[Fwd: OT: Edlred v. Ashcroft Decision]
Michael J. Lowrey
> The Supreme Court issued its decision today. It upheld the Copyright
> Term Extension Act by a vote of 7-2 (Stevens and Bryer writing
> seperate dissents).
>
> I have only had a brief opportunity to scan the decision. It appears
> to be fairly narrow. It does little to address the interaction
> between Copyright and the First Amendment, except to strengthen the
> already fairly solid principle that the "fair use" exceptions embodied
> in the Act are Constitutional in nature rather than merely statutory.
> The Court affirmed the decisions below that as long as Congress states
> a number, rather than purporting to convey an infinite copyright, the
> courts must defer to the judgment of Congress on the balancing of
> relevant factors.
>
> Anyone who wants to discuss this and possible implications of the
> recent copyright jurisprudence to free expression, innovation, etc. at
> Arisia or Boskone, feel free. So far, I have been unsuccesful in
> perusading any convention committee that a panel on the substance of
> copyright and its implications for the future, rather than simply the
> mechnics of copyright, is of sufficient interest to merit panel
> discussion. Perhaps I would have more success with "copyright and
> naked Vampire sex."
Damn!
DAMN!
*DAMN*!
!!!!*_DAMNIT_*!!!!
--
Michael J. Lowrey
disgusted with the lot of them
Kip Williams
Agreed wholeheartedly. Just another example of our government
looking out for the little guy -- Mickey Mouse.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"Why, what a splendid trifle, young man! You and your friends may
travel for free!" "Cor!" "Hooray for Tommy!" --Tommy and his Trifle
James J. Walton
Could someone please explain why you find this upsetting?
Kip Williams
Endless copyrights are something new. It used to be that after a
reasonable amount of time, things entered the public domain. Having
a brick wall (1923?) after which nothing will ever again hit the
public domain is a new and unwelcome obstacle in the natural order,
and all to benefit people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the
creation of the artworks (a good catch-all term). These control
freaks are the ones who think it would be a good idea if we had to
pay every single time we watched a cartoon or listened to a song.
They think we're stealing from them when we don't watch ads in TV
shows. They create nothing; they are parasites living off of dead
artists, and all too often they don't even make the copyrighted
items available to people who would like to see them -- as for
instance, hundreds of theatrical cartoons that are never released to
tape and which are disintegrating in warehouses, even as passionate
fans of the medium would dearly love to buy copies. Copyright can be
the enemy of preservation this way, and it's not helping that
they've extended it again.
I might take another whack at this at a better time of day. I have
this strong urge to become horizontal and dream I can fly.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Okay, I will.
Let's look at what copyright does in different circumstances.
When a work is first produced, and during the life of the producer of
the work, and _maybe_ during some of the life of the producer's
offspring, copyright rewards and supports art, and possibly makes the
difference as to whether it is possible for people to be artists. It
also makes it possble for the creator to exert some modicum of control
over his or her work during their lifetime.
After that, what copyright does is ensure that the work is treated as
a commodity and not as, well, culture. The producer of the work is
dead, correct? And can no longer benefit from the control over the
material, and has already made as much profit as he or she is going to
make.
What DIsney and Mary Bono asked for, and got, is an unreasonable
extension of profit-making rights at the expense of the rest of us.
Here's why it's at the expense of the rest of us: most works, once
they've been around long enough, become things that only a few people
want to see or have. A publisher of modern books who holds copyright
on a great stack of old books would be mad to keep them all in print
on the offchance that somebody might want some. But because they hold
that copyright, it's not legal for a person to scan that book and put
it online for people like me to read, and it's not legal for a little
group of enthusiasts to put out a special shortrun edition of the
work.
"But they could get permission." Yes, they could, if they could, but
often, they won't. Or they will be asked to pay prohibitive amounts
for permission.
Mary Bono wanted copyright to last forever minus one day, to weasel
around the Constitution.
