Slashdot Mirror
JibJab Wins - 'This Land' is Public Domain
The Importance of writes "JibJab, creators of the hilarious parody of Woody Guthrie's 'This Land is Your Land' featuring Pres. Bush and Sen. Kerry, were first threatened with a lawsuit and then, with the help of EFF, went to court first in a pre-emptive strike. Well, EFF discovered that the song has actually been in the public domain since 1973 because it was first published in a songbook [PDF] in 1945 and the copyright was never renewed. The case has now been settled. Here are some addtional links."
If you don't know what we're talking about here, it's definitely worth going to JibJab.com and clicking on the big link to the flash animation on the home page. It's well worth the long download time. It's very funny and equally attacks both candidates.
I thought that no matter what parody was protected regardless of copyright? Isn't that how Weird Al operates?
Nope, Al's lawyer ask for permission first.
You can't take the sky from me...
Weird Al always asks for permission from the original artists before doing a parody of their hit. It's not required, but it's the way he operates.
One thing that's being overlooked is the right to perform/record/re-record a song out of a song book it a very cheap thing to aquire. The copyright owner on the song can't say "no", and the price is spelled out in law. That's what "mechanical royalties" are all about.
According to his site, Weird Al always gets permission first, though it's characterised as a notification:
"Q. Does Al get permission to do his parodies?
A. 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."
But what is the SIGnificance?
Parodies make fun of the song, satire uses the song to make fun of something else.
Parodies are protected speech, satire is not, that's why there was a lawsuit.
Weird Al claimed that there was a miscommunication and that he thought he got permission.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Patriotic huh?
Chorus
As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side
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.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The lawyers do ask, but they don't have to. It's a matter of courtesy more than anything else.
There's at least one instance, "Amish Paradise", where the original artist (Coolio) denied permission and Weird Al went ahead with it anyway. As it turns out, several Amish communities were also horribly offended by the song, but it's against their beliefs to sue him, so they haven't done anything about it.
Weird Al asks permission out of courtesy, not because the law makes him. I remember watching an interview with him about it.
No, parody of copyrighted material is protected, and parody of politicians is protected. Inappropriate use of copyrighted material to parody politicians is not necessarily protected.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
You have to choose your battles.
This might not have proven anything and damages awarded might have been less than the amount spent on the case, making it not worth pursuing more vigorously.
--RJ
WTF- this land (the original song) is not a patriotic song. It was a proto-communist anthem. The lyrics are trying to get people to vote in communistic or socialistic changes into the American system. Makes sense when you think that this written during the dustbowl era, and Woody Guthrie was an active communist.
Numbnuts.
click me
Parody is protected because you are
making fun OF THE SONG.
Satire is NOT protected because you are using
someones song for an alternate purpose.
Why should satire not be protected? Imagine you are the author of a song about how much you love linux. Imagine if Microsoft used your song in a commercial that was bashing linux, and just changed a few words. They are not making fun of the song, they are using the song for their own purposes in violation of your copyright.
For everyone saying "the first amendment"...
Copyright is in the constitution.
The reason why "This land" is not protected is
NOT the first amendment but because the copyright
expired...a strong argument for limited copyrights.
The founders had the right idea...14+14. Personally
I would give authors a break 28+28 like it was before 1976.
Parodies are protected speech, satire is not, that's why there was a lawsuit.
Looks like they were making fun of both (using the original lyrics of the song to make a point).
Ludlow believes its copyright -- initially filed in 1956 and renewed in 1984 -- remains valid and disputes EFF's claims.
This never made it to court, so it's likely that a Judge would have to make that kind of determination. Ludlow may have backed down for just this very concern for all we know.
This is not only great news for This Land is Your Land lovers, but for lovers of all of Woody's music, because the same case will apply to any other of Woody's songs that Ludlow failed to renew.
Time to do some research people.
