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."
Did they listen to the original? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anti-property, anti-government... and they're worried that a satire aimed at Bush/Kerry will "damage" this "icon of americana"?? This is what the original folk music was all about! It seems to me that the copyright holders are just looking for an excuse to come down on these people. I doubt Woodie Guthrie would have approved the suit...
(PS. Just to be clear, I love this song - in its entirety - and was listening to it last week during a drive across the U.S. I wish the original message wasn't getting so lost...)
Precedents? (Score:2, Insightful)
What does someone like Weird Al Yankovich do? Does he pay the copyright holders for the songs he parodies? Seems like whatever applies to W.A.Y. applies here.
Parody vs. Satire unimportant (Score:5, Insightful)
satire vs. parody (Score:5, Insightful)
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. Thus, I don't think it's legal, but I'm only a law intern.
I'm not saying that I like the conclusion, however.
Lyrics and visuals make it not an infringement IMO (Score:3, Insightful)
Sold out for a buck (Score:2, Insightful)
As scripture says, you cannot serve two masters.
The point is, artists are in complete control UNTIL the moment they worry about $$ instead of art. Most artists are too stupid to understand this concept. It is easier to blame the "Big Corporations" for their own ignornace.
Amusing, given Guthrie's standard copyright notice (Score:2, Insightful)
"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."
Would anybody even care if not for the publicity? (Score:4, Insightful)
Woody Guthrie (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems like satire to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, the irony is having a champion of the little guy (Woody Guthrie), having his works controled by large corporations. Gotta love it.
Take it easy...but take it! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the whole reason that this is happening goes something like this:
1) Parody Song criticizes political figures (a hornet's nest to begin with)
2) The people that own the rights to the real song are either offended by the political view point of the parody, or are being pressured by one or both of the two political figures whom the parody is targeted at.
3) They sue because this is America, and you can do that, senses of humor went out of style a long time ago and if someone does something funny that you don't find funny it must be wrong and bad so you may be entitled to money/the elimination of the opposing viewpoint.
This and everything else that has been going on with both parties convinces me I would be right to stay home on election day and get smashed on Listerine.*
*yeah the quotes not exact.
Don'tcha all know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a Parody? (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, wasn't the original just a song and not a flash animation/video? SO, let a blind guy listen to the song and then to the "parody" in question and ask him if it's making fun of the original... if that guy happens to be a judge, end of case.
OB (Score:3, Insightful)
This log is my log
When lightning struck it
It kicked the bucket!
I poured some onions
Inside my trousers
This log, it used to be a tree
Now it spreads love to you and me
Hey look, it's headed out to sea!
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, it's patriotic all right, just not in the sense that the Republican Party and big business would like to sell... it's patriotic in the good-ol'-fashion power-to-the-people *democratic* sense.
Re:Sold out for a buck (Score:5, Insightful)
For those who don't know, here is the portion of the U.S. Constitution that copyright and patent are based on:
"congress shall have the power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." If they pass a copyright term extention every 20 years, then they are perpetual, and therefore not for limited times.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sold out for a buck (Score:2, Insightful)
The origianl right holder isn't the current rights holder. Some transfer took place, and I'll bet that $$ was invovled, one way or another. Including if it was deeded away in an estate (royalties and all that).
As for Mr Guthry, I appaud him for being the visionary he was, supporting the same ideals found in modern copyright licensing (GPL, Creative Commons).
The issue I am making is at some point a mistake of ignorance was made and now idiots are in charge of an artist's work, doing something the artist did not envision or probably like. The artist gave up his rights at somepoint, either in an estate trust or in contract. The result is still the same.
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe the "good-ol'-fashion power-to-the-people" democrats believed in something different but that isn't what the party is about now. Hell Kerry could become the richest president ever.
Re:Pretty obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sold out for a buck (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but the implication about the original author is vastly different. You claimed the author had "caviar dreams and champagne wishes"-- obviously if it was sold off from his estate after his death then that was not the case.
Is it now in the hands of a greedy corporation? Likely yes, but how it got there, which seemed to be the crux of your original reply (that it was greed that resulted in this happening today), is very much in dispute. If anyone really wants to pursue the issue, I'd be more than happy to see some facts presented.
Re:Pretty obvious (Score:1, Insightful)
What is pretty obvious, Mr. "Ergo Ipso Facto", is that you didn't RTFA, and that you are talking out of your ass. The JibJab video takes every value that the original "This Land is My Land" enshrines and corrupts them to mean the opposite. Whether or not vector by which this is done is through political commentary is irrelevant, because ultimately the JibJab video makes a sham of "This Land is My Land", and is thus a parody.