A point that somebody on the radio brought up today that I had not
thought about is that many of the copyrighted works in question derive
from public domain material in the first place.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Eloise Beltz-Decker
>
> A point that somebody on the radio brought up today that I had not
> thought about is that many of the copyrighted works in question derive
> from public domain material in the first place.
There are several current cases that might be illustrative of why
this is harmful to culture in general (aside from the 'mouldering film
that could be scanned and sold on DVDs to collectors for preservation'
argument and its cohorts).
Much of Kipling went out of copyright, and then much of that group
went back in, with the last extension. Various musicians have written
musical settings of Kipling's poetry. Albums of such songs are now
stranded, un-reprintable, because what was legal when they were made
(using the words, adding new music, recording, and selling it) now no
longer is. Each of those artists must now seek specific permission from
the holders of the Kipling copyrights; I understand not all of them were
granted such permission.
An innovative novelist has written recently a work clearly
derivative from the Peter Pan novel. It is legal, because that original
novel is now public domain. However, the sequel novels to Peter Pan are
still IN copyright, and so she is getting her figurative balls sued off
for infringing on THEM. To all reports, it's quite a good novel, and while
clearly based off the story and characters in the original, is not a
simple ripoff job, containing much that is original.
Would you like to retell Sleeping Beauty? Publish a derivative
work about Gone with the Wind? Do a Christmas Carol or Sherlock Holmes
pastiche? Those are all use of the public domain. However, if you want to
do similar things with, say, Hemingway, or the early talking movies, or
pretty much anything after 1920 (and you live in the US), you're
absolutely out of luck, now, because the copyright only expires 90 years
from the death of the creator. I fully expect that in 14 years, when some
of that is due to expire, Congress will introduce still more legislation
extending it. Hopefully by then enough people will be aware of the problem
that a more coherent fight against it can be mustered than was this time.
--
Eloise Beltz-Decker + elo...@ripco.com + http://www.fishdragon.com/
"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all
who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they
laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also
laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan
Julie Lim
> Would you like to retell Sleeping Beauty? Publish a derivative
> work about Gone with the Wind? Do a Christmas Carol or Sherlock Holmes
> pastiche? Those are all use of the public domain.
IIRC, "The Wind Done Gone" was initially blocked from publication by
the Mitchell estate as copyright infringement on GWTW, but a federal
appeals court later decided that it qualified as a parody and was thus
eligible for fair-use protection.
How much does financial gain to the "fair user" factor in? That's been
the traditional refuge for fanfic writers, as I understand it;
conversely, there was a recently-published paper discussing the legal
status of doujinshi, which are essentially unauthorized manga:
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
[snippage of good and clear discussion of problems with copyright extension]
> Would you like to retell Sleeping Beauty? Publish a derivative
>work about Gone with the Wind? Do a Christmas Carol or Sherlock Holmes
>pastiche? Those are all use of the public domain.
Except for "Gone with the Wind." Were you thinking of something else?
-- Alan
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> Eloise Beltz-Decker <elo...@ripco.com> wrote...
> > Would you like to retell Sleeping Beauty? Publish a derivative
> > work about Gone with the Wind? Do a Christmas Carol or Sherlock Holmes
> > pastiche? Those are all use of the public domain.
>
> IIRC, "The Wind Done Gone" was initially blocked from publication by
> the Mitchell estate as copyright infringement on GWTW, but a federal
> appeals court later decided that it qualified as a parody and was thus
> eligible for fair-use protection.
>
> How much does financial gain to the "fair user" factor in? That's been
> the traditional refuge for fanfic writers, as I understand it
My understanding is that while there is nothing explicit in the statutes
about financial gain, there is an informal tradition of considering it a
mitigating factor. This mindset can, of course, have adverse effects on
somebody whose copyrighted work is pirated by a large non-profit
organization, such as a hospital or university. Why should they pay a
professional for his/her work, when they can steal somebody else's, then
plead that "We're not making any money from this; it's 'fair use'!"
