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."
Because of this ruling companies are going to have even more fodder to protect their copyrights well into the future. "Look! People are making asses out of our country's leaders! We cannot have this. These men are upstanding citizens that deserve international respect!"
I thought that no matter what parody was protected regardless of copyright? Isn't that how Weird Al operates? Oh wait, I forgot, the government doesn't work for the people. The government is employed by the corporations. I'll go and take my seat in the corner again.
They got lucky.
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
Is Howard Dean's Scream public domain?
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
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
With all this crap going on about companies, like SCO and others, claiming rights to something that they don't have rights to, it should be a criminal offense to threaten someone over violation of or otherwise claiming to have a copyright or patent that you don't actually have rights to.
...someone who doesn't have legal rights to do so has threatened legal action as a form of intimidation? Where? [SCO] have I heard [RIAA/MPAA] of this happening before?
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...
Rather than take up the fight and demand a proper day in court, the only manner in which a precedent can be set and thusly followed hereafter, the EFF decides to take the low road and simply settle out of court thus making the whole case moot and completely lacking in historic substance.
Yes, it's a runon sentence, but this kind of pussyfooting around actually challenging usurpations of our freedoms by the EFF has become their calling card. Hop aboard winning cases, make a lot of noise, settle out of court, then call it a victory. Well boys, it ain't a victory unless there is a ruling and so long as you want to keep the courts out of this type of thing these challenges to our rights will continue unabated.
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!
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?
So when JibJab copyrights the new lyrics, does that mean "This Land" will become Their Song?
(only half-joking)
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...
This song is my song, This song is your song, It belongs to me, As much as Guthrie...
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.
"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." -Woody Guthrie
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.
might be a little off topic but the famous "I have a Dream" speach is copywrited and when ever someones plays the whole message (or if I recall coretcally more then 3 lines) the family demands money for use of it.... not to over critize but don't you think Dr. King would overturn in his grave if he knew this was happening... I just don't see how something as imporant as that can be considred a quick way to earn some $$$, which is why I also don't think anything patrioic should be abled to be copywrited
Loading Please Wait....
George W. Bush chooses what is patriotic. It doesn't matter if it is a song, a person, or an idea. It is up to him, or else you are un-patriotic.
First, congrats to JibJab and the EFF for winning... however, is this really that big a victory? I mean, while it is great that they weren't steamrollered into giving this up or paying money for something that wasnt even copyrighted in the first place, the fact is, it was already in the public domain.
... wait for it...
I think this would be far more telling if they were victorious over the grounds that it is a political parody using a well known tune and lyrics to make a political satire or point, which is 1st ammendment protected as free speech... however, this was simply someone suing because they thought they owned rights to something that they didnt...
Kind of like land owners squabbling about 5 feet of land that each things he/she owns, before they check teh actual surveys to see who really owns that 5 feet of land...
Second point...
wonder how long it will be before Mr. T. sues them for using the words JibJab? Wasn't it Mr. T who was well known for the phrase "I dont wanna hear no jibbajabba!"
Heh... the first time I heard of this site, the very first thing that popped into my mind was Mr. T saying (wait for it...
Here it comes...
yes, its obligatory...)
This land is your land fool!
this land is my land fool!
dont gimme no jibbajabba!
or i'l breaka your face
I pity the fool who gives me tha jive talk, sucker!
"Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
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."
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Yes, patriotic. Patriotism is loving your country, not your government (per se), and being willing to defend your country from threat of harm. Even... no, especially, if that harm comes from it's government.
All of these things should stay civil law.
I forget what 8 was for.
You can still love your country and question it's direction.
Remember, patriotism does not mean you have to wave a flag.
...who thinks the cartoon really isn't that funny, and what's more, really isn't that balanced/unbiased? The *only* jab on Bush is that he's "dumb", which he effectively defuses with his "and yes I do kick ass" - meanwhile, his character gets to deliver negative and generally fallacious talking point after talking about about John Kerry.
Perpetuating the myth that Kerry is a sophisticated northener whereas Bush is an average joe southerner, for example (they're *both* filthy rich northerners, George W. is the only one of his family to somehow pick up that Texan accent).
Delivering the "flip flops" talking point is also pretty damn ludicrous, as Bush is guilty of at least as bad, if not worse. The majority of the accused "flip flops" are minor changes over the course of a 20 year political career - I don't call that a flip flop, I call that legitimately maturing and changing your mind.
Anyway, yeah. I don't think it's that funny, and I don't think it's that balanced. I don't think the lawsuit against it was legitimate, either, but that's neither here nor there at this point I suppose.
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
If I understand the question properly, then in answer I'd point to places like Homestar Runner, PvP, Penny-Arcade, etc. all of which grew up on free distribution of their art and have become well known both on and off the Internet. If you think they're not cultural icons, I'd offer Homestar Runner's 'Trogdor' character showing up in the Final Episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer or the infamous Cardboard Tube of Penny Arcade appearing in Legacy of Kain 3.
:)
Or do they not count for some reason?
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Parody is protected because you are making fun OF THE SONG.
From Dictionary.com:
A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.
It doesn't say it has to make fun of the song, only imitate the style and be funny, sarcastic, or ironic. Not that dictionary.com is the end all resource.
Satire is NOT protected because you are using someones song for an alternate purpose.
Again from dictionary.com:
A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
It seems that satire doesn't involve imitation at all. Political satire is a longstanding tradition in both British and American literature, and more recently in cartoons. South Park, for example, is often a satire but not a parody. When they show the Vatican worshiping a spider queen, that's satire, not parody. Satire doesn't have to be protected under copyright because it doesn't have to be derivative. Parody is a case where you take someone else's style and use it to be funny, maybe make fun of the author or the song, maybe make fun of something else. It has to be protected because normally that would be considered plagiarism. The whole point is that it is obviously, intentionally deriviative and they are using the fact of imitation to produce either humor or ridicule.
