Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship The Internet United States

Parody or Satire? Threat To Sue JibJab 710

The Importance of writes "Internet multimedia producers JibJab have been getting a lot of attention recently for their version of Woody Guthrie's "This Land is Your Land" that pokes fun at Bush, Kerry and America in general. Now, JibJab is being threatened with a copyright lawsuit by the rights holders. They've already contacted EFF and there is an ongoing debate about whether the flash animation is protected parody or infringing satire."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Parody or Satire? Threat To Sue JibJab

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Precedents? (Score:4, Informative)

    by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepples.gmail@com> on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @07:05PM (#9816929) Homepage Journal

    What does someone like Weird Al Yankovich do? Does he pay the copyright holders for the songs he parodies?

    Yes [weirdal.com].

  • by bfields ( 66644 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @07:06PM (#9816947) Homepage
    From www.woodyguthrie.com [woodyguthrie.com], quoting Pete Seeger:
    When Woody Guthrie was singing hillbilly songs on a little Los Angeles radio station in the late 1930s, he used to mail out a small mimeographed songbook to listeners who wanted the words to his songs, On the bottom of one page appeared the following: "This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do." W.G.

    Whoever wound up with the rights to his music has, I suspect, a rather different view of things.

    --Bruce Fields

  • by DavidBrown ( 177261 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @07:10PM (#9816982) Journal
    I've seen Jib-Jab's song, which is a very clever and well-done piece of bipartisan fun. The problem though, is that parody can't use an entire work - either all the words or all the melody or both. Appropriating the entire song and changing some of the lyrics goes beyond the normal bounds of fair use. It's why Weird Al Yankovic gets the copyright holder's permission before publishing his parody songs, and it's why Mad Magazine sets limits to the song parodys it publishes.

    Of course, the present copyright holders of "This Land is Our Land" are still being dickheads.

  • Re:Threats? (Score:3, Informative)

    by casuist99 ( 263701 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @07:18PM (#9817061) Homepage Journal
    If you're going to watch it anyway, why not just "wget http://images2.shockwave.com/afassets/flash/this_l and.swf" (removing the spaces) and actually save it to your HD so you have it later and don't have to download it every time you watch it or show it to people? It's just the same amount of load on the server in the beginning, but it's more convenient later.
  • Re:Precedents? (Score:5, Informative)

    by SoCalChris ( 573049 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @07:19PM (#9817069) Journal
    Reread the page you linked to. It doesn't say anywhere that he pays the copyright holders. It only says that he voluntarily asks for permission from the original artist before doing a parody.

    Does Al get permission to do his parodies?

    Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies. While the law supports his ability to parody without permission, he feels it's important to maintain the relationships that he's built with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties.
  • Re:satire vs. parody (Score:3, Informative)

    by neurojab ( 15737 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @07:25PM (#9817120)
    >So if your definition is correct, shouldn't Weird Al be getting sued lots?

    Perhaps that's why Wierd Al asks the artist's permission first, then pays them handsome royalties after the fact.
  • Re:Precedents? (Score:3, Informative)

    by TMLink ( 177732 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @07:33PM (#9817202)
    Reread the page you linked to. It doesn't say anywhere that he pays the copyright holders. It only says that he voluntarily asks for permission from the original artist before doing a parody.

    From the last line of the item you quoted:

    Plus, Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties.
  • by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @07:49PM (#9817337)
    > As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
    > And that sign said - no tress passin'
    > But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin!
    > Now that side was made for you and me!

    Ironic -- the original song's sign didn't say "no trespassin", it said "private property".

    And on that note: It's pretty weak filk, but it's the best I can do in 30 seconds. Hey, it's Slashdot, whaddya expect, Woody Guthrie or something?

    I went to jib-jab - to hear some comedy,
    Heard a RIAA landshark - talkin' 'bout his I-P,
    Other web-site - was just a paaaa-ro-dy,
    That site was made for you and me.

  • Definitions (Score:2, Informative)

    by toiletsalmon ( 309546 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @08:19PM (#9817583) Journal
    Satire

    1. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
    2. The branch of literature constituting such works.
    3. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

    Parody

    1. A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.
    2. The genre of literature comprising such works.
    3. Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty: The trial was a parody of justice.
    4. Music. The practice of reworking an already established composition, especially the incorporation into the Mass of material borrowed from other works, such as motets or madrigals.