I hate to place a fly in the ointment though, especially in public where Ludlow's lawyers might see it, but the Sonny Bono Copyright Act extended copyright retroactively, including onto those titles that had already fallen into the public domain. This has been a real pain to online publishers of public domain works, many of whom have withdrawn certain titles that were clearly in the public domain when they first posted them.
To my knowledge this portion of the act has never actually been tested in court though, and still hasn't since this issue was resolved by the withdrawl of the complaint. They are free to remake it for some decades.
In this case though we still have Woody's own grant of public rights on first publication. I wonder if that didn't influence Ludlow's action, since going to court over the issue would inevitably bring that up. They may wish to avoid a judicial ruling on that score.
KFG
1) It's the client (in this case JibJab) that calls the shots, and it is the attorney's duty to apprise the client of settlement offers. If the client wants to settle, there is nothing EFF can do about it. So if you're going to whine and complain, go to Jibjab, not the EFF.
2) There was no precedent to be set in this case. JibJab and the EFF were relying on well established principles of Fair Use, before they discovered that the property in question was in the Public Domain. If the courts had ruled against them and in favor of Ludlow, THAT would have been a precedent and historical, if such a ruling survived the appeals process.
Once again, shame on the mods for seeing this uneducated, uninformed rant as insightful.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Instead of liberating lots of songs for this sort of use, they got the company to agree to let JibJab continue to use the song. If you read the article you would know that the company disputes that copyright has expired, so the song has not been liberated and other "infringers" could still be sued. This hasn't prevented anything in the future.
So yes, JibJab is fine now, but that is all that has happened.
Lasers Controlled Games!
Citation: WoodyGuthrie.com
"American icon" my *ss. Guthrie was a socialist, and an organizer, and would have been writing anti-Bush songs and new verses for his old ones.
... .... it didn't say nothin!
"Damage the song"? Uh, how many know *all* the verses? Let the "rights owners" eat *THESE* verses:
As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side
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.
Cho.
mark the red
and had been told as much by his record label. He did not receive a denial and go "ahead with it anyway". Read this and get your facts straight before sounding off.
In fact, I'll make it easy for you; here is the relevant excerpt from the FAQ:
What about Coolio? I heard that he was upset with Al about "Amish Paradise."
That was a very unfortunate case of misunderstanding between Al's people and Coolio's people. Short version of the story: Al recorded "Amish Paradise" after being told by his record label that Coolio had given his permission for the parody. When Al's album came out, Coolio publicly contended that he had never given his blessing, and that he was in fact very offended by the song. To this day we're not exactly sure who got their facts wrong, but Al sincerely apologizes to Coolio for the misunderstanding.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
The song itself is all about the value of the country and how it should be shared by all of us.
The version that I (and most of the people that I know) learned in school goes:
That is the version as it was first recorded at guthrie's last commercial session. Interestingly enough there is a missing verse that shows up in a few rare recordings that appear in the Library of Congress. It states:
This shows up in a recording that Woodie made that is now part of the Smithsonian Folkways recordings (see here and Here).
I can't think of a more appropriate response to this than that.
You can see more info:
IMHO whoever claims to "own" this is as sick as the people who claim to "own" the image of Martin Luther King as property. See the commentrary at the internet archive: here.
So the wayback machine won't get /dotted.
... " the voice said. I glanced up, and saw Martin Luther King Jr. delivering his most famous speech, given at the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington.
... you must first connect."
The promised land goes condo
March 30, 2001
BY ROGER EBERT
The voice from the television set was measured and familiar, the cadence one that has been engraved on my memory.
"I have a dream
It was a camera angle I hadn't seen before. And, oddly, he wasn't flanked by other civil rights leaders, but was standing all by himself. As his words continued, the camera's point of view circled to look out over his head and down the Mall, which was completely empty.
CGI, I thought. Computer-generated imagery. Then the tag line came on. It was a commercial for Alcatel, a company involved in communications networks and cell phones. An Alcatel newspaper ad with the same image spells out the message: "Before you can inspire
Via Alcatel, of course.
I was filled with anger and sadness.
Not this speech, I thought. Not this moment in American history.
