Ami vs. Enigma

The terms of "fair use" are, to this day, far too vague to provide any sturdy ground on which to stand in cases such as Ami vs. Enigma. Realistically, there are far too many different possible circumstances concerning infringement of this sort for there to be any specific law to govern it all. Countless issues similar to the Ami vs. Enigma case have arisen, "fair use" being the main topic of debate. The issue arises from the fact that"fair use" is not always objectively fair. While the rights to the recording of "Palang" may fall under fair use (EMI Records paid the Chinese Folk Art Foundation a settlement of $1,500), it certainly does not seem fair to widely distribute the voices of Kuo Hsiu-chu and Kuo Ying-nan and subsequently give them no credit. Mainly, Kuo simply wanted recognition that the voice being heard was that of an Ami tribesman in order to raise awareness of the Ami culture. Already fading out slowly, Kuo feared failure to receive recognition could lead to the end of certain parts of their culture.
There is a benefit to all of this, however, even through the conflict. Enigma's song being the theme for the 1996 Summer Olympics meant millions of ears were hearing the Kuo's. Their native Ami song was distributed across the globe. Even if Kuo was not recognized as the singer, there is still something positive to be found in the "mashing up" of East and West culture on a global level.