  • by nmb3000 ( 741169 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @08:26PM (#9817635) Journal
    Check the source of the page.

    Typically if I want to save a link to, or the SWF file itself, I'll view the source, do a quick search for ".swf", and then create a hyperlink and save the target. Unless the author went nuts with it, it's pretty easy to find out where the flash file itself (*.swf) is being pulled from. The address is usually in an EMBED or OBJECT tag.

  • Re:satire vs. parody (Score:3, Informative)

    by maxpublic ( 450413 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @08:35PM (#9817701) Homepage
    It's pretty clear that the flash animation in question does not make fun of the actual song

    It's pretty clear you've never listened to the lyrics of the actual song. Yes, it's satire of both political parties and the entire election process; but this song was picked *for a reason*. If you want to know the reason, check out the original lyrics and listen to JibJab's version again.

    It's hilarious, and quite witty. And satire or not, it also qualifies as a parody of the original song. I think Guthrie would get a hell of a kick out of this, if he were still kickin', that is.

    Max
  • Re:satire vs. parody (Score:4, Informative)

    by ktheory ( 64289 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @08:39PM (#9817725) Homepage
    It's pretty clear that the flash animation in question does not make fun of the actual song, but rather the presidential candidates and America in general.

    I disagree. The original song is about America in general. It addressed social and political issues such as land ownership and welfare. Read the lyrics [songlyrics4u.com].

    The Jib Jab song features the two presidential candidates, but also Bill Clinton and Arnold Schwarzenegger--singing Guthrie's original line "From California, to the New York Island". It also has the Native American being overshadowed by huge shopping centers. And there are the generalizations about the economic classes that Kerry and Bush represent, different attitudes towards war, etc.

    In short, the Jib Jab song is not just about Kerry and Bush, but it's a parady of American culture, just as Guthrie's original was a critique of American culture. Since the Jib Jab song addresses the original content of the work, it is fair use.
  • by Requiem Aristos ( 152789 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @08:56PM (#9817836)
    Don't forget, copyright is currently life+75, which means something written in 1918 could easily stay out of the public domain for a number of decades.

    Quoting from http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-5.html

    [1.]According to the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers' ("ASCAP") electronic search database, ACE, ASCAP owns the copyrights to "God Bless America," written by Irving Berlin and "Puff The Magic Dragon," written by Peter Yarrow. ASCAP's Ace on the Web (visited Mar. 10, 1997) . In order to allow access to information on copyrighted songs, ASCAP has designed a searchable database, called ACE on the Web, located at http://www.ascap.com/ace/ACE.html. Other popular and commonly performed compositions like "Happy Birthday," "Kumbaya" and "On Top of Old Smokey" are also listed in this database.
  • by iphayd ( 170761 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @09:36PM (#9818058) Homepage Journal
    Write in "No Vote" when you vote.
  • by johnlcallaway ( 165670 ) * on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @10:04PM (#9818223)
    What a freakin riot. It's refreshing to find someone that can poke the appropriate amount of fun at both parties without getting too wrapped up any moore.

    The swf file can be found here [shockwave.com] so you don't have to deal with the ads and can save it on your own drive. Show the corporate types what the Internet is all about, sharing.
  • by kfg ( 145172 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @10:59PM (#9818542)
    If that's true that's theft and stealing from _everyone_ too.

    Tell it to the judge. As I recall Pete Seeger wrote an article about it in Sing Out magazine back in the early 60s.

    KFG
  • by cdrudge ( 68377 ) * on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @12:07AM (#9818917) Homepage
    Exactly right except for maybe the part about the lawsuit. From his FAQ [weirdal.com]:
    Does Al get permission to do his parodies?
    Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies. While the law supports his ability to parody without permission, he feels it's important to maintain the relationships that he's built with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties.