Ads have exploited almost every image worth quoting in our society. United Airlines has made it impossible for anyone to ever again hear Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" without thinking about airplanes. Fred Astaire, the most graceful dancer in movie history, was seen dancing with a Dust-Buster. Such ads are pathetic, yes, but I suppose the copyright owners have a legal right to license them, and if their estates have no regard for the reputation of Gershwin or Astaire, well, that's greed for you.
But surely there are a few moments too sacred, too special, to be bought and sold. I would have thought Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech was one of them.
It shines like a beacon in our history. It belongs to all of us. It does not belong to Alcatel, which should not have the temerity and insensitivity to use it in an ad. And in a way, it doesn't belong to the King estate, either. The estate should consider itself the protector of this speech, not its retailer.
Perhaps, I thought, the speech was somehow in the public domain, and Alcatel had ripped it off to sell its networks and cell phones. I called the Martin Luther King Center in Atlanta and spoke with Robert Vickers, its public relations spokesman.
"I am afraid you will have to fax me your questions in writing," he said.
"I have only one question," I said. "Did the King Center license the Alcatel TV commercial?"
"Yes," he said. "It was licensed by the King estate's Intellectual Properties Management."
"Have you had a lot of calls about the ad?" I asked.
"Yes," he said, "comments both ways."
I started to ask how much the speech sold for, but he told me about the fax again. I didn't much feel like sending the fax. I knew the price.
Thirty pieces of silver.
Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.
Parody is protected. However, this is the same thing that happened with Penny Arcade and American Greetings, Inc. (or whoever) a while ago. Penny Arcade parodied the likeness of some character to satirize Todd McFarlane (I think). So it wasn't a parody of said character, but a satire of Todd McFarlane.
Likewise, JibJab used "This Land is Our Land" to satirize President Bush and Senator Kerry. If they had wrote a song that was merely a parody of "This Land is Our Land" then they would have been fine and it would have been protected. However, they used the song for other purposes, not covered under the provisions that protect parody.
Fortunately, the song was in the public domain and hence the restrictions didn't apply.
One way copyright goes into force is based on as soon as a work is first published publicly. The EFF found the first published date is 1945. That means in order for the copyright to be extended under the rules which were in effect during the time, Ludlow would have had to file an extension no later than 1973. Renewing in 1984 was 11 years too late, because the song would have automatically passed into the public domain in 1973 and once in the public domain, always in the public domain.
CD Baby has a guide on how to do a cover song in the US:
: //www.mcps.co.uk/
http://www.cdbaby.net/dd?f=8
It's slightly different here in the UK (and slightly easier as it's a single "clearing-house"), you'll need to get in touch with the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society (MCPS) and probably the Performing Rights Society:
http://www.prs.co.uk/soundadvice/
http
For specific advice on doing a cover, see the FAQ (question 9) here:
http://www.mcps.co.uk/productlicensing/
Note that when you publicly perform a cover you'll need a Public Entertainment Licence (PEL) and a PRS licence.
If you're an artist/band then I'ld recommend joining/registering with both the MCPS & PRS, it doesn't cost much (if anything) and means that you're work is protected and you'll get paid for things like radio play, so it's well worth it. They also give you a load of advice and are really helpful in general.
If anything, the quality of the "Bush is stupid" point is far lower than the quality of the Kerry critiques. As I said, Bush being stupid is pretty played and fangless at this point. So, bashing it frequently is actually quite ineffective: you end up with an animated Kerry saying the same old thing over and over, whereas the animated Bush is delivering fresh critiques and talking points.
Anyway, you're misunderstanding me if you think I'm saying it's "pro Bush" - I'm just saying it doesn't seem to be a paragon of balance, and furthermore it just isn't that funny. The critiques of Bush are almost exclusively "image", whereas the critiques of Kerry are both "image" (pinko commie/liberal weiner/sissy/herman munster/botox) *plus* talking points (waffles/flip-flops/UN pussy/etc.). That's what I think indicates this isn't exactly a balanced little piece of work: that doesn't make it pro-Bush by any stretch of the imagination, it just makes it more anti-Kerry than it is anti-Bush.
