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...)
Dude (Score:3, Funny)
My god, something actually VALUABLE was posted to slashdot. What a rare occurance!
Re:Dude (Score:3, Funny)
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.
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)
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:5, Informative)
...which is based on a Stevie Wonder tune. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:4, Interesting)
After Woody became famous (and thus his songs worth money) Ludlow Music unleashed its lawyers to have them withdrawn from the public domain.
Is this a great country or what?
It's also an often parodied song already. I like the Israeli version myself:
This land is your land
This land is my land
From the Arab border
To the Arab border
From the Arab border
To the Arab border
This land was made for you and me
This "icon of Americana" was also part of what got Woody labled a communist. Go figure.
KFG
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Ludlow Music unleashed its lawyers to have them withdrawn from the public domain."
If that's true that's theft and stealing from _everyone_ too.
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: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: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:Did they listen to the original? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 o
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:3, Informative)
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: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 ine
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know how to classify Bush Jr. Honestly, he scares the crap out of me. His attempts to force the government to define love, an uneducated (and religious based) ban on stem cell research that is choking Americas participation in modern medicine, his staff and other government appointments, and the many questionable ties to corporate interests and the many executive decisions that favor them, all force me to question his commitment to humanity. During his first run for office he billed himself as a compassionate conservative. If the last 4 years have shown anything, it's that his definition of 'compassionate' is seriously flawed.
I'm still unsure of what the true definition of conservative is. What are we losing that people are so concerned about saving. I know it's not the environment. To me, conservatives are afraid of change, or at least rapid change. Everyone I've met has quoted some nonsense about a return to 'the good old days' while the time they reminisce about was 'good' only to white, middle class males.
Neither party is better or worse than the other. To beleive otherwise demonstrates how fooled the American public is when it comes to choosing the lesser of 2 evils to govern us all.
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:5, Interesting)
"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."
Just further evidence of how messed up copyright laws are. The person whose rights are allegedly being protected here is the last person who'd want them protected like this.
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:5, Interesting)
The song was written in 1940.[1] Guthrie died in 1967.[2] Because copyright registration -- and that's what this is -- only lasted 28 years, it had to be re-registered. Registration could only be done within 6 months of the expiration date, IIRC. That would mean it was re-registered by Guthrie's heirs in 1968 and not Guthrie.
He also didn't give up or license away his rights to the song for more than 28 years -- copyright law didn't let him. After the initial term, all rights reverted to him or his heirs. His heirs renewed it. Maybe not what he would have wanted, but it was their choice.
The upshot is: lay off Guthrie, and stick it to his progeny.
IANAL...y.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Land_is_Your_La
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Guthrie [wikipedia.org]
You can get anything you want . . . (Score:5, Funny)
There were mother rapers. And there were father rapers! And then the biggest, meanest, father raper of them all, came up to me and asked, "what you do time for, boy?"
And I said "fer violatin a copyright." And they all slid away from me on the Group W bench.
And then I said "and fer addin' obscene words," And they all slid back towards me on the Group W bench.
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:3, Informative)
> And that sign said - no tress passin'
> But on the other side
> 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,
Re:Did they listen to the original? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sold out for a buck (Score:5, Interesting)
"Sometimes your wealth of ignorance is astounds me"
and to quote Woody Guthrie...
"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."
This proves one thing unequivocally! (Score:3, Funny)
Woody Guthrie has never heard me sing.
Re:Sold out for a buck (Score:5, Interesting)
Who can forget other such people? For example, Emma Lazarus. Author of the infamous "Give me your tired, your poor..." lines, she was an avowed supporter of socialist tax policies, and spent her efforts trying to increase government support of the poor and be a voice for women's rights.
Or how about Katherine Lee Bates, author of "America The Beautiful"? She wrote about the beautiful and spacious skies while living with her same-sex partner, Katherine Coman (an economist who wrote the first significant published work on the economy of the old west). After Coman died, Bates wrote an entire volume of poetry - Yellow Clover - dedicated to their love. Bates was not only a lesbian, feminist, and social justice fighter, but a strident anti-imperialist.
