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."
Lets hope this case serves as inspiration to others to dig up other gems for the public domain.
Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
What happens to people who paid royalties since then. Can they sue to get their fees back, or are they SOL?
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
While I agree with your argument, I should point out that the Jib Jab piece isn't necessarily parody - it's satire. Satire does not enjoy the same degree of protection as parody.
I think it wasn't parodying the "This Land" song, it was satirizing the political campaign. One could probably make a case for the reverse - but what do you think is more likely?
"I think I'll make fun of Dubya and Kerry. This old song could be useful."
-or-
"I think I'll make fun of this old song. Dubya and Kerry could be useful."
So, now that its established that these people don't have the copyright to the song after all, will anyone take them to court for their lies in an attempt to obtain money from these JibJab people? Around these parts, we call lying for money "fraud".
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Amish teens are given free reign to experiment for some period of time (a few years, I think) before they become adults. If you go to amish country, you can see teens driving the buggy with a boom box blaring next to them, hanging out, etc.
The amish want their kids to make the choice to follow their ways with full knowledge; they don't want people in their community who feel that they weren't given a choice and would feel resentful.
There was an extra verse to the song that wasn't often sung because it was considered 'controversial.'
While I was walking that ribbon of Highway
I saw a sign that said "no trespassing"
but on the other side, that sign said nothing.
Well, that side was made for you and me.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
I believe that the answer is that they will own the rights to their new lyrics, but not the original words and music. Unless they decide to put the new lyrics into the public domain, which would be a cool thing to do, considering.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
H0ek
Think you're smart? Prove you've got brains!
Parodies are protected speech, satire is not, that's why there was a lawsuit.
I don't know where on God's green earth you got that from, but you couldn't be more wrong. Both parody and satire are protected forms of speech. I don't have the cases in front of me, but the New York Times v. Sullivan case, the Hustler v. Fallwell case, et al, bare this out. In fact, when the satire is aimed at a public official, there is a much higher standard that is used in finding whether or not the work was defamatory in nature ("actual malice").
On a side note, there is a unique case coming up through the Texas courts involving something called "Libel by fiction" (ie - "If what i said is fiction, it's can't be a truth I'm asserted, therefore 'wrong'").
For the non-legal types, here is a good CNN article that pretty much somes it up in plain english. Note that the finding of the lower courts in Texas is not the law is the vast majority of jurisdictions, so let's hope that Texas gets this one right at their Supreme Court level.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
The difference is that now there is a question as to the enforceability of the copyright. Ludlow agreed to the settlement (no doubt) so that their copyright would not be tested in court (similar to what happened with Microsoft and their 'Windows' trademark vs. Linspire aka Lindows). The practical result is that individuals will not fear using the song or the lyrics for (at least) political commentary. I can't immaging that many companies would want to use the song or lyrics for any business related reason (although it's not out of the question). In any case, the result may be that Ludlow's copyright remains intact but in practice they will never be able to defend it.
Maybe those who paid for the song after 1973 want their money back.
...I've just written a really lengthy entry in my essay journal going into the whole matter at great length, pulling in quotes and article citations from here and there and discussing the implications.
Okay, so I'm a self-promoter. But hey, I put some good time and effort into writing it, and I'm proud of my work.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Imagine that huh? The most primitive people around actually give their kids choice of their beliefs.
Or alternately, they keep thier perfect society by dumping their malcontents and mentally ill on us.
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.
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.
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
There were some other Woody Guthrie songs remade recently too. I think the story is that these were unreleased songs of his that he had not written music to, so Woody's daughter hired Billy Bragg and Wilco to put music to them and sing them.
They are called Mermaid Avenue (samples, review) and Mermaid Avenue Volume II (samples, review)
They are both pretty good cds, especially volume 1.
I wonder what the copyright implications were one these, since they were unreleased. Does anyone know? Also, what was his daughter's opinion about the jibjab song?
This code is my code
This code is your code
From the application space
Down to protected mode
From the install's scripting
To the linker and loader
This code was made for you and me
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
I take it you've never seen Firefly? The concept of that show makes a lot more sense than you realize. If you're colonizing a new planet on limited resources, and you know that resupply ships aren't going to be coming by regularly, which would you want? A tractor (or a futuristic equivalent) that can break down and/or run out of fuel? Or two horses, which can heal if they "break down", and can even breed and make more horses?
The Amish are doing us a service. They are keeping "old" technology alive that might very well be useful when establishing a colony on a new planet. The Amish have the kept the line of really good draft horses not only alive, but thriving. They're a valuable resource to humanity.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
I'm not surprised you like it, if you like Badnarik.
The "This Land is Your Land" parody was clearly Libertarian. The most blatant giveaway was the otherwise inexplicable Indian land rights bit, which had nothing to do with the Bush/Kerry debates, and is one of the more ridiculous planks in the Libertarian platform. Other, more subtle Libertarian bits included:
* The huge crowd of people on each side at the closing (big government, a point that the Libertarians take major issue with)
* The negative demonstration of ICBMs and aggression in Vietnam -- that's all anti-interventionist, a pretty fundamental part of the Libertarian mindset.
May we never see th
Pull your head out of your first world ass - half the population of the planet lives on less than 2 dollars a day in houses made of dirt and sticks. Horses and other "old" technology aren't going anywhere just because *you* drive to work.
What about the various people who have previously purchased rights to use the song? If the song's been in the public domain for some 40 years, don't they deserve a refund?