As for your Libertarian Party talking points, eh. I don't care. That's your call, I don't need to see their flash ad or visit their website to know their platform as I'm pretty well aware of it. I'm not a huge Kerry fan by any stretch of the imagination (I supported Dean in the primaries). However, as Noam Chomsky put it, the stakes are so high that the slight differences between Kerry and Bush will actually lead to a much higher utility for Kerry than Bush.
Is it a compromise? Yes. Is it "voting for the lesser of two evils"? Yes. But you know what? In a country of 300 million people, that kind of makes sense. We can't always get precisely what we want.
The point is about fair use. It is considered fair use (no permission needed, though mechanical royalties may have to be paid) to parody the original song. It is not considered fair use to use the original song to satirize something *other* than the original song, and therefore permission can legally be denied by the author of the song (or assignees).
Because Guthrie not only published the work in 1945, he put a copyright notice on it. There's a scan of the original songbook on the website linked by the article. That makes Ludlow's 1956 copyright invalid.
I don't know where on God's green earth you got that from, but you couldn't be more wrong.
Nope. He's right, and you're wrong. And by tossing in that gratutious "you can't be more wrong", you made YOURSELF even more wrong.
As others have replied, your supposed "proof" is based on confusing libel with satire. For the real state-of-the-law, read "The Cat Not In The Hat" decision. It clearly shows that imitating the work of an artist (Theodor Geisel) to comment on someone else (Orenthal Simpson) is NOT protected parody, but illegal copyright infringement.
In fact, when the satire is aimed at a public official
Comments like that underline your fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. The subject of the satire doesn't matter- it's not his rights that are being violated. It's the author of the source material that is allegedly harmed by the infringement. (Notice that it wasn't Bush or Kerry suing Jibjab, but Ms. Guthrie)
This should come as good news to the Girl Scouts of America, who in 1996 stopped singing "This Land is Your Land" at campfire events along with all other copyrighted music, at least officially.
I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.
-RenderHead
Hey monkeypimple, that's nationalism. Quite a bit of difference... patriots are often thought traitors while they are alive. Only history tells the truth about them.
Look it up, you could use the extra vocabulary.
They specifically addressed this in the legal proceedings.
To make a parody of a song is to change the lyrics in such a way as to make fun of the original work.
JibJab was "satire" which is *not* protected Fair Use as it was using an existing work and using it to make fun of the candidates rather than the original work.
I just found out there's no such thing as the real world. It's just a lie you've got to rise above. - John Mayer
I never understood why this logic has not been applied (legally at least) to Happy Birthday which was music originally published in the 1890's (as "Good Morning to All/You"), had the alternative lyrics published or alluded to a number of times from 1909 onwards, but wasn't copyrighted until 1935 by one of the original authors (who didn't even write the changed lyrics!) and is still under copyright until something like 2030, allowing the current holders to sue the Girl Guides and force restaurants to come up with those silly hand clapping songs.
The reason is because copyright laws have changed. Back in the day, you didn't automatically get a copyright by virtue of publishing - you had to apply for a copyright. The date of publication didn't have any bearing on the date of copyright.
I'm sure that in the case of Ludlow, they applied for the copyright when they purchased the rights from Guthrie (or whomever they bought them from), so they must figure that the clock started ticking at that point.
This is definitely crap for a judge to sort out.
=h=
IANAL, so I'm not sure i quite understand, but it reads to me that "This Land" IS STILL COPYRIGHTED...or at least you are at risk from being sued if you use it.
...
" Ludlow believes its copyright -- initially filed in 1956 and renewed in 1984 -- remains valid and disputes EFF's claims."
"JibJab dismissed its suit against Ludlow today. As part of the settlement of the case, JibJab will remain free to continue distributing the "This Land" animation without further interference from Ludlow."
So they settled out of court and only agreed not to sue JibJab. Which means if you used the song, they retain the right to sue you...