--
Michael J. Lowrey
seen it happen
Ulrika O'Brien
says [snip of excellent, succinct explanation]
> A point that somebody on the radio brought up today that I had not
> thought about is that many of the copyrighted works in question derive
> from public domain material in the first place.
Yes, this is the big irony with Disney in particular. Even the creation
of Mickey Mouse involved borrowing from extant copyright material --
Buster Keaton's STEAMBOAT BILL -- including borrowing music from the
previously existing film. But Mouse aside, Disney built his empire on
borrowing from the public domain: Snow White, Pinocchio, Sleeping
Beauty, Kipling, and so on and so forth. Working hard to keep others
from being able to derive similar benefits is, well, hypocritical to the
bone.
--
Oh, to have a clever .sig file
Ulrika O'Brien, still without portfolio
Joshua Hesse
:>
:> Damn!
:>
:> DAMN!
:>
:> *DAMN*!
:>
:> !!!!*_DAMNIT_*!!!!
:Agreed wholeheartedly. Just another example of our government
:looking out for the little guy -- Mickey Mouse.
Just as a reminder, before the Ashcroft bashers set in, this
case was originally titled _Eldred v. Reno_. Thank you, and move
along.
--
"I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
"My brothers turn up people quoting me on the net now and then. It's kind
of funny because my usual reaction is, 'When the hell did I say that?'"
-John Kensmark
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>In article <MPG.1890cb8f5...@news.earthlink.net>,
Worse yet, they tend to act like they *own* the Little Mermaid, Alice (of
Alice in Wonderland), Pinocchio, Mowgli, Winnie-the-Pooh, and Quasimodo.
(I think these are worse yet because rather than being folk tales of
unknown authorship, the characters were each made up by specific known
people.)
Tom Galloway
Julie Lim <womba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>IIRC, "The Wind Done Gone" was initially blocked from publication by
>the Mitchell estate as copyright infringement on GWTW, but a federal
>appeals court later decided that it qualified as a parody and was thus
>eligible for fair-use protection.
Horrible decision in my mind, since prior to the Mitchell estate coming down
on them, the author and publisher of TWDG didn't seem to realize it was a
parody, but rather promoted it solely as a significant literary work. Only
after they needed to get around the copyright did they start refering to it
as a parody. I would've tossed the case out for sheer blatent lack of intent
to have written a parody as such.
tyg t...@panix.com
Matt Austern
> In article <H8tx5...@world.std.com>, pci...@TheWorld.com (Paul Ciszek) writes:
> >In article <MPG.1890cb8f5...@news.earthlink.net>,
> >Ulrika O'Brien <uaob...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>In article <3e262837...@cnews.newsguy.com>, rit...@cruzio.com
> >>says [snip of excellent, succinct explanation]
> >>
> >>> A point that somebody on the radio brought up today that I had not
> >>> thought about is that many of the copyrighted works in question derive
> >>> from public domain material in the first place.
> >>
> >>Yes, this is the big irony with Disney in particular. Even the creation
> >>of Mickey Mouse involved borrowing from extant copyright material --
> >>Buster Keaton's STEAMBOAT BILL -- including borrowing music from the
> >>previously existing film. But Mouse aside, Disney built his empire on
> >>borrowing from the public domain: Snow White, Pinocchio, Sleeping
> >>Beauty, Kipling, and so on and so forth. Working hard to keep others
> >>from being able to derive similar benefits is, well, hypocritical to the
> >>bone.
> >
> >Worse, Disney tends to act like they *own* Snow White, Cinderella, et al
>
> Worse yet, they tend to act like they *own* the Little Mermaid, Alice (of
> Alice in Wonderland), Pinocchio, Mowgli, Winnie-the-Pooh, and Quasimodo.
> (I think these are worse yet because rather than being folk tales of
> unknown authorship, the characters were each made up by specific known
> people.)
Well, except for Alice. (Unless you count Mr. and Mrs. Liddell, I
suppose.)
