JibJab Sues for Fair Use of Right to Parody 273
An anonymous reader writes "A few days ago, Slashdot mentioned that JibJab was threatened by a copyright lawsuit. Well, it looks like JibJab decided to sue first with the help of the EFF. Lots more info here." (Here's the Bloomberg News article.) Update: 07/31 20:43 GMT by T : Seth Finkelstein has posted the court info on his website.
Good for them (Score:5, Interesting)
But yeah. I think Woody is up in heaven, proud of JibJab for their work.
I hope they win (Score:3, Interesting)
It'd be a shame to have those guys muzzled; particularly when they do such nice work (there are a lot of
Re:I hope they win (Score:5, Interesting)
(from www.woodyguthrie.com [woodyguthrie.com])
I like to think that he'd approve of jibjabs outstanding version of one of his songs ;-)
Re:I hope they win (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Funny)
You posted AC just in case there is a god and he reads slashdot?
Re:Good for them (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Good for them (Score:2)
Re:Good for them (Score:2)
Well (Score:4, Interesting)
Another thing though, I feel less inclined to protect the rights of the owner of a song or other work when the owner is not the person who actually wrote the song. In this case, it is not Woody Guthrie's family suing, it's a company.
Not Original lyrics or performance (Score:3, Insightful)
So the copyright violation is what, exactly?
This is clearly a parody of a song used in satire.
I hope they can get punitive damages in their preemptive suit.
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
JibJab is probably going to be ruled satire since it does not comment directly on Woody Guthrie or his works, but rather uses his works to make a statement about Kerry and Bush.
The relevant case law here is Dr. Seuss Enterprises vs. Penguin Books (9th circuit)
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
Interested people can read the decision here [findlaw.com].
Re:Well (Score:2)
For the purposes of copyright law, the nub of the definitions, and the heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material, is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works. . . . If, on the contrary, the commentary has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition, which the alleged infringer merely uses to get attention or to avoid th
Parody v. Satire (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, the federal court made it clear in that case that "parody" and "satire" were not two discrete categories that did not overlap. Someone else quoted the decision itself -- the essence is that it is possible to make fun of the work as well as make fun of something outside the work (in this case, the election). In the jib jab case I think it's obvious the artist is doing both. Also, the very rationale for the distinction -- that the artist must actually have some reason to use this particular work to make his or her point rather than just picking it at random -- is clearly met in the jibjab case. The artist is making a comment about what is said in the lyrics when he or she changes them. I think bloggers have turned this into a more ironclad distinction than the decision merits.
Also, a lot of slashdotters and apparently bloggers seem to think that the reason for the distinction is to protect an artist's right to make fun of another artist's work. It is not. The reason is to protect an artist's right to make a point. Insofar as the work in question is an essential part of that point, it is protected speech.
Look at the 2LiveCrew case (which is Supreme Court precedent) -- the band didn't make a song making fun of Roy Orbison; they made a song making fun of a pretty woman. To make this point it was essential to use the lyrics of the song. Where Orbison had created a certain notion of the pretty woman, the 2livecrew created a different notion, and the contrast between the new song and the old song was very much part of their point. One can easily say the same about this land is your land.
Finally I would add that I think this whole distinction is specious. The First Amendment does not protect your right to make a point in the most effective way possible; it protects your right to make a point. In this particular case the point being made is core political speech, which would give it even more protection. There is a first amendment defense in copyright cases quite apart from the definition of fair use and I think this would be a strong use of one.
One more issue (Score:5, Insightful)
"A parody that more loosely targets an original than the parody presented here may still be sufficiently aimed at an original work to come within our analysis of parody. if a parody whose wide dissemination in the market runs the risk of serving as a substitute for the original..., it is more incumbent on one claiming fair use to the original. By contrast, when there is little or no risk of market substitution, whether because of the large extent of transformation of the earlier work, the new work's minimal distribution in the market, the extent to which it borrows from the original, or other factors, taking parodic aim at an original is a less critical factor in the analysis, and looser forms of parody may be found to be fair use..."
