-
Archives
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- May 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- August 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
-
Meta
Monthly Archives: July 2004
The Question
A question that should be asked: Would a Kerry Adminstration veto the Induce Act?… Continue reading
Posted in presidential politics
19 Comments
Environmental Ad contest
Advertising every day becomes more like cave art. Here’s aBetterEarth’s new environmental ad contest…. Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
1 Comment
no potential for a substantial noninfringing use?
Here‘s a BitTorrent file that will get you, p2p, the video of the Hearings on the INDUCE Act, prepared by Tom Barger. Watch, and blog the substantial noninfringing use. Continue reading
Posted in free culture
16 Comments
Reason
Reason brings some reason to the JibJab jumble, through an article by Jesse Walker. Continue reading
Posted in free culture
3 Comments
campaign ads remixed
“The Integral” has an album of remixed campaign ads called “Campaign Songs,” available under a Creative Commons license, and hosted by the Internet Archive. Continue reading
Posted in free culture
2 Comments
Barack Obama

If you missed Barack Obama tonight at the Democratic National Convention, you missed one of the greatest speeches of this campaign. Remember. Links to watch, and read. Continue reading
Posted in heroes
46 Comments
Gillmor & CC Party
Creative Commons is hosting a party to celebrate Dan Gillmor’s new book, We The Media, Friday, July 30, at our new home, 543 Howard Street, San Francisco. The party starts at 7pm. You should must RSVP to get in (limited space). Send an email to francesca at creative commons dot org. Continue reading
Posted in creative commons
Leave a comment
Ernie (& friends) disagrees
Ernie has a very nice criticism of my claim about the publisher’s jab at JibJab. So does Martin. I hope they’re right. See also Chris Cohen‘s excellent collection of cases. Continue reading
Posted in free culture
4 Comments
on the meaning of “parody”
Everyone’s seen the brilliant JibJab Flash of Bush/Kerry. The piece claims to be a “parody” of Woody Guthrie’s “This Land.”
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.”)
Guthrie’s publisher’s lawyers too recognize this. As CNN’s Allen Wastler reports, Guthrie’s publisher is now threatening JibJab.
What’s great about this story, of course, is the levels of hypocrisy. Guthrie was not much for property rights himself. It’s said that there is a not-often-sung verse:
And on the sign there, It said, ‘NO TRESPASSING.’
But on the other side, It didn’t say nothing.
That side was made for you and me!
But whether Guthrie believed in property rights or not, the key thing this story should do is force us to ask generally: Does a law that makes a political parody such as Jibjab illegal (even if it is not a “parody” in the copyright view of the world) make sense?
(Note to citizens: We’re permitted to change the law.)
(Thanks to Paul Puglia!)
(UPDATE: Ernie says I’m wrong.) Continue reading
Posted in free culture
26 Comments