The mods must be hitting the $2 crack today. The only reason this was modded up was because the author said "Ergo Ipso Facto". Where in the moderation guidelines does it say to award +1 for each latin word used?
Re:Pretty obvious (Score:2, Insightful)
You can see that setting new lyrics to a copyrighted tune for the purpose of making social commentary would fall within the bounds of fair use--- particularly if it can be demonstrated that financial gain is not a primary objective. I think the recent Linspire advertisement http://www.linspire.com/RunLinspireFlash.php which is a flash animation and lyrics set to a Doors tune-- although they claim to be a parody-- would have a harder time showing fair use, because it is clearly intended to sell a product.
And I'm sure it's been remarked elsewhere in this thread: making up new lyrics to old tunes is very much a part of the folk tradition that Woody Guthrie operated in.
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:2, Insightful)
Current the Republicans are bad but the Dems are worse. I know its cool to hate rebublicans but if you do then you had better hate the democrats as well unless you reall do whish you could have lived in soviate Russia. Where politicans vote on you
Re:Sold out for a buck (Score:5, Insightful)
If Guthry had already given up some of his rights to the song (as per his copyright notice), then he could not transfer those rights to his heirs. JibJab might very well wind up standing behind Woody Guthrie's original copyright notice in court. Your original comment:Is horseshit. It is leastaways completely irrelevant to Woody Guthry.
IANALBIPOOTV.
Re:Not a Parody? (Score:4, Insightful)
Before the mods kick this post into oblivion note this, this doesn't mean I think JibJab's animatin wasn't funny, it just means I can see why this could be construed as an infringing satire and not a legitimate pardoy.
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:5, Insightful)
Dems, Repbs.... what's the difference? They are each a different means to the same end... the reduction of personal rights in favor of corporate rights.
[RANT] Around election time when the patriotic propaganda comes out attempting to make people feel bad for not voting there is usually one message behind it all. "If you are not voting, what does are you saying?" I'm saying plenty by not voting. "Americas 2 party electoral system is a sham, and I won't participate. Choosing between the lesser of 2 evils is not liberty or freedom." Hell, even Communist Russia had elections. You could choose between the hard handed communist in corner A, or the hard handed communist in corner B.[/RANT]
Re:Pretty obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so fast. The primary intent was to make political satire. However, this song was chosen specifically to contrast the political status with the message of the song. As well, the song often used to promote patriotism by those running, and running for, government despite the fact that it is very anti-government.
If they had just picked a random song, you'd probably be right. But because of the specifics of the contrast between the original song message, current political status, and typical use of the song by government, it seems to be very much a parody. IANAL, but I think there's a solid argument there for parody. AFAIK, the parody doesn't have to be the primary intent of the song to make it fair use.
Re:Sold out for a buck (Score:5, Insightful)
I never imagined that I would ever hear the words "caviar" and "champagne" used in reference to Woody "This Guitar Kills Fascists" Guthrie. He's a (formerly) walking, talking counterexample to your stereotype.
The point is, artists are in complete control UNTIL the moment they worry about $$ instead of art.
Meanwhile, back in the real world... Artists always have to worry about both money and art. You can't write songs if you can't eat. I'm not disputing the point that too many so-called "artists" are far more interested in the money than the muse, but when the muse isn't feeding you and a cartel is blocking you from access to an audience (as the RIAA has historically done), "selling out" is an option that many take whilst holding their noses.
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Woody Guthrie on Copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually Guthrie is dead so whatever rights he might or might not have to the music would have reverted to his heirs, whoever they were possibly people chosen by the state if he died without a will.
So Guthrie might never have sold the rights to this song - but they could have been sold to whomever brought the suit - and this is possibly or even probably against the artist's (Guthrie's) intent - by the heirs either in the will or appointed by the state because the artist, Guthrie, wasn't clear enough (legally) that he was releasing these songs to the public domain.
Re:Grade School Parody or Juvenile Satire? (Score:5, Insightful)
Glory, glory, hallelujah
Teacher hit me with a ruler
Met her at the door
With a loaded 44
And she ain't my teacher no more!
Nowadays, songs like these get you expelled under "zero tolerance" policies. Hell, I remember when we did the Christmas gift exchange, I brought a cap gun. The lucky bastard who drew my number was the "cop" that day during the playground game of "cops and robbers." Nobody, teachers included, said jack. Try to imagine how many people would wet their pants, not even at the sound of a cap gun on a playground, but at the very fact that a crude facsimile of a pistol was on school grounds at all.