In other words, the Supreme Court does not at all indicate that just because "parody" is protected, somehow "satire" is not. In the above, the issue is the risk of market substitution -- if people start watching jib jab instead of listening to Guthrie, they might have a case. Frankly, I think this really renders the federal decision in the Seuss case especially problematic.
Bottom line: the purpose of letting copyright holder's sue when others use their works is to protect the copyright holder's right to reap the fruits of their labor. It is not to give the copyright holder veto power over messages they don't like.
Re:One more issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Very well put, especially your final point, which I think is really the reason why this whole snafu started in the first place:
It is not to give the copyright holder veto power over messages they don't like.
I don't know about anyone else, but I think the motive of the Richmond Organization here is pretty clear, and it sure as h*** isn't about copyright enforcement. (It's either that or their lawyers haven't done their homework.)
SB
Re:Parody v. Satire (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:2)
Jim McCoy's evaluation of the situation is undoubtedly correct.
Sorry, this comes viewpoint from a Canadian.
eh
Re:Well (Score:3, Interesting)
Guthrie's first verse
The court in Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc. (109 F.3d 1394). [findlaw.com] used the following reasoning to deterine that The Cat NOT in the Hat! was not parody
Re:Well (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well (Score:3, Informative)
By the way, most of the royalties go to a charity, the Committee to Combat Huntington's Disease.
Re:Well (Score:2)
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
I'll attempt to do an executive summary though. The video will probably not be considered a parody because it does not make fun of the song itself, it just uses the song in its parodying of George Bush and John Kerry.
Re:Well (Score:2, Insightful)
While jibjab definetly incorporates political satire, the thing that makes it so funny and such genius(IMO) is that it is also making fun of the original song. That is clearly being done in my opinion. They took a song about seeing our country in an unselfish way and made it a song about seeing the country in a selfish way. That it happens to incorporate political satire at the same time, IMO,
Re:Well (Score:2)
Satirizing the candidates for president does not rule out that the song is being parodized in a secondary manner.
Lastly, as noted elsewhere, there is some question of whether Guthrie released the song into the public domain and whether the current copyright owners improperly re
Re:Well (Score:2)
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
This land is their land,
It isn't our land,
From the Wall Street office
To the Cadillac car-land;
From the plush apartments
To the Hollywood starland,
This land is not for you and me.
If this is our land,
You'd never know it,
So take your bullshit
And kindly stow it,
Let's get together
And overthrow it,
Then this land will be for you and me.
You miss the point (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is, we shouldn't *HAVE* to use freenet!
Re:Well (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not a parody (Score:3, Interesting)
Review: Definition of Parody & Link song lyric (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's not a parody (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's not a parody (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not a parody (Score:3, Insightful)
I would like to point out that Weird Al pretty much does all three. Song's like Eat It and Yoda quite clearly are parodies, since his lyrics are completely unrelated to the originals. Some of his original songs, like Germs and Dare to be Stupid, satirize a particular musical style. However, songs like Achy Breaky Song and Smells Like Nirvana both satirize the very songs they are parodying.
Of course, discussing satire vs. parody
Re:It's not a parody (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's not a parody (Score:2)
Not necessarily true. In no country in the world that I am aware of, are dairy farmers going to kick in your door and Abu Ghraib you and your family for saying you don't like cheddar.
On the other hand, repression or restriction of political speech in some form or fashion is a fairly common occurrence, even in this country (the USA).
The idea behind the law is that political speech i
Re:It's not a parody (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:It's not a parody (Score:2)
I would be scared to meet the person who considers "Damn Colby Jack... I just hate it so much!!" to be a troll.
Sadly, it wouldn't surprise me anymore.