Damien Neil
> the traditional refuge for fanfic writers, as I understand it;
> conversely, there was a recently-published paper discussing the legal
> status of doujinshi, which are essentially unauthorized manga:
Nit: Not all doujinshi are derived from published works. (The literal
translation of the word is pretty close to "fanzine".)
It's interesting that while infringing derived works are wildly popular
in Japan, the Japanese fan community is generally very respectful of
the rights of copyright holders. Fan-run websites are almost
invariably extremely conservative in the unauthorized use of scanned
images, and outright piracy seems very uncommon.
- Damien
Damien Neil
> > The Supreme Court issued its decision today. It upheld the Copyright
> > Term Extension Act by a vote of 7-2 (Stevens and Bryer writing
> > seperate dissents).
Bah, and double bah.
I'm not surprised, however. I'd have dearly loved to see Eldred win,
but I'm very dubious that the Supreme Court had the authority to make
that decision.
It'd sure be nice if someone could go kick Congresscritters until they
saw the light, though.
- Damien
David G. Bell
<00A1A0FB...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
"Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr" wrote:
> In article <H8tx5...@world.std.com>, pci...@TheWorld.com (Paul Ciszek)
> writes:
> >In article <MPG.1890cb8f5...@news.earthlink.net>,
> >Ulrika O'Brien <uaob...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>In article <3e262837...@cnews.newsguy.com>, rit...@cruzio.com
> >>says [snip of excellent, succinct explanation]
> >>
> >>> A point that somebody on the radio brought up today that I had not
> >>> thought about is that many of the copyrighted works in question derive
> >>> from public domain material in the first place.
> >>
> >>Yes, this is the big irony with Disney in particular. Even the creation
> >>of Mickey Mouse involved borrowing from extant copyright material --
> >>Buster Keaton's STEAMBOAT BILL -- including borrowing music from the
> >>previously existing film. But Mouse aside, Disney built his empire on
> >>borrowing from the public domain: Snow White, Pinocchio, Sleeping
> >>Beauty, Kipling, and so on and so forth. Working hard to keep others
> >>from being able to derive similar benefits is, well, hypocritical to the
> >>bone.
> >
> >Worse, Disney tends to act like they *own* Snow White, Cinderella, et al
>
> Worse yet, they tend to act like they *own* the Little Mermaid, Alice (of
> Alice in Wonderland), Pinocchio, Mowgli, Winnie-the-Pooh, and Quasimodo.
> (I think these are worse yet because rather than being folk tales of
> unknown authorship, the characters were each made up by specific known
> people.)
Hollywood Lawyers in general, I think...
Perhaps the classic example is Lord of the Rings. Tolkien himself was
happy with what he got, but the deal involved a one-time payment for all
the non-literary rights. Not just films, but TV, radio, posters...
Hollywood really does own Frodo Baggins, and could charge you a fee for
wearing that "Frodo Lives" button.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid
of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?"
From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross.
Eloise Beltz-Decker
> In article <Pine.SV4.3.91.103011...@lawson.ripco.com>, Eloise Beltz-Decker <elo...@ripco.com> writes:
>
> [snippage of good and clear discussion of problems with copyright extension]
>
> > Would you like to retell Sleeping Beauty? Publish a derivative
> >work about Gone with the Wind? Do a Christmas Carol or Sherlock Holmes
> >pastiche? Those are all use of the public domain.
>
> Except for "Gone with the Wind." Were you thinking of something else?
Gone with the Wind is not yet in the public domain, but
publishing a truly derivative work (which Wind Done Gone was not - it was
parody, a fair use provision) would in fact be use of the public domain.
If it were in the public domain. Or something.
It seemed much more coherent last night, honestly. :->
Kevin J. Maroney
("David G. Bell") wrote:
>Perhaps the classic example is Lord of the Rings. Tolkien himself
>was happy with what he got, but the deal involved a one-time payment
>for all the non-literary rights. Not just films, but TV, radio, posters...
This is not true. Tolkien Enterprises owns the movie, TV, and radio
adaptation rights (and possibly some others), and the right to
produced licensed goods based on those movies, TV shows, and radio
adaptations, but the Tolkien estate can also produce licensed goods
based on the novels.
