Slashdot Mirror


Parody or Satire? Threat To Sue JibJab

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."

28 of 710 comments (clear)

  1. Did they listen to the original? by beeplet · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There's something horribly ironic about this lawsuit... if you read past the first few verses of the song (the most widely known ones) you realize that this is not exactly a patriotic hymn...


    As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
    And that sign said - no tress passin'
    But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin!
    Now that side was made for you and me!

    Chorus

    In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple
    Near the relief office - I see my people
    And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin'
    If this land's still made for you and me.

    Chorus (2x)


    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...)
    1. Re:Did they listen to the original? by August_zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you are 100% correct. The original piece of music had this subtle little defiance in it and that is why it is great.

      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.

      --
      On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
    2. Re:Did they listen to the original? by javaxman · · Score: 5, Insightful
      this is not exactly a patriotic hymn...

      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.

    3. Re:Did they listen to the original? by RazzleFrog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you really believe that it is just the republicans that are pushing heavy copyright enforcement? That would be completely ignorant of the fact that DMCA was signed by Clinton, that the biggest proponent in copyright extension, Senator "Disney" Hollings, is a Democract, and that most of Hollywood and the music industry are democrats.

      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.

    4. Re:Did they listen to the original? by apachetoolbox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IANAL , but this looks like written permission to me.

    5. Re:Did they listen to the original? by Izago909 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you really believe that it is just the republicans that are pushing heavy copyright enforcement?

      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]

    6. Re:Did they listen to the original? by dabraun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uhm, vote for someone else? The fact that one of those two parties will win (and yes, I agree, it sucks) doesn't change the fact you can send a message by voting for some *other* candidate - and it's a much stronger message that not voting at all.

    7. Re:Did they listen to the original? by MindStalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You should still go and vote. Vote for a third party canidate. If there is none, write a name in, or something. This way its counted as a vote for neither, and potentially, just maybe, neither canidate will get 50% of the vote. Forcing a runoff in many states.

    8. Re:Did they listen to the original? by southpolesammy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yeah, pretty much what I've been saying to friends and colleagues so far this election year. Basically...
      Our choices this year are to vote for the militaristic, plutocratic Yale graduate, or you can try to change things and vote for the militaristic, plutocratic Yale graduate.

      --
      Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    9. Re:Did they listen to the original? by bodrell · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "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."
      You may be saying something, but no one is listening. I agree totally with your sentiment, but I also voted for Nader in the last TWO elections (I wrote him in in 1996, and all you democrats blaming Bush's presidency on Nader can go to hell). Even if you don't vote, you can make your voice heard in more meaningful ways. Try to engage people in conversation (not argument). Most Republicans hate big government, and are pretty pissed about all the spending Bush is doing. A lot of people choose their candidates based on issues, not on parties, so a lot of those who voted pro-Bush were actually voting anti-abortion, or anti-gun control. But you know what? Russ Feingold is a democratic senator from Wisconsin who opposes gun control too. Bush, however, expressed support for an "assault weapon" ban even though he's a Republican.

      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.

      --
      Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
    10. Re:Did they listen to the original? by Daetrin · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "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."

      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!

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    11. Re:Did they listen to the original? by conradp · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I don't really get the whole "kerry == bush" thing that's being pushed around by socialists right now. Reproductive rights, stem cell research and the acceptable amount of mercury in your drinking water are just a FEW of the points that they disagree on.


      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.

      --
      "To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." -- Olin Miller
  2. Parody vs. Satire unimportant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's important in this case is that is clearly political speech, and the Courts have time and time again give much more freedom to political speech than any other. Political speech is what is most protected by the first ammendment, because it keeps a free government free.

  3. satire vs. parody by rgoldste · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The difference is that parody makes fun of the original work that the work is derived from; satire is a derivative work that makes fun of something else. Parody is protected, satire is not fair use.

    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.

  4. Lyrics and visuals make it not an infringement IMO by LeahofRivendell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Satire has a near and dear place in many people's hearts just as a coping mechanism with all of the crazy stuff happening in the news. Take it away, and we go back to rioting. That's how it works

  5. Would anybody even care if not for the publicity? by bluemeep · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I swear, I've seen the entire flash three times now thanks to the repeat airings on the news. Would anybody have gotten their undies in a twist if the animation had been something completely forgettable on Newgrounds.com?

  6. Seems like satire to me by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're probably making fun of Bush, not Woody Guthrie. They're just using Woody Guthrie's song to enhance their parody. Penny arcade had a simular problem when they did a comic about "American McGee's Strawberry Shortcake". Actually, Penny Arcade might have been able to win that case (the commic had Strawberry dolled up like a Dominatrix, and you could argue they where making fun of her overly sweet image by showing her in that light). Now, I haven't seen this flash, but I'm guessing it in no way makes fun of Folk songs/signers.

    Now, the irony is having a champion of the little guy (Woody Guthrie), having his works controled by large corporations. Gotta love it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  7. Don'tcha all know.... by 3seas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .... its freedom of speech but only when you say what I want to hear.....

  8. OB by Heem · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This log is your log
    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!

    --
    Don't Tread on Me
  9. Re:Sold out for a buck by macdaddy357 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If this isn't the smoking gun proof that copyrights last too long, then nothing is. If the original 28 year copyright maximum still existed, This Land is Your Land would have been in the public domain where it belongs long ago. Woody Guthrie is dead. He cannot be encouraged to keep creating through copyright protection.

    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.

    --
    How ya like dat?
  10. Re:Sold out for a buck by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The original right holder isn't the current rights holder. Some transfer took place...

    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:
    This is what happens when artists sell the rights to their work for a buck or two. Got a problem with the RIAA, MPAA etc, talk to the stupid artists who are having caviar dreams and champagne wishes.

    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.
    Is horseshit. It is leastaways completely irrelevant to Woody Guthry.

    IANALBIPOOTV.
    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  11. Re:Not a Parody? by stubear · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, this song isn't making fun of the original, it's poking fun at the 2004 US elections and the candidates for both parties. The song is simply the means to an end and JibJab could have just as easily picked any number of songs about America for the tune.

    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.

  12. Re:Pretty obvious by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The intent is to make a political message about the government not to parady the song.

    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.

  13. Re:Sold out for a buck by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is what happens when artists sell the rights to their work for a buck or two. Got a problem with the RIAA, MPAA etc, talk to the stupid artists who are having caviar dreams and champagne wishes.

    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.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  14. Re:Grade School Parody or Juvenile Satire? by crimethinker · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Or how about"

    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

    --
    Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
  15. Re:Precedents? by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ...is JibJab's work a parody of TLIYL, or is it comedy at the expense of Bush and Kerry...?

    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.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  16. Re:Sold out for a buck by shanen · · Score: 3, Insightful
    He didn't sell out. He was screwed by the RIAA and its predecessors. The idea of copyright was to benefit society by encouraging creative artists. Since then, the copyright law has been completely rewritten to solely benefit the publishers--and the heck with society and the artists. The primary purpose of modern copyright law is just to make the fat cat publishers richer.

    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.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  17. Woody Guthrie and the "folk process" by VValdo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Much has been said about Guthrie's standard copyright notice to do whatever you want with his music, but I haven't read anything yet about the "folk process" to which Guthrie and his contemporaries such as Pete Seeger (who was in the folk group "The Weavers" and is still alive) depended on.

    What was the folk process?

    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,

    "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

    --
    -------------------
    This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.