Speaking of strident anti-Imperialists, lets not forget author Mark Twain. Twain's political works (heavily censored at the time), especially concerning the war in the Phillipines, were amazingly harsh; he actually suggested a new flag for the Phillipines: our normal flag, but with the white stripes replaced by black, and the stars replaced by skull and cross bones.
What about the pledge of allegience? It was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy. Bellamy, a former preacher, was kicked out of his church for trying to work politics into his sermons, even claiming that Jesus was a socialist. Despite being a priest, In Bellamy's version of the pledge there was no "under god" (it didn't even specify "the flag of the United States of America", only "my flag"). Instead, what he originally wanted to add (but was afraid to, if he wanted it to be published) was to have the pledge add "equality" to the list of things being pledged "for all".
I could keep going, but you get the picture. It's nice to see someone mention the versus of "This Land is Your Land" that rarely get sung because socialism is almost a dirty word in this country.
Blasphemer!!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sold out for a buck (Score:3, Informative)
Don't get me wrong, I
Re:Sold out for a buck (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this wording alone not constitute (a) protection against retroactive copyright extension, meaning that the copyright in the work has already expired and the song is now in the public domain (Woo
Re:Sold out for a buck (Score:5, Interesting)
Insolence. The original copyright notice attached to This Land is Your Land ( and several other Guthries, iirc ) reads as follows:
"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."
Your bullshit about caviar dreams and champagne wishes is poorly placed against a man who loved his fellow americans, loved the free flow of information, mailed lyrics booklets to his listeners and invited them to sing his songs, and died wretchedly in a state hospital of an irreversible degenerative nerve disorder. Learn your history.
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
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: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.
Re:Sold out for a buck (Score:4, Funny)
You have ZERO proof that his ghost hasn't been trying to break into the record business. It's gotta be better than most of the crap out there.
Willie Nelson Rules!!!!
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: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:Sold out for a buck (Way OT) (Score:3, Interesting)
If I could play guitar, I'd have a favorite Pete story reference written on it: "This too shall pass."
(One version of Pete's story, paraphrased, and probably protected under Fair Use:
A benevolent king wants to pass on all good knowledge to his children, so calls together his wise men and women to write it into a book. A year later, they present him with a book six inches thick.
"Too long," he say
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...
Pretty obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pretty obvious (Score:3, Funny)
No, it's not, look in the dictionary (Score:3, Interesting)
One entry found for satire. : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
Main Entry: satire
Pronunciation: 'sa-"tIr
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin satura, satira, perhaps from (lanx) satura dish of mixed ingredients, from feminine of satur well-fed; akin to Latin satis enough -- more at SAD
1
2
synonym see WIT
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 wo
Re:Pretty obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Parody vs. Satire unimportant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Parody vs. Satire unimportant (Score:4, Interesting)
free speech zone
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.
Re:satire vs. parody (Score:3, Informative)
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 woul
Re:satire vs. parody (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:satire vs. parody (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps that's why Wierd Al asks the artist's permission first, then pays them handsome royalties after the fact.
Hang him! Give him the chair! (Score:5, Funny)
Woody Guthrie on Copyright (Score:5, Informative)
Whoever wound up with the rights to his music has, I suspect, a rather different view of things.
--Bruce Fields
Re:Woody Guthrie on Copyright (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Woody Guthrie on Copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Woody Guthrie on Copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
The copyright creator is Congress. The creator of the WORK sold his rights -- he's out of the picture. I mean no one cares what Shakespeare thinks about staging his plays; why should we? If Guthrie was willing to sell his rights -- and no one could get 'em otherwise -- then that's the end of his involvement. If authors want to keep a hand in, that's their problem, and they shouldn't sell their rights if that's what they want.
I would also try to convince a jury that the song is in the public domain. After call can you find 12 people who can name the author of that song?
Well, it's not. I suppose a jury could nullify or something, but it's really not in the public domain, and popular belief alone don't make it so. Get that popular belief to change the laws, and then we'll be cooking with gas.
