Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

•  

  

  Jerry, Jul 27th, 2004 @ 9:07am

  
  

  Parody

  It's clearly parody, and the Supremes held this is ok in this decision. They wont get far with this suit.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  drteknikal (profile), Jul 28th, 2004 @ 6:52am

  
  

  I hope so

  I can only hope they pursue litigation. Aside from a slam-dunk example of satire and parody, there would be the sheer joy of having Woody's ghost testify for the defense.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Andy, Jul 28th, 2004 @ 10:27am

  
  

  A dangerous admission by the owners!

  The real question (legally speaking) seems to be whether the song is permissible parody (a commentary on the work), or is it satire (a variation of the work to comment on something else)? Don't ask me why courts draw this distinction, but that's what it is about.
  
  My first reaction, alas, would be that this is impermissible satire and non-parody. But apparently, the owners disagree when they claim "This puts a completely different spin on the song," which will "damage" the song. If that is their position, then they lose. Either the work puts a spin on the song, in which case it *IS* protectible parody, or it does not. Their best argument here on copyright grounds, at least, would be that the song is NOT a parody, but rather a non-transformative borrowing of the familiar tune to sell a commentary to someone else.
  
  The "spin on" issue is a direct take from the Luther Campbell case over "O Pretty Woman." No matter how ugly the spin (and 2 Live Crew's spin was an ugly one), that is protected and fair use. It is only when you are not spinning, but stealing (in the strict dictionary sense) from the work to comment on something ELSE (like the "Cat Not in the Hat" satire of the OJ trial) that you can sue.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Mike G, Jul 28th, 2004 @ 12:18pm

  
  

  Coincidence?

  I literally have no idea if there's a connection, but The Lincoln Club (an influential Republican organization) is chaired by "Larry Richmond." The Richman Organization’s president is "Larry Richmond." Hey, it's not really an unusual name, but they're also both located in Southern California.
  
  Hmmm...
  

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  william page, Jul 29th, 2004 @ 5:12pm

  
  

  This land

  The current owners of the rights to Guthrie's song "This Land" miss the original intent of the work and are claiming damage over work inspired by communism. Guthrie meant that this was eveyones land, a people's land just as the Bolsheviks told the czar before murdering him. Like many things it has changed over time and today it probably ranks behind the Star Spangled Banner, and America the Beautiful as our number three patriotic song.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment