Comments on: on the meaning of “parody”

By: Stephen Samuel

Stephen Samuel — Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:51:15 +0000

Pretty much nothing ever created by anybody living today is going to enter the public domain before the vast majority of people reading this die. It's life + 75 years, at last reading. This means that, if the creator of a 50 year old song were to die today, I'd have to live another 75 years to see it in the public domain (presuming that Congress doesn't go on another extension spree).

Many of the 10 year olds reading this site can hope to reach 85, but those of us who are 20 years old and above would be lucky to make it to the ripe old age of 95 and up

By: Christopher R. Bowman

Christopher R. Bowman — Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:12:38 +0000

Why must a work be satire or parody? I reocgnize the satire immediately obvious in the JibJab work. But I also think it is a parody of the song. The concept of togetherness espoused in the song is equally clearly being mocked by JibJab and that makes it commentary on the song.

Further it would seem that in this case the Copyright claus would conflict directly with the First Amendment. I was always given to understand that the text that more directly deals with a subject would be controlling. How does one make that determination in this context?

By: Bud Fields

Bud Fields — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 13:28:58 +0000

I blow goats, so I know something about things that suck.

Guthrie's work belongs to everyone. If anything, it's the propety itself which is theft, just like those farmers that keep on chasing me off of their property. (Those goats were made for you and me.)

When the ruling comes down affirming the JibJab folks, the taste will be as sweet as a young pygmy goat's first load.

By: John Mann

John Mann — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:18:03 +0000

A comment by "Bilge" struck a chord with me: "Now, no work ever produced in my lifetime will enter the public domain before I die."
So for me too, no work ever produced in my lifetime will enter the public domain before I die.
No work produced in your lifetime will enter the public domain before you die.
No work produced in anyone's lifetime will enter the public domain before they die.
So, no-one will be able to read/hear/see something just created, and think "later, I will be able to re-use it in my own creation". No, we can only re-use things that had already been created at the time we were born!
Assume a new generation (Depression, Baby-boom, X, ...) of people are born every 25 to 30 years. Then the cycle-time of copyright is about 3 generations of people. The culture of my grandfather will be available to my children. My parents -> my grandchildren. Me -> my great-grandchildren. But over the last century or so, each generation is very different from all the others -- will they appreciate/use the culture from 3 generations ago?
Governments/corporations/laws may be perpetual, but people are not.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:57:26 +0000

I'm not a lawyer, but Ernie's argument that satire can be parody reminds me of the old efforts to deduce the death of Paul McCartney from various Beatle album covers and song tracks (by turining them upside down, playing them backwards, etc.). He seems to be trying to find parody in these cases regardless of the original intent of the creators.

By: Andrew Greenberg

Andrew Greenberg — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:47:12 +0000

Sorry, here's the proper link to techdirt..

By: Andrew Greenberg

Andrew Greenberg — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:45:22 +0000

Well, I would agree with the professor at first glance. If "Cat Not in the Hat" is good law, this really is a pretty clear taking from the song to comment on something else, as opposed to a commentary on the work itself.

However, it would appear that the copyright owners disagree. Their complaint, according to this piece from techdirt, is that the jibjab work puts an inappropriate "spin" on Woodie's beautiful tune.

That would be the losing argument, because it is precisely the point raised by the Orbison estate. The "spin" put on "O Pretty Woman" was far uglier and worse than anything in jibjab, but was held by the court to be clearly protectible parody.

So, they can't have it both ways. If this has the song a-spinning, then it is pretty clearly fair use. If they are arguing that it is a mere misappropriation, without the loaded argument, then we can talk cat not in the hat.

By: M. Danielson

M. Danielson — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 07:33:15 +0000

Pudge, above, is dead on. Lessig's analysis is imply incorrect and his cite is inapposite. The 2 live crew case is directly on point (and the penguin case is not nearly so close, being an entirely different medium). Ernest's analysis is ultimately an extension of this simple point, but I'm surprised others have not simply said: 2 Live Crew applies, end of story.

By: Bilge

Bilge — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:48:05 +0000

A pity that the "framer's intent" crowd are mute about copyright. Because originally, copyright was only for 14 years. Now, no work ever produced in my lifetime will enter the public domain before I die.

How much better would the world be if the public domain was actually allowed to take ownership of works that the public has already paid for? We'd have a culture that was actually ours, instead of locked up in perpetuity by corporate monoliths. We'd have more The Wind Done Gone and less Family Circus.

By: Matthew Brown

Matthew Brown — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:46:22 +0000

This threat to sue is a clear example of copyright as censorship. Maybe "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." can justify some temporary censorship, but not muzzling Jib Jab. It is a shame this did not happen before Eldred Vs. Ashcroft. Maybe more justices would have agreed with Breyer and Stevens.