>Hollywood really does own Frodo Baggins, and could charge you a fee for
>wearing that "Frodo Lives" button.
No, it doesn't, and no, it couldn't. There is right now a great deal
of Tolkien-related material on the market which is licensed from the
Tolkien estate, not from Saul Zelnetz's "Tolkien Enterprises". (Reiner
Knizia's brilliant _The Lord of the Rings_ boardgame is just one
example; the annual JRRT calendars, except for those obviously based
on the movies, are another.)
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Beth Friedman
<711e9c3c.03011...@posting.google.com>, wrote:
>How much does financial gain to the "fair user" factor in? That's been
>the traditional refuge for fanfic writers, as I understand it;
>conversely, there was a recently-published paper discussing the legal
>status of doujinshi, which are essentially unauthorized manga:
Not for any fanfic writer who understands anything about copyright, it
isn't. (There are huge numbers who don't, I'll grant you.) For most
fan fiction, the traditional refuge is "We've been doing it for (as
many as) 35 years, and the copyright owners have known about it and
tolerated it or encouraged it all that time." A parody defense,
especially for slash fiction, might also fly.
However, I don't know anyone in the media fan community that actually
wants the hassle and expense of a trial, not to mention the risk of an
adverse precedent. Better to live in limbo, as it were.
--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com
Avram Grumer
Damien Neil <ne...@misago.org> wrote:
> > Harold Feld wrote:
> > > The Supreme Court issued its decision today. It upheld the
> > > Copyright Term Extension Act by a vote of 7-2 (Stevens and Bryer
> > > writing seperate dissents).
>
> Bah, and double bah.
>
> I'm not surprised, however. I'd have dearly loved to see Eldred win,
> but I'm very dubious that the Supreme Court had the authority to make
> that decision.
That hasn't stopped them from making similar decisions in the past.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
They that can give up your essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety are running the US Justice Department.
Aaron Denney
Are you implying that parodies can't be significant literary work?
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
mike weber
There was a movie called "Motel Hell", which wa successful as a comic
horror-film parody.
It wasn't originally intended as one... it was intended as a straight
horror film. But audiences laughed at it.
So they redid the ad campaign, and, i understand, it made some money.
--
mike weber mike....@electronictiger.com
==========================================================
The man who sets out to carry a cat by its tail learns
something that will always be useful and which never will
grow dim or doubtful. -- Mark Twain.
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com
Keith F. Lynch
> Tolkien Enterprises owns the movie, TV, and radio adaptation rights
> (and possibly some others), and the right to produced licensed goods
> based on those movies, TV shows, and radio adaptations, but the
> Tolkien estate can also produce licensed goods based on the novels.
I noticed that the latest printing of the novels have covers showing
scenes from the movies. One of these organizations paid the other
for the rights to do that?
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.
Robert Sneddon
<mike....@electronictiger.com> writes
>>
>There was a movie called "Motel Hell", which wa successful as a comic
>horror-film parody.
>
>It wasn't originally intended as one... it was intended as a straight
>horror film. But audiences laughed at it.
At Chattacon this weekend I was told of the director/producer of the B-
movie "Robot Monster"[1] who had planned a serious film to discuss the
nature of thee human condition. After the reviews came out he had to be
put on a suicide watch. From IMDB:
"Depressed and dejected, and believing that his acrimonious
relationship with the film's producers resulted in their blackballing
him in the industry, he attempted suicide by shooting himself. He
missed."
[1] It's the movie with the robot monster wearing a gorilla suit and a
diving helmet -- *that* one. Someone in the Chattacon masquerade did the
Ro-man costume.
--
Robert Sneddon nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
Kate Secor
Walton <jjwa...@telerama.com> wrote:
<snip. Summary: Copyright extension passed by Supremes>
> Could someone please explain why you find this upsetting?
Um... I can explain it, but the ObSF is Spider Robinson's "Melancholy
Elephants" (which can be found in _By Any Other Name_).