I worry that we're teaching kids how to appreciate a totalitarian society, and worse, that some people are happy about it.
-paul
Re:Precedents? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's both.
Sure, Kerry and Bush are main targets of parody here, but so is the whole theme of Guthrie's song. They could have used "Yankee Doodle" or "Disco Duck" or "When Johnny Comes Marching Home" as the template, but they chose "This Land Is Your Land" for what it (used to) mean.
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sold out for a buck (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm picking on Disney as an example just because they are probably the worst ones. Mickey Mouse should be in the public domain. What has Disney done lately that justifies a perpetual monopoly? In fact, they have become a censorious bunch of political hacks--as shown by their handling of Fahrenheit 9/11 (which has already outgrossed every other movie Disney saw fit to actually distribute this year).
Poor Woody must be spinning in his grave.
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know what, if anything, you're doing to help enact change; but regardless of what statement you're trying to make, neglecting/choosing not to vote won't send a message to the authorities.
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:4, Insightful)
And whose fault is it that we've got a 2 party system? YOURS!!!
Sure our current election system encourages a two party system, but it's not writ in stone, you could change the system, or at least see that one of the two parties was one worth voting for, but you're just sitting on your ass instead.
I give a damn about my country, so even though i think the democrats aren't that different from the republicans (well, other than the hard core fundamentalist republicans like Bush anyways) i think that difference is worth fighting for. There ar probably third parties out there i agree with more, but i'm more interested in results than fantasies. If i see party X which i really like with less than 5% support and the democrats who i somewhat agree with at 50% plus or minus a critical couple percent, i'm going to vote for the democrats. Lesser evil all the way.
YOU however aren't helping at all! You're not trying to get the lesser evil into office, and you're not trying to get the _good_ people into office either! If you won't vote for the lesser evil, get out there and vote for the people you actually support! About 50% of the population doesn't vote in most elections. If they all happened to agree on someone that's enough to get _anyone_ elected, and even if they didn't agree it's certainly enough to help shake things up. If you and everyone else who claims they don't like the two party system went out and voted for parties X, Y and Z, then X Y and Z would be getting 15-20% each, and the democrats and republicans would be down to around 25%. At _that_ point people would realize they could switch away from the democrats and republicans and make a real difference.
Either you're just too lazy to get off your ass on election day, and you claim you're protesting against the "system" to cover up for it, or you just haven't really thought about the issue. Not voting doesn't send any kind of message, at least not the one you think. The politicians and those of us who vote just think it means you're lazy or stupid. Voting for a third party candidate _does_ send a message.
Whatever you think of Nader (personally i think he's a lying hypocritical bastard who is certainly a worse choice than the democrats) you have to admit that the 3-5% who actually voted for a third party sent a much louder and clearer message than did you and the others in the subset of the 40-50% who didn't vote because they "object to the two party system." It's only a two party system because you refuse to vote for the third parties!
Re:Precedents? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Did they listen to the original? (Score:2, Insightful)
Go vote for a third party. Write something in (get about 100,000 people to vote for a corporation and you might send a message). Hell, write in "anyone not bought and sold" if you want. Tell all your other apathetic/ignorant friends to do the same.
But you won't do that. I think you just don't feel like it when November rolls around. You're using this flawed logic as an excuse for yourself. Maybe you're not.
Re:How true - the issue that everyone steps around (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what I call staying power.
If you truly have "artistic interests" I would think that you would kno who the hell Woody Guthrie was, what he stood for and what his music means.
Considering that you are posting as AC, I have to assume, however, that you are nothing more than a very large bag of wind...
Woody Guthrie and the "folk process" (Score:5, Insightful)
What was the folk process [uk.net]?
In short, it was the age-old practice Guthrie and others used of taking old music and writing new words. Just like a folk-tale is a story that has been told and changed as time goes on.
When the Weavers took [Guthrie's] 'So Long (It's Been Good To Know Yuh)' into the pop charts '51, the song had been written originally to cheer up migrant workers, adapted as a patriotic war song and as a jingle for selling pipe tobacco; far from being outraged, Woody was there in the studio, helping the Weavers adapt it yet again: 'For better or worse,' wrote Colin Irwin in Mojo '97, 'this was the folk process at work.'
As Seeger says [berkshireweb.com],
"My father was more sensible. He said to think of the folk process as something that has gone on through the ages. The folk process occurs in cooking, with cooks rearranging recipes. And lawyers rearrange old laws to fit new citizens. If you look at it this way, then the true importance of folk music is to let ordinary folks change things."
W
No, *MY* party was taken over by idiots (Score:1, Insightful)
Its sickening.