Blessed are the Cheese Eaters (Score:2)
Remember what Cheeses told us: "For I am the Brie, the Camembert and the Colby Jack."
Re:A small bit is in fact parody (Score:2)
The song as a whole though, is opposite the meaning of the original song, and much qualify as parody anyway.
These guys were on Leno this week (Score:5, Interesting)
I give these guys Kudos for having the balls to try to make a living off of making these online cartoons.
In the interview, they said that they make money off of donations and they joked that they'd just have enough money from this "Your land is my land" cartoon to pay one month's rent and maybe a few meals.
I hope they are allowed to continue what they are doing but unfortunately, i'm not familiar with american copyright laws.
I wonder if this will weaken their case (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I wonder if this will weaken their case (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when a presidential candidate is campaigning and receives a donation, nobody considers that as a commercial purpose. But is it any different when it comes to a parody or a satire?
Re:I wonder if this will weaken their case (Score:2)
It would be commercial if there was an exchange of goods for money. There isn't. They give away the goods for free, some people just happen to donate.
Consider the flowers that the Hari Krishnas used to give people. Many people donated money to their organization, but were they giving the Hari Krishnas money with the expectation of getting a flower?
After all, they already got the flower.
Re:I wonder if this will weaken their case (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if the same strategy will work for prostitution.
Funny you should mention it.
There have been several cases where ticket scalpers have circumvented the law by doing things like selling $100 hot chocolate...with tickets to the event included for free.
Gifts back and forth don't usually work because the litmus test is "are you expecting to exchange your work for money in this transaction."
Prostitutes will rarely give away their product for free in the hopes that someone, sometime might donate
Re:I wonder if this will weaken their case (Score:2)
Yes, it is a claim you can make that claim in some cases, but there is absolutely no requirement of such. While non-commercial certainly weighs in favor of fair use, commercialism certainly does not preclude fair use. The perfect example would be the Pretty Woman case - the parody version of Pretty Woma was absolutely done and sold for profit and still qualified as fair use.
-
Re:These guys were on Leno this week (Score:2)
The copyright isn't even valid. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001779.ph
Re:The copyright isn't even valid. (Score:2)
Re:The copyright isn't even valid. (Score:2)
Permission to use already given ? (Score:5, Informative)
"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."
There is something wrong where the author of a work doesn't give a damn about people using his material but his descendants get to control it for almost a century after his death.
Re:Permission to use already given ? (Score:2, Funny)
I got a shotgun, and you don't got one
This song is Private Property
Re:Permission to use already given ? (Score:2)
Re:Permission to use already given ? (Score:5, Informative)
Roll on Columbia and Ramblin' Round were both to the tune of Goodnight Irene by Huddie Ledbetter (that's Leadbelly to you and me).
Woody was not a particular fan of the idea of "Intellectual Property" and violated it regularly and without compunction. All he really cared about was some sort of credit for what he himself had written. Folk music is the original "Open Source."
This Land is Your Land he clearly intended by his own words to dedicate to the public domain.
KFG
Re:Permission to use already given ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, several of Woodie's original verses are very rarely heard these days, as people try hard to pervert it into a feel-good patriotic dittie. This is aided by the propensity of most people to learn only the first and sometimes second verses of songs.
Now we will segue into another long thread on the meaning of the term "irony"
Re:Permission to use already given ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Or even "the cultural process" since this is the way human cultural works and develops: taking existing material and repeat it, modify it and adapt it to the current situation while still keeping the basic form.
Making this illegal is absurd.
I think this story may be used as a kind of lackmus test for the current state of IP laws. Given the the known and aften cited intend of the creator, the length of tim
Re:Permission to use already given ? (Score:2)
When I first heard the Americanized version, I though it was a pale imitation of the Canadian version.
Hopefully these people aren't going to turn around and sue all of Canada next.