Aiglet
(I'll leave the serious explanations to others.)
Eloise Beltz-Decker
> On 16 Jan 2003 22:10:16 -0500, t...@panix.com (Tom Galloway) wrote:
> >
> >Horrible decision in my mind, since prior to the Mitchell estate coming down
> >on them, the author and publisher of TWDG didn't seem to realize it was a
> >parody, but rather promoted it solely as a significant literary work. Only
> >after they needed to get around the copyright did they start refering to it
> >as a parody. I would've tossed the case out for sheer blatent lack of intent
> >to have written a parody as such.
> >
> There was a movie called "Motel Hell", which wa successful as a comic
> horror-film parody.
>
> It wasn't originally intended as one... it was intended as a straight
> horror film. But audiences laughed at it.
You both do realize, don't you, that 'parody' is a legal term and
doesn't imply humor, necessarily? It implies comment upon, in a particular
legal way that is protected more thoroughly than ordinary fair use.
Avram Grumer
Kate Secor <aig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <20030115205720...@pong.telerama.com>, James J.
> Walton <jjwa...@telerama.com> wrote:
>
> <snip. Summary: Copyright extension passed by Supremes>
>
> > Could someone please explain why you find this upsetting?
>
> Um... I can explain it, but the ObSF is Spider Robinson's
> "Melancholy Elephants" (which can be found in _By Any Other Name_).
Or on the net, for free:
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___1.htm
mike weber
<no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> At Chattacon this weekend I was told of the director/producer of the B-
>movie "Robot Monster"[1] who had planned a serious film to discuss the
>nature of thee human condition. After the reviews came out he had to be
>put on a suicide watch. From IMDB:
>
> "Depressed and dejected, and believing that his acrimonious
>relationship with the film's producers resulted in their blackballing
>him in the industry, he attempted suicide by shooting himself. He
>missed."
>
>[1] It's the movie with the robot monster wearing a gorilla suit and a
>diving helmet -- *that* one. Someone in the Chattacon masquerade did the
>Ro-man costume.
Oh, i know the one. Did you know it was originally released in 3D?
mike weber
<elo...@ripco.com> wrote:
> You both do realize, don't you, that 'parody' is a legal term and
>doesn't imply humor, necessarily? It implies comment upon, in a particular
>legal way that is protected more thoroughly than ordinary fair use.
Yes.
I am also aware that "parody" may be general or specific... that is,
in SFPA, i once referred to a particular song by the Turtles as a
parody of an Association song.
Someone demanded to know *which* Association song i meant and refused
to accept that you could parody a body of work rather than a specific
work.
Ed Dravecky III
> I am also aware that "parody" may be general or specific...
> that is, in SFPA, i once referred to a particular song by the
> Turtles as a parody of an Association song.
>
> Someone demanded to know *which* Association song i meant and
> refused to accept that you could parody a body of work rather
> than a specific work.
'Weird Al' Yankovic does style parodies all the time. His "Dare
to be Stupid" is a parody of Devo but not any one specific song.
--
Ed Dravecky III - Addison, Texas
This .sig contains no message at this time on advice of counsel
Kip Williams
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:35:55 +0000, Robert Sneddon
> <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>>At Chattacon this weekend I was told of the director/producer of the B-
>>movie "Robot Monster"[1] who had planned a serious film to discuss the
>>nature of thee human condition. After the reviews came out he had to be
>>put on a suicide watch. From IMDB:
>>
>>"Depressed and dejected, and believing that his acrimonious
>>relationship with the film's producers resulted in their blackballing
>>him in the industry, he attempted suicide by shooting himself. He
>>missed."
>>
>>[1] It's the movie with the robot monster wearing a gorilla suit and a
>>diving helmet -- *that* one. Someone in the Chattacon masquerade did the
>>Ro-man costume.
>
>
> Oh, i know the one. Did you know it was originally released in 3D?
