Slashdot Mirror
JibJab Sues for Fair Use of Right to Parody
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.
If it were "all Bush's fault" as you claim, then the FCC would be going after JibJab, not Guthrie's estate. And three men in black suits would be on your doorstep right now.
Good thing for you I don't have any mod points at the moment, or you'd be a Troll immediately.
More info about this on EFF's site:
p
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001779.ph
From wikipedia Woody Guthrie has already given his permission.
"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.
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
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."
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
Unless the Courts decide it is protected because of the POLITICAL nature of the work. That's what the first ammendment is really protecting.
It isn't a parody of the song itself. A parody of the song would be permitted. Instead it is satire on Bush and Kerry using the song as its medium.
A parody mocks the artist or composer. A satire mocks someone else using the work created by the artist or composer. Parody is protected by fair use (since it is a sort of review or statement about the work in question) while satire is not.
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)
Lawrence Lessig explains it well (and with examples) on his blog entry about it.
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.
Just as Michael Jackson's Beat It is to Weird Al's Eat It, the music is not changing but the words are. Yes, Al got permission but he was not required to. If you look up the legal definition of what a parody is you'll find: According to law.com parody is "the humorous use of an existing song, play, or writing which changes the words to give farcical and ironic meaning." Given that JibJab's lyrics (Read them for yourself) did not use the song in it's original state, and unless the definition of a parody has changed, Jibjab should be in the clear.
Interested people can read the decision here.
One of the claims that can be made regarding a parody or satire is that it is for non-commercial purposes. Having these two guys shilling their site on Leno and talking about how this animation has increased their commercial prospects is not really the sort of statements that a lawyer would advise them to make...
wierd Al's songs our conmsidered Parody, but he makes fun of the Amish, Food, Star Wars, etc . . .
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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. It's very funny.
Weird Al gets permission from artists before making his parodies.
Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
Posting as AC because this is WAY off-topic. Don't want to bother the usual readers with this info. (A bit shocking the parent got modded up, too, given the nearly off-topic nature and the fact that it's more inciteful than insightful.)
Copyrights non-transferable? That will pretty much kill off the modern economic world as we know it.
A bit of an exaggeration there. The modern economy would have to adapt, but it would hardly be killed off. Long-term exclusive licenses could replace copyright transfers pretty easily. There's some subtlety there, but it wouldn't be the end of the world as we know it.
I'm a small business owner and I make reasonable money using my intellectual property without having to transfer my copyrights to anyone else. I am proof it is possible to be a creative soul surviving without transferring copyrights to someone else.
That said, barring copyright transfers is not the right answer to the problem. Reasonable limits on copyrights (and other forms of intellectual property) is the answer. Of course, what is "reasonable" is a topic of endless discussion...
I've never grasped why inheritance should be taxed though, can you fill me in on the logic there?
Because it accepts and deals with the economic reality that money attracts more money. It's a way of redistributing wealth to the goverment. Inheritances past a certain point are actually harmful to the economy, because it measn that a person receives money he or she did not "earn". This means the person inheriting the money has less motivation to contribute to the economy in a meaningful manner. In other words, the tax gives that person more motivation to invest the money into the economy in order to accumulate more money that was "lost" to taxation as well as giving the government more capital to fund important things like police, fire departments, etc.
That's the general theory behind taxing inheritance. It's not a penalty on the person dying so much as a motivator for the person suriving to keep the money active in the economy.
The copyright on "This land" says "Words and Music (c) Woody Guthrie (1940), TRO (c) 1956 (renewed), 1958 (renewed) & 1970 Ludlow Music Inc.
By the way, most of the royalties go to a charity, the Committee to Combat Huntington's Disease.
He only does that as a courtesy though. A very nice guy, he is.
To quote in part:
Sincerely yours,
Jeffrey Boulier
From this link:
"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."
The lyric with "No Trespassin'" is certainly a variation that Woody sang at times, as have other people. But the version that has the sign saying "Private Property" was also sung by Woody. There's a photostat of that verse in Woody's handwriting floating around the 'net in various places. And the "Private Property" line was the one recorded by Alan Lomax for Folkway Records/Smithsonian Museum.
I personally like the "Private Property" lyric better... it puts Woody's anti-capitalism in clearer relief.
FWIW, the "God made America for me" line was an earlier refrain than "This land was made for you and me"... as far as that goes, I don't like the "God made" thing as much. Folk songs are fluid, and variations are how they evolve.
Buy Text Processing in Python