Pete Seeger (Score:2)
There's another discussion here [hnn.us]:
Pete Seeger, at the time, was referring to Woody Guthrie's habit of using the tunes of spirituals as the framework for his own writing, as well as the "folk process" of borrowing and modifying melodies or words as songs got passed from one person to another. (There are certain traditional songs which exist in literally dozens of distinct variations. Pete Seege
Annoying! (Score:4, Informative)
Posted on Sat, Jul. 31, 2004
JibJab defends use of 'This Land'
Bloomberg News
""This Land" was made for you and me, JibJab Media says in a lawsuit seeking the right to use the Woody Guthrie song This Land Is Your Land in an online parody of President Bush and Sen. John Kerry.
JibJab, which creates cartoons and children's books, wants a court order saying the song's inclusion in an animated video that shows Bush and Kerry slinging insults is a fair use under copyright law. The song's copyright owner, Ludlow Music, has threatened to sue JibJab if the song isn't pulled from its Web site, JibJab claims.
In the two-minute video, Bush's cartoon character declares that his Democratic opponent has "more waffles than a House of Pancakes," and Kerry counters that Bush "is a right-wing nut job." The video has been aired on shows including ABC World News Tonight, The Today Show and Larry King Live.
Kathryn Ostien, director of copyright, licensing and royalties for New York-based Ludlow Music, didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.
JibJab, which is run by brothers Gregg and Evan Spiridellis, says in its suit, filed Thursday in San Francisco federal court, that the video is a parody and doesn't infringe on Ludlow Music's copyrights."
Re:Annoying! (Score:2)
Another case against copyright extension (Score:5, Insightful)
The value of a good sense of humor (Score:2, Interesting)
You must be able to make fun of, parody, joke with anything, especially the things that are very well known, like a president, etc.
Religion is one of the things we people should start to take a little LESS serious!
Don't make fun of Emacs, you will get a ^F^a^t^w^a and it will killall -9.
Re:The value of a good sense of humor (Score:2)
Yes, yes it is.
Perhaps it's more a testimony to your poor ability to judge character -- That doesn't sound like the definition of "decent people" that I use.
on the basis of what their invisible friends think about one another.
That's sociopathy (and possibly schizophrenia if you hear the voices)
Why is it the voices always tell people to kill? Why don'
I'm curious (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm curious (Score:3, Insightful)
Decendents contribute nothing, inheritance should be taxed and copyrights should be non-transferrable, and expire on death.
Re:I'm curious (Score:2)
But a descendant can provide insight into the intentions and wishes of the creator who has passed.
Re:I'm curious (Score:2)
This song is our song,
It is not your song.
You did not write it,
and we can sing it.
My daddy wrote it,
He gave it to us all to sing.
This song was made for you and me.
Re:I'm curious (Score:2)
Even if the JibJab guys win, I wonder what percent of the settlement will end up in their pockets
Re:I'm curious (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if the JibJab guys win, I wonder what percent of the settlement will end up in their pockets
First of all their laywers are the EFF.
Secondly if they win they get $0, they are not suing for money. They are suing for a declaratory judgement of non-infringment.
Third I don't think the EFF would accept a settlement at all, they want a court win and they want court precedent. When you've got a sympathetic defendant you use the opportunity to set pres
Re:I'm curious (Score:2, Insightful)
Selling the copyright to your work is essentially what keeps programmers, authors, artists, and anyone involved in any form of creation creativity employed.
I've never grasped why inheritance should be taxed though, can you fill me in on the logic there? Why should I be punished by the gov't for dying?
Re:I'm curious (Score:2)
Because in the past (Score:2)
Re:I'm curious (Score:2)
Re:I'm curious (Score:2)
Re:I'm curious (Score:3, Funny)
But it would take him 15 minutes to sing it to you.
Barbie in a Blender Day (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a celebration of victory in a similar free speech / fair use case that finished recently. Mattel had sued a photographer for taking photographs of Barbie in a blender and other appliances. The ACLU took on his case and he not only won, but Mattel had to pay his $1.8 million in legal fees.