Its clear that even congress seems to think many songs are in the public domain after their singing God Bless America on the steps without paying royalties based on performance with a billion viewers of news programs world wide.
God Bless America IS in the public domain, IIRC, having been written in 1918.
Would a reasonable person assume that Happy Birthday is in the public domain?
Dunno. But they'd be wrong unless they got the laws changed. Which I'd likely support.
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
Re:Woody Guthrie on Copyright (Score:3, Informative)
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) . I
Re:Woody Guthrie on Copyright (Score:3, Informative)
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 p
Sure you go ahead and copy this post. (Score:3, Interesting)
Its all about the money (Score:5, Funny)
The music company is just mad because they are not making money from it.
Welcome to the land of corporations.
The song should be renamed: This land is my land, your land is my land.
Re:Its all about the money (Score:3, Funny)
Lyrics and visuals make it not an infringement IMO (Score:3, Insightful)
Woody's estate probably has a case (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, the present copyright holders of "This Land is Our Land" are still being dickheads.
Wrong. (Score:3, Informative)
remember hamster dance (Score:3, Interesting)
Would anybody even care if not for the publicity? (Score:4, Insightful)
What the hell? (Score:3, Interesting)
"The damage to the song is huge"? I'll never understand these idiots. It's as if they assume that because somebody heard a menial representation of a very well known song in a little cartoon being distributed via the Internet that they're immediately going to think that the original work is bad/political/evil/whatever.
That JibJab parody was hilarious. If anybody should be getting pissed, it should be the Native Americans because of that bit at the end of the song (go ahead and hold your breath, I'm sure it won't be long before they jump on).
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.
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.
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.
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!
CNN excerpt (Score:5, Funny)
Right now lawyers for both sides are just hurling threatening letters at one another. If the dispute ends up in court, it'll be interesting.
TRO: "You've hurt our music!"
Jibjab: "You've got no humor!"
Both: "This judge will surely side with me!"
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Woody Guthrie might have had a different view... (Score:3, Interesting)
"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."
Grade School Parody or Juvenile Satire? (Score:3, Funny)
This land is my land.
This land ain't your land.
I've got a shotgun
And you ain't got one.
If you don't get off
I'll blow your head off.
This land was made for only me.
Fortunately, the lawyers never showed up at the playground to shut us down.
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
Misuse of copyrights (Score:4, Interesting)
Watch/download without the ad (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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
They have no case...here's the law on the subject (Score:5, Interesting)
The case that recently decided this issue on the federal level was SunTrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co. It's the case where the estate of Margaret Mitchell, the author of "Gone With The Wind" went after Alice Randall, author of "The Wind Done Gone" for copyright infringement. The case claimed that it was illegal for Alice Randall to take the story and characters of Gone With The Wind, put it in a blender and use them to make a new story that made a social and political statement.
The SunTrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co. case was first affirmed for the plantiff but was overturned on appeal. The issues of that case aren't any different from this potential case. Can parody be defined as making a political satire or statement? Is it legal to take an entire previous work and use the characters and places and story line to make your own case for such parody?
The reason I know about all of this is because it is very personal to me. Alice Randall is my sister-in-law. And in the end, the plantiff not only lost the case, but decided to contribute to charities dear to the defendant.
You can read the case yourself. But if I were the holders of the Woody Guthrie copyright, I would read this case carefully and choose not to file. Because I guarentee that the defense will be using this case as the cornerstone of their argument.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/suntrust/wdg
Isn't it... (Score:3, Funny)
(please don't sue me!)
woodie guthrie is so trying to climb out of his grave right now.
Re:Precedents? (Score:4, Informative)
What does someone like Weird Al Yankovich do? Does he pay the copyright holders for the songs he parodies?
Yes [weirdal.com].
Re:Precedents? (Score:5, Informative)
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:Precedents? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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: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:Precedents? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Threats? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Take it easy...but take it! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is a parody. (Score:3, Informative)
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 t