2's song that Negativland sampled off of. Because of Negativland's failure to ask permission before using that song, U2's record company sued. Countless cases end up like this one, but so many more are being overlooked. Sampling music has spread worldwide and is now widely available over the Internet. This sharing process allows people to hear a song, liking it or not, and lets them put their own twists in it, using technology available today. Creative expression of this magnitude has never been possible until now, but people are still against it because of the copyright laws. Although some argue that artistic appropriation is wrong because they believe it lacks originality, I would argue that it is the innovation of older things making it an original idea.
In regards to the Negativland and U2 copyright infringement case, many people either believe that it is stealing an idea, but other people believe it is just an innovation of an old idea. This case involves U2's record company suing Negativland because there was no permission asked when they used U2's song, "I Still Haven't Found What I"m Looking For". This and the fact that Negativland put their album out for sale is the main cause for concern. But Island Records, U2's record company, used other reasons as to why they sued. These reasons are what put this case up in the air for many people.