The Barbie in a Blender gallery [barbieinablender.org] is pretty great.
Off-topic (Score:5, Funny)
Popular Opinion (Score:2)
Anyone that goes after JibJab is going to run into the great big wall of popular opinion from both sides. Their creative work is pretty inoffensive and non-partisan. Anyone attacking them will be pilloried.
whatever (Score:3, Funny)
This land is my land,
It isn't your land,
I've got a shotgun
And you don't got one.
If you don't get off,
I'll blow your head off.
This land is private proper-teeee.
Or maybe this.
This song is our song,
It isn't your song,
It wasn't intended
to have an owner
I don't care if you own it
That doesn't mean you control it
this song was made for you and me
"This Song We Sing For You and Me" (Score:5, Funny)
Tune (c) 1940, Woodie Guthrie
As of 2004, the rights to Guthrie's tune are administered by The Richmond Organization, located in New York, NY.
The following is a parody of the dispute between The Richmond Organization and Evan and Gregg Spiridellis of Jibjab.com surrounding JibJab's 2004 hit "This Land," which parodies the US Presidential Race between Republican candidate George W. Bush and Democratic candidate John Kerry and which uses Guthrie's tune "This Land Is Made For You and Me."
"This Song We Sing For You and Me"
Lyrics by David W. Richardson
Chorus:
This song is your song, this song is my song,
From A. P. Carter, to his "Little Darling,"
From the Babtist Hymnal, to the "Lovin' Brother,"
This song we sing for you and me.
A man named Guthrie, he had a vision.
He wrote a folk song, and shared it with us.
He sang a tune that was familiar, thinking
"This song I sing for you and me."
(Chorus)
Two men named Evan and Gregg Spiridellis
Sat down to write a song about Bush and Kerry.
They borrowed music, from Woodie thinking
"This song, he sang for you and me."
(Chorus)
"Stop!" said the Richmond Organization.
They own the rights to Guthrie's music.
Evan and Gregg, they called it humor, saying
"This song, we sing for you and me."
(Chorus)
The two famous brothers, they filed a lawsuit
To preserve our rights to use Guthrie's work.
The judge will say that it is okay, saying
"This song, you sing for you and me."
(Chorus)
But it may happen that they lose and then their song will die....
Since this can happen, I put pen to paper
And write these lyrics, daring them to sue me, for
"This song, I write for you and me."
(Chorus)
These lyrics are copyright (c) 2004 David Richardson (davidwr.geo -at- yahoo.com), posted to Slashdot.org under the Creative Common License Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0, as found on http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ [creativecommons.org].
Slashdot.org is not responsible for the content of this post.
Sources:
John Dowdell's commentary on this issue [corante.com]
Woodie Guthrie Lyrics [univie.ac.at]
Censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
Locking up ideas as property, whether works of art or in any other form, is ultimately no different than suppressing them. If JibJab doesn't have the right to keep this video on their servers, then they don't have freedom of speech, and guess what? Neither do we.
The purpose of copyright was to prevent plagarists from passing off other people's work as their own for profit, not to censor similar expressions of ideas. It seems to me that a plagarist trying to pass off other people's works as their own (i.e. Woody Guthrie's) for profit is a perfect description of Ludlow Music.
I propose that those wishing to possess "intellectual property" should keep their thoughts in their head.
Woody took the melody from the Carter Family (Score:3, Informative)
"Turns out Woody Guthrie lifted the melody of "This Land is Your Land" essentially note-for-note from "When the World's on Fire," a song recorded by country/bluegrass legends, The Carter Family, ten years before Guthrie wrote his classic song. Here's a short snippet (380k mp3) of the song (the song can be found on the box set, The Carter Family: 1927-34). You don't need to be a musicologist to hear what we're talking about.
Now we've got nothing against Woody's borrowing. In fact, it's a part of the "folk process" that Woody himself championed. I can't imagine that The Carter Family minded.