So yes, I think right now the republicans would push killing babies if it benefitted their friends in big business.
I'm not a democrat either. as I've hit middle age, I realize both parties are full of shit, and it sickens me that I was so stupid to fall for their little taglines and mindless saying. God, I was a bigger idiot, than our stupid, mononic, idiotic president Bush.
At this point, I view a vote for Bush as proof that people have cloth for brains.
Re:Sold out for a buck (Score:1, Insightful)
The point I tried to make is that Guthrie, being the man he was, copyrighted his song in such a way as to leave it as open and free (as in speech) as he could. The fact that laws changed later was something he could not foresee or predict, and he acted in the best interests of everyone to try and keep that song out there and usable.
As for making the world fair, you seem to think I'm some kind of white-shirted crusader, bumbling about in the name of "fairness" and in the end just making things bad for everybody. Quite the contrary: I was just trying to keep the name of a dead man from being soiled.
Re:Sold out for a buck (Score:2, Insightful)
Jaysyn
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:3, Insightful)
And to be perfectly honest, a vote for Nader might as well be a vote for Bush, since those who would even consider voting for him are all traditional Democratic-base voters (i.e. on the liberal side of things with respect to certain views). Also, if you think Kerry is a weiner and a dipshit, just look at Nader. Now *THAT* guy is a true asshole. Even the people who've worked with him for years all seem to hate him.
I wish we did have more viable options for presidential candidates, but I think a lot of us feel this election, much more so than the past several, has a desperate urgency to it.
Re:No, it's not, look in the dictionary (Score:3, Insightful)
One entry found for satire.
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
Yup, it's ridiculing the low intellectual level of the presidential debate thus far.
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
I'd say it's exposing the folly that is this presidential election.
Main Entry: parody
1 : a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
Yes, the tune is imitated, but what I get from this definition is that the point of the imitation is to make fun of the author or work. This is clearly not the case here.
2 : a feeble or ridiculous imitation
Same as above.
Either way, it's hard to say that the definition of satire clearly does not apply, as you did.
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, they are (have you even listened to any of his songs?) He picks popular songs, usually current top hits, and parodies the song itself. You could possibly argue that he is parodying the artist, not the song, but that's just splitting hairs.
The subject of the song may change, sure, but that doesn't change the subject of the parody
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly what message do you think is sent by: voting for some other candidate that cannot possibly win?
Because I think there isn't one, I think the one of the two potential winners looking at your vote will say: Damn, why can't they see voting for x is a waste of time?? But do your really think it will change their behaviour? More than voting for them?
Let me put it like this... Say you're a left-wing commie (same argument applies to nazi gun-nuts). You could vote for DEM, or for REP, or for the local commie party who represent your views. However, voting for the local commie party doesn't make them your representative, it makes whoever other people thought was best your representative. Essentially, your vote is almost useless unless it is the single vote that changes the result.
So let's say you're smart enough to understand that, and you vote for DEM as the best choice of representative for you. As a result of your vote, DEM wins the election -- your vote counted. Of course, the DEM candidate does lots of things that disgust you, though fewer than the REP candidate.
Next election, what do you think the positions of these two candidates will be? See, they're both trying to win, so they'll both try to appeal to as many people as possible. Since the electorate (you!) spoke last election and said: we prefer DEM's ideas to REP's ideas, REP will be selling a slightly modified set of ideas, designed to appeal to DEM leaning people -- there are more of them, or REP would have won last election. Similarly, DEM must shift further left to avoid being totally identical to REP -- they can get by with being similar, but not _too_ similar.
Again you vote DEM, and again your candidate wins. Again, the country has very slightly closer policies to those you support. Repeat until both parties policies approximate yours.
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:3, Insightful)
let me start with what i said, "Sure our current election system encourages a two party system, but it's not writ in stone." I think that's pretty much true. There have been periods of time in our history in which there have been three viable parties, after awhile political forces encourage a narrowing down to two parties, but that in turn leads to the eventual development of yet another third party. You could say that our system inevitable leads to two parties, but you could just as easily say that it inevitable leads to three parties, it just depends on where you want to take your data points from.
A party is certain to win if it has 51% of votes. But the more its votes get above 50%, the less largess there is to go around ("largess" is the prizes given out by the winner to his supporters). So groups struggling for the optimal outcomes for themselves will naturally gravitate towards having as close to 51% support as possible. Any less than 50 and they risk losing- any more, and they've wasted money on extra votes that weren't needed to win.