I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
The candidates made asses out of themselves. Jib Jab just set it to music. ;)
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
In normal society, yes, you'd be the only one. But this is slashdot.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
If it was purely for financial gain, I suspect he would have issues with it.
I suspect to a larger degree, not hijacking the message of the good Reverend is far more important to them. At some point, I should think the integrity of its use far outweighs the simple financial values.
Cheers
PS - Copywrite describes file-system perms. CopyOnWrite describes a memory policy for shared memory. Copyright describes the Right To Copy. Your friendly neighborhood grammar monkey. =)
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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'm sorry, where does it say that you're not a patriot if you're left wing?
It IS a patriotic song, it is NOT a capitalist song.
Capitalism is not the same thing as patriotism, McArthy.
You can't take the sky from me...
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
Yup. Which is why we usually don't sing all the verses. ...as I was walking
that ribbon of highway
I saw a sign that
said no trespassing
but on the other side
that sign said nothing
that side was made for you and me.
Of course, being farther left on the spectrum that you or I doesn't mean a person isn't patriotic. The notion that "the people who don't agree with us don't really love their country" is, at its root, an anti-democratic notion. Nationalism and patriotism are not the same thing.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
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.
I'm waiting to see if this comment gets modded "Insightful" or "Funny"...
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
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.
The BPI (British Phonographic Industry) are currently lobying to increase the length of music copyright in europe from 50 years to 75 years.
According to the BBC.....
"A campaign is under way to protect music copyrights due to expire on 50-year-old records by Elvis Presley and other rock legends.
The UK music industry has begun the fight over a legal loophole on royalty payments.
Starting on 1 January 2005, copies of songs can be issued in Europe 50 years after their release without the need for payments to copyright owners.
It could affect records by Chuck Berry, James Brown - and by 2013, The Beatles.
The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) is spearheading the campaign.
Landmark rock 'n' roll recordings such as Presley's That's All Right and Shake, Rattle and Roll by Bill Haley and his Comets come out of copyright in Europe in January.
Prized catalogue
Over the next few years major hits by acts such as Little Richard, Johnny Cash, Bo Diddley and Fats Domino will also come into the public domain.
The Beatles' catalogue would begin to become freely available from 1 January 2013, with their first single Love Me Do. The band's entire repertoire - the most prized catalogue in rock music - would follow over the next eight years.
Recordings by other key British acts such as Cliff Richard, The Shadows, Tommy Steele and Lonnie Donegan are also at the centre of the campaign.
The Beatles
The Beatles' first single comes into the public domain in 2013
Once out of copyright, the BPI fears such potentially lucrative recordings could be exploited without recompense to the performers or the copyright holders.
Unlike Europe, copyright protection exists in the US for 95 years after the recording was made. Australia and Brazil have 70-year terms, and India 60 years. Composers and writers also enjoy 70 years' protection.
Peter Jamieson, the BPI's executive chairman, said less favourable copyright terms could put the UK's record industry at a commercial disadvantage to the US.
He said it was unfair to performers and investors to fail to get a return for a "free-for-all" in Europe - often within the artist's lifetime.
Record labels argue that their ability to invest in new talent often depends on money generated by their back catalogue.
The BPI is leading about 20 recording bodies including the Association of Independent Music (Aim) in lobbying the government over its concerns."
According to me....
Love, Love me do, there's a hole in me shoe, and you ain't nothing but a hound dog, just a crying all the time.
A large number of musical recordings from such people as The Beatles and Elvis Presley have become part of the National, European and World Wide culture. Most everybody in the west knows the songs, young musicians practice them with desires of making it great, and you can hear people singing the songs in pubs, bars, restaurants and homes on any night, up and down the country.
Despite all this I could still be breaking copyright if I had extended my opening sentence. It has come to something when a piece of material more than 50 years old, that everyone can knows and can probably do a simple reproduction of, either by whistling, humming, strumming or singing, can be owned, not by the original artist, but by the music distribution companies.
Don't act like a small child in the playground. Let the music go, let it be free, give it to the people, let them feel the music.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I hope that this is a lesson to companies who let themselves be run by their legal departments. Just like you don't let your engineers run your company, it doesn't make sense to let your lawyers run your company. Sadly, while many companies have learned the first lesson, too few have learned the second.
Here is what they can learn from this case: Go to court for a tiny piece and you can wind up losing the whole enchilada.
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.
So he was a socialist trade union organizer american icon.
And what's wrong with writing anti-Bush songs?
no taxation without representation!
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.
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).
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
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 land is my land, this land is my land
For Halliburton, Chevron and Ashland
Kill the redwood forests, and pollute the waters
This land should blindly follow me
As I was talking, I felt a yearning
I have to ask, is our children learning?
And thanks to me now, Baghdad is burning
This land should blindly follow me
"This machine kills fascists."
Unknown host pong.
I thought it was lame and was just celebrating the US as The Land of the Morons.
People thinking it was "hilarious" only proves that point.
I've seen quite a few posts from folks with similar opinions. Quite a few people shouting "Look! Look how well cultured and sophisticated I am! I didn't think it was funny! Look at me! Respect me! "
The video was ment to be funny. You can not be considered better than ANYONE else simply because you didn't find the video funny.
This immature "I'm better than you/everyone" attitude you find on slashdot is disgusting.
(goodbye karma!)
Required reading for internet skeptics
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?