I have a 3D video of it, in fact.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"Why, what a splendid trifle, young man! You and your friends may
travel for free!" "Cor!" "Hooray for Tommy!" --Tommy and his Trifle
Kip Williams
> mike weber <mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote:
>
>>I am also aware that "parody" may be general or specific...
>>that is, in SFPA, i once referred to a particular song by the
>>Turtles as a parody of an Association song.
>>
>>Someone demanded to know *which* Association song i meant and
>>refused to accept that you could parody a body of work rather
>>than a specific work.
>
>
> 'Weird Al' Yankovic does style parodies all the time. His "Dare
> to be Stupid" is a parody of Devo but not any one specific song.
I thought a style parody was a pastiche. Hm.
"Dare to be Stupid" is a true gem, though. I was just singing it in
the car today.
Andrew Plotkin
> Ed Dravecky III wrote:
>>
>> 'Weird Al' Yankovic does style parodies all the time. His "Dare
>> to be Stupid" is a parody of Devo but not any one specific song.
> I thought a style parody was a pastiche. Hm.
Parody : imitation :: style parody : pastiche.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Daniel R. Reitman
<mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote:
>. . . .
>I am also aware that "parody" may be general or specific... that is,
>in SFPA, i once referred to a particular song by the Turtles as a
>parody of an Association song.
>. . . .
Which Turtles song?
Dan, ad nauseam
Who finds the
concept illegal,
immoral, and
fattening
Jonathan J. Baker
>Not for any fanfic writer who understands anything about copyright, it
>isn't. (There are huge numbers who don't, I'll grant you.) For most
>fan fiction, the traditional refuge is "We've been doing it for (as
>many as) 35 years, and the copyright owners have known about it and
>tolerated it or encouraged it all that time." A parody defense,
>especially for slash fiction, might also fly.
>However, I don't know anyone in the media fan community that actually
>wants the hassle and expense of a trial, not to mention the risk of an
>adverse precedent. Better to live in limbo, as it were.
Debra attended a panel on slash fiction at Arisia this past weekend.
The panel included two academics of popular culture (Solomon Davidoff,
Henry Jenkins). Apparently, there is no case law on fan-fiction. When
a Hollywood Lawyer (tm) writes a threatening letter, the writers back
off, not having money for an extended lawsuit (since they can't sell
their work in the first place). Some production companies tolerate
it, some encourage it, and very few actively discourage it.
--
Jonathan Baker | Happy birthday, trees!
jjb...@panix.com |
New on Webpage: On Mendelssohn's Biur <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/biur.html>
Jonathan J. Baker
>mike weber <mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote:
>> I am also aware that "parody" may be general or specific...
>> that is, in SFPA, i once referred to a particular song by the
>> Turtles as a parody of an Association song.
>> Someone demanded to know *which* Association song i meant and
>> refused to accept that you could parody a body of work rather
>> than a specific work.
>'Weird Al' Yankovic does style parodies all the time. His "Dare
>to be Stupid" is a parody of Devo but not any one specific song.
Or "DaVinci's Notebook"'s song "Title of the Song", a generic
boy-band song.
Kevin J. Maroney
>> to be Stupid" is a parody of Devo but not any one specific song.
>
>I thought a style parody was a pastiche. Hm.
>
>"Dare to be Stupid" is a true gem, though. I was just singing it in
>the car today.
My common-usage sense of the word "parody" involves a deliberate
comedic effect (cf. Merriam-Webster, "a literary or musical work in
which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic
effect or in ridicule"), while a "pastiche" does not necessarily (cf.
"a literary, artistic, musical, or architectural work that imitates
the style of previous work; also : such stylistic imitation").
"Dare to Be Stupid" is both. The video is more parodic than the song.
Kip Williams
As it happens, I was ruminating on my favorite videos the other day.
1) Devo: "Are You Experienced?" (First saw this at the '84 Dallas
Fantasy Fair, thanks to Subgenius Doug Smith)
2) Weird Al: "Christmas at Ground Zero" ("What a crazy fluke / we're
gonna