This i think is just plain wrong. There have been pleanty of elections where the winning party had much more than 50%. In 1984 Reagan won by 60% of the popular vote and 98% of the Electoral College vote. The parties don't shy away from such landsides, instead they use them as "evidence" of a mandate to do whatever they want. As far as i can tell all parties collect as much money as they can and then spend it all.
I'm not sure who you mean by "supporters," but certainly there is no direct payment to the individual voters, and the link between financial supporters and voters is pretty much disconected, and the link between the amount of financial support and the favors returned to them (both financial and political) is definitely non-linear.
Because the chance of your vote actually changing anything, multiplied by the monentary value of any difference you'd personally experience from the preferred candidate, always comes out to less than $0.01. Usually a lot less (especially if you live in one of the 23 "noncontested" states where the Presidential winner is predetermined) Voting is a tax on people who can't do math. (If you're generous, then maybe you'll happily pay that extra tax for the good of the nation...)
And i thought _i_ was cynical. Do you actually calculate out how much you think you'll get in returns before going to the polls? Last i heard the whole idea of elections wasn't a direct monetary return. It was to make sure that the government reflects the wishes of the people. And how much does it cost you to vote anyways? It takes me five minutes to walk to my polling location, i expect it takes most people about a five or ten minute drive at most. That comes out to about a dollar in gas, which isn't much by itself and you get several hours of entertainment in exchange if you follow the results afterwards. Besides, there are groups that will drive you to the polls if you ask them, so the cost is extremely minimal.
It is incorrect to not capitalize "democrat" and "republican" in that sentence.
Are we discussing grammer or politics? Try to stay on topic please. If you want to get nitpicky, "G W Bush is a democrat whenever he talks about bringing Iraq the gift of democracy" is incorrect since we were speaking of "democrat" in reference to the american political party. Trying to switch between definitons in that manner is misleading.
And then the Democrats and Republicans would look at party Z, see which of it's platforms were attracting voters, check which of those were least likely to drive off their current supporters, and then add them into their position.
Now you're getting into what really encourages the two party system, and what i suspect also leads to the third party system again.
Despite the fact that there are many axes in the political spectrum, it tends to get narrowed down to a "lef
Re:Sold out for a buck (Score:3, Insightful)
Either way, JibJab have some form of permission from the original author -- which cannot be withdrawn -- to make a parody of the song. If Guthrie sold the rights, the purchaser must have known dern [sic] well that that permission notice stood. In fact, Woody Guthrie is probably singing their version wherever he is right now
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't blame you for thinking that since if you read each one of their campaign propaganda you'd think the other was the devil incarnate so their positions must be miles apart. But when it comes right down to what their policies would be, on stem cell research they really aren't that different:
Kerry: private researchers can do whatever they want, public researchers can do whatever they want.
Bush: private researchers can do whatever they want, federally funded researchers can do whatever they want with all the stem cell lines that existed as of 2001 and can continue to do whatever they want with stem cells that come from various parts of adults, but federally funded researchers just can't make more stem cell lines from aborted fetuses.
On mercury levels the Bush administration is enforcing limits on mercury emissions for the first time ever (no one mentions that under Clinton you could spew as much mercury as you wanted to), Kerry says nothing specific but only that he'd "do more to strengthen the clean air act", whatever that means. You somehow see this as a huge difference?
Don't believe 99% of what you hear.
...which is based on a Stevie Wonder tune. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets start a petition to have Wierd Al testify as an expert witness in the case (he must bring along his accordian, of course).
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:3, Insightful)
Military service != militaristic. And the authorizing vote in Congress does not count as militarism either - I'm not saying I agree with that particular vote of Kerry's, but he was not on the Intelligence Committee and did not have access to all of the privileged information.
Bush isn't responsible for September 11th, but he did take advantage of it to further an agenda in the Middle East with respect to Iraq, and he failed miserably to successfully stabilize and modernize Afghanistan. These failures have done immeasurable harm to our foreign policy position (something Kerry surely understands much better than Mr. Bush as a fairly senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee).
The fact that people running for Senate tend to be wealthy is not surprising. If you are born with money, it opens political doors. If you aren't, and you have brains/charisma/people skills, you will try to make money in the private sector first to enable you to pursue a career in politics.
In any case, not every wealthy person pursues selfish policies that only benefit them.
Re:Sold out for a buck (Score:1, Insightful)
However, lets say the dollar does crash and the Euro takes its place. What do you think is going to happen? The same damn thing. One problem we need to fix: We need to export as much as we import. That will restore faith in the dollar. Also, a world currentcy is not a good idea. The Euro and the dollar need to exist as costandards. If you want some good reference articles email me. tommy_g_18(at)yahoo.com
T