    What about Coolio? I heard that he was upset with Al about "Amish Paradise." That was a very unfortunate case of misunderstanding between Al's people and Coolio's people. Short version of the story: Al recorded "Amish Paradise" after being told by his record label that Coolio had given his permission for the parody. When Al's album came out, Coolio publicly contended that he had never given his blessing, and that he was in fact very offended by the song. To this day we're not exactly sure who got their facts wrong, but Al sincerely apologizes to Coolio for the misunderstanding.
  • Wrong. (Score:3, Informative)

    by commodoresloat ( 172735 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @12:22AM (#9818996)
    That's false, as others have pointed out. It's true that the courts will look at how much of a work is used in another work when determining fair use, but that is only one factor to consider and they have been correctly reluctant to make a hard and fast rule about how much use of a work is OK. The big copyright case involving parody is the 2 live crew case; they used the entire song though changed the lyrics, just like Weird Al does, and the Court held that as parody it was strongly protected. Political parody like this case will be protected even more so.
  • Re:Precedents? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @01:19AM (#9819267)
    What's not said here is that Al always gets permisssion from the owner of the song. You need that for guarantees of songwriter credit of your parody (otherwise they could go to the original owner). That's the legal reason, though the moral reason is that Al thinks it's the right thing to do.

    And it sometimes bites him: in a sublime form of cruel idiocy, Eminem gave him permission to parody the lead song to 8 mile, but then for some reason refused to allow him to parody the VIDEO to 8 mile. As a result, Al's recent album is the first in a long time to have no video.

    Al also got permission from the copyright owner for "Gangsta Paradise". That turned out not to be Coolio, who was incensed (Al had been told -- incorrectly -- that Coolio was, er, cool with it).

    So yes, Al always gets permission from the copyright owner. And the practice also generally has kept him keep in good standing with the artists he parodies. Many just kill to be parodied by him.
  • by dvdeug ( 5033 ) <dvdeug&email,ro> on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @02:41AM (#9819573)
    copyright is currently life+75, which means something written in 1918 could easily stay out of the public domain for a number of decades.

    Not exactly. I know of nowhere that copyright is life+75; life+70 is the general standard, although Mexico is life+100, Canada and Australia is life+50, and many of the less industralized countries have shorter terms.

    More to the point, the US is not life+70; it's life+70 for works published after 1978, with a few exceptions. Works published before 1923 lapsed into the public domain under the old law and weren't returned to copyright, and works published before 1978 are a straight 95 years, except for the American works that fell into the public domain for one reason or another.
  • by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @08:35AM (#9820633) Journal
    To add a bit to the posters thoughts on the Pledge of Allegiance and Francis Bellamy, please consider this page [vineyard.net] which does a good job of outlining the history of the Pledge and its creators thoughts.
  • by Some Bitch ( 645438 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @08:58AM (#9820768)
    The US economy is not doing well at all, over the last 2 years the dollar has lost 40c against the pound which is fantastic for us British consumers because we can buy all your goods for peanuts. The US economy looks like it's heading for a huge crash, some countries are already buying euros instead of dollars, the US cannot sustain it's current course without an economic disaster. Your balance of payments shows a 144.9 billion dollar deficit and no country on Earth can sustain that.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see the US economy tank even more than it already is but the writing is on the wall and we'll all suffer because of it.
  • Re:This is a parody. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Junta ( 36770 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @09:36AM (#9821031)
    Not quite. In that case, the subject matter being parodied was directly Barbie (at least in part it was demonstrably a direct parody of Barbie). Very clearly and understandbly direct.

    In this case, the song is not being parodied, it is being manipulated to parody Kerry and Bush. Since it is not a direct subject of the parody, and only used as a means to parody something else, it is quite possibly not a protected use. The expectation is that if you are going to parody, you have to use your own material to do so.

    This same issue came up for a Penny Arcade comic that used Strawberry Shortcake characters to parody American McGee. In that case as in this one, the characters were not being parodied, but used *in* a parody. Though Penny Arcade backed down well before going to court on that comic, it is generally thought they would have lost. Shortly after, they did a comic [penny-arcade.com] directly parodying American Greetings for their trouble, and never received notification to take it down (under a claim such as 'defamation of character' or some such) so the lawyers probably acknowledged that as a direct parody and protected speech.

