As RJ mentioned here, JibJab.com has a very funny, balanced even, parody/satire (the distinction is critical) flash animation movie with President George Bush and Senator John Kerry singing to the tune of Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land."
The publisher of the song is miffed and making threatening noises:
- The bit is hilarious. Unless you are The Richmond Organization, a music publisher that owns the copyright to Guthrie's tune through its Ludlow Music unit.
"This puts a completely different spin on the song," said Kathryn Ostien, director of copyright licensing for the publisher. "The damage to the song is huge."
TRO believes that the Jibjab creation threatens to corrupt Guthrie's classic — an icon of Americana — by tying it to a political joke; upon hearing the music people would think about the yucks, not Guthrie's unifying message. The publisher wants Jibjab to stop distribution of the flash movie.
Of course the creators behind Jibjab don't agree.
"We consider it a case of political satire and parody and therefore entitled to the fair use exemption of the copyright act," said Jibjab attorney Ken Hertz.
So far there isn't a lot of money involved. The brothers who made the movie, Gregg and Evan Spiridellis, have been distributing it pretty much for free (a paid-download option was available, but abandoned as most folks went for the free-on-the-Internet route).
....Right now lawyers for both sides are just hurling threatening letters at one another. If the dispute ends up in court, it'll be interesting. [CNN]
What's also interesting about the story is the debate between copyright poobahs regarding the legality of the film. Lawrence Lessig says it's a satire, not a parody, and therefore not covered by fair use:
- As any copyright lawyer recognizes, it is not a “parody” in the sense that “fair use” ordinarily recognizes it. A “fair use” “parody” is a work that uses a work to make fun of the author. JibJab is using Guthrie’s work not to make fun of Guthrie, but of the candidates. (For the now classic case on this, see Dr. Suess v. Penguin Press, where a “parody” of O.J. Simpson using The Cat in the Hat was not “fair use.”)
- Simply put, a parody targets the original content or creator, for example if the JibJab video targeted how lame the song or it's lyrics are then it would be parody. Satire uses the work to comment on something other than the original content or creator. A work can be a parody if it contains elements of both parody and satire.
Article comments
1 - Bill Wallo
Parody or satire, it is downright funny.
While I tend to agree with Lessig that this is a satire not covered by fair use, I am reminded of his admonishment that just because a use may be technically illegal, it isn't necessarily bad in a business sense.
Simply by using the song as a base for a satire, it could raise public awareness of the song itself (and its somewhat controversial content - see the original lyrics here). I must admit that I question whether it is worthwhile objecting to this use, as it does questionable "harm" at best to the copyright holder.
2 - Eric Olsen
thanks Bill, I think there is very little question that not only doesn't the usage do harm to the song, but it does it plenty of good from the business sense via exposure, spotlight, etc. They are idiots to oppose it.
I still think a good case can be made for a parody of the song itself being one of the usages here.
3 - Fsharp7
Didn't Woody Guthrie make a point to keep all his compositions in the public domain during his lifetime - i.e. NOT copyrighted? TRO's legal bullying is corrupting Guthrie's heritage, not JibJab. My guess is he'd be tickled pink that his music has enjoyed a resurgence for the 2004 Presidential Election.