But in the letter threatening copyright litigation over JibJab's animated political parody, "This Land," Ludlow's lawyer goes out of his way to attack JibJab for copying "the entire melody, harmony, rhythm and structure of the [sic] Mr. Guthrie's song."
Er, sorry there Ludlow, but actually, the entire melody, harmony, rhythm, and structure of "This Land is Your Land" doesn't belong to you. And I'd like to think Mr. Guthrie would never have claimed credit for them, if he were still alive to ask."
More political humor: (Score:2, Funny)
More political humor: It's tough to be a Republican [futurepower.org].
Re:More political humor: (Score:2)
Saying "The Emperor was seen in public with almost no clothes on!" when he was just on the beach in swimming trunks is (-1, Propaganda).
Saying "Hah, what a 'tard! He's standing up there giving a speech, with no clothes on... why does he have a tattoo of a smurf on his chest?" is (+1, Funny).
Grandparent's link is the last.
Re:Ummm... (Score:2)
Ever see Mark Russel? Enough said.
It's not redundant if you haven't seen it. (Score:5, Informative)
It's not redundant if you haven't seen it. The Slashdot story makes no reference to the humor. Just because you have seen the movie, don't think that everyone has.
So, here is the link again. Be sure to see the Flash Movie, This Land [jibjab.com]. It's very funny.
Re:Its not about IP (Score:3, Informative)
Good thing for you I don't have any mod points at the moment, or you'd be a Troll immediately.
Re:Its not about IP (Score:3, Insightful)
Its really about dubya trying to hide anything that shows what a dumbass he is. It's repression of free speech under the guise of an IP squabble.
As a Republican, I'm afraid I missed the Right Wing Conspiracy meeting on this one.
Re:Its not about IP (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Its not about IP (Score:2)
Let me guess - you could tell me, but then you'd have to kill me, right?
Never mind ...
Re:Its not about IP (Score:3, Insightful)
Silly peasant. Just being a registered supporter of the Republican party isn't going to get you invited to the V.R.W.C. meetings. Admission to the REAL Republican party requires at least one (and preferably more) of the following criteria:
Re:Its not about IP (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Its not about IP (Score:2)
No, any American with half a brain will be voting for the person they think will be best for the country. And they won't just be doing it this fall, they'll be doing it every election.
Declaring third-party votes "protest" votes is almost self-defeating. It has the conotation of being temporary. One group is always going to protesting something each election. That's okay though, as next election that group will come back to the fold while another group takes their place. Votes have to be much deeper than ju
Re:Its not about IP (Score:3, Interesting)
Call me cynical, but at this point I think the only reason we're having elections at all is that the polls are close enough that Bush's handlers think they can pull the same shenannigans they did in 2000 to ensure his victory. If the polls start show that he's got a serious chance of losing, I have a strong suspicion that there will be a convienient "terrorist" attack [wikipedia.org] giving him an excuse to postpone the [msn.com]
Re:Its not about IP (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not about politics. Someone wants to settle for half of some web site's T-Shirt sales and make a quick buck, because it's cheaper to hire a lawyer than it is to generate a Woody Guthrie Revivalist Movement.
Re:Its not about IP (Score:2, Interesting)
The parent post is definately trolling.
Here, here.
I thought the cartoon was funny and equally made light of both candidates.
Glad somebody else realized that. It was pretty one-to-one. Although I realized that everything said about Bush has been said in the past four years while the Kerry stuff seems to be fairly new. I guess the only one-sided part is where Howard Dean goes insane on stage.
But the parent is right about one thing: It's not about IP [it's really about money!]
Very true. So
Re:Its not about IP (Score:2)
Hmmmmm, and why would that be? Because of the Republican chip implanted at the base of your spine?
Dunh-dunh-DUNH!!!!
Re:JibJab site comment (Score:2)