    All that said, it *MAY* be possible to show that the song is at least partially directly parodying the orignal song. One segment that comes clear to my mind in this context is the Native American saying 'this land was my land', which does directly parody the spirit and meaning behind the song. There are other places, but if I was going to fight that in their shoes, I would think that would be a good focus point to demonstrate that it is in part a direct, protected parody.
  • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @02:10PM (#9823199) Homepage
    You seriously need to look at a graph of US vs. European GDPs. European GDPs have been shooting up compared to the US GDP for decades; it only slowed (and in some countries backtracked a bit) in the 90s, when Europe started moving to a more free-market economy.

    The US has a GDP greater than France + Germany, yes. It also has a population about the size of all of Europe combined.

    Seriously, try harder with your posts next time.
  • by RyanK ( 338502 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @04:39PM (#9825039)
    Nader?!? He isn't even going to be on the Ballot in enough states to have a shot at winning the election!

    How about taking an honest look at what Michael Badnarik [badnarik.org], the Libertarian [lp.org] candidate has to say. You may disagree on some points, but at least it is moving to restore personal freedoms again.

    Ryan
    More Ramblings at: http://blog.rkware.com [rkware.com]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 01, 2004 @07:52AM (#9857133)
    The Pledge of Allegiance was the origin of the salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The original Nazi-style salute to the U.S. flag is exposed with: "All in favor of a Pledge of Allegiance raise your right hand" in an eye-popping new graphic at http://members.ij.net/rex/pledgewonschik.html [ij.net]

    And read amazing arguments now before the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time ever. Wonschik v. United States is bigger news than the
    Elk Grove case and is at the same url.

    The history of the Pledge has been suppressed because it is so unlibertarian. The Pledge was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a
    self-proclaimed National Socialist in the U.S., who wanted a government takeover of education to produce an "industrial army" for the
    authoritarian vision portrayed in his cousin Edward Bellamy's book "Looking Backward."

    The Bellamy cousins promoted and exported national socialism worldwide for decades. Their acts resulted in racist and segregated government schools that lasted through WWII and into the 1960's, setting a horrid example for hate-spewing groups worldwide.

    The Pledge of Allegiance was not only the origin of the salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (and other hate-spewing socialist groups worldwide), it was the origin of the militarism and the "industrial army" mentality.

    For more mind-boggling photos and articles about the pledge see
    http://members.ij.net/rex/pledge2.html [ij.net]

    The only website that provides the scary original speech given by Francis Bellamy for the debut of his Pledge of Allegiance is
    http://members.ij.net/rex/pledgespeech.html [ij.net]

    There is also the only website that collects and displays true historic photographs of the original Pledge of Allegiance (with the straight-arm salute). http://members.ij.net/rex/pledge2.html [ij.net]

    And fan mail praising the expose' of the totalitarian Pledge of Allegiance
    is at http://members.ij.net/rex/pledge_heart.html [ij.net]

    The Elk Grove court case was a blessing in disguise, by providing a temporary delay. It allows the fight to widen against the entire Pledge, not just two words. New court litigation is being spearheaded by a libertarian lawyer as a pro bono service to the public to liberate Americans from government pushing the totalitarian Pledge and government schools.

    The Wonschik court case will be a blockbuster sequel to the Elk Grove case. The Elk Grove case led to scary discoveries about the Pledge's pedigree. It led to the historic news-breaking discovery that exposed the Pledge as the
    origin of the salute of the monstrous National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis). It is a myth that the Pledge's original straight-arm
    salute is an ancient Roman salute. http://members.ij.net/rex/pledgesalute.html [ij.net]

    Another school year has started and a webpage is working to repeal laws that require teachers to lead a robotic chant of the Pledge of Allegiance in the oddball states where government schools are required by law to begin each day with the Pledge, after the ringing of a bell, like Pavlov's lapdogs of the state. http://members.ij.net/rex/pledge_lawyer.html [ij.net]

    Another url helps students learn that the Pledge was written by a National Socialist and the rest of the Pledge's true terrifying history:
    http://members.ij.net/rex/stopthepledge.html [ij.net]

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Working...