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?
This song is my song, This song is your song, It belongs to me, As much as Guthrie...
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
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
And exactly what could they sue for? And how did they even hear it, did Al go play it for them live or something?
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
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.
Actually, Al asked, coolio apparently said yes, then denied saying yes later. Al still feels terrible about it. Check the whole story at www.weirdal.com.
You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
All of these things should stay civil law.
I forget what 8 was for.
...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.
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.
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.
Imagine that huh? The most primitive people around actually give their kids choice of their beliefs.
...and that's all there is to it.
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.
The Amish didn't write the song, so on what grounds would they sue? Being offended by a song has nothing to do with copyright law.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
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.
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!
Well, thats only paradoxical if you conflate technological "primitiveness" with moral, spiritual and intellectual "primitiveness".
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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.
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.
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.
The Amish are actually better educated than 99% of americans. When a family of Amish came over to tear down a barn the kids worked hard all day, were very respectful to everyone and when I introduced my wife to them and they found out that she was from Pakistan they knew where that country was and what language was spoken there. They knew that the dominant religion was Muslem, but that the peoples there were not Arabs. They knew that India bordered Pakistan and the problems the two counties had historically had.
Many adults in the hick area we lived in couldn't remember where she was from after repeatedly being told, they kept on confusing Pakistan and the Philipines and had no clear idea of the difference between the two countries.
Who is more advanced? I'd put my money on the Amish anyday for a political opinion or any question about history or world knowledge.
Actually, the period time known as rumspringa (translates as "running around") lasts however long the teen wants it to, with some people staying gone for 2 or more years before returning to "the old ways".
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
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.
And you know what? It isn't at all clear that they're wrong. The Amish seem to do alright for themselves, have very low crime, and (though I don't have any studies handy) are generally more happy with their lives than the rest of us.
But maybe you were just trolling?
And that was a fly-ass buggy! Lowered for better cargo stability, two horse power, aftermarket methane overpressure release valves, dope teak spinners on the wheels, and Recaro seats.
Sh!t, they R teh r0xX0r!
"Giving money and power to governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke
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.
Wired had a story about their approach to technology a few years ago that was very interesting. They are NOT all-around luddites. They evaluate any technology against it's likely impact on society and reject those they believe to be negative. Phones for instance are not allowed INDOORS because they believe phones disrupt the relationships in the home by allowing anyone to interrupt at any time - phones obligate you to be rude to the people you are actually with. But phones are allowed OUTSIDE the home and are used in conjunction with voice mail and/or fax machines to facilitate communication without being ruled by it.
Also their prohibitions are not iron-clad. If they have good reasons to do so they will override their day-to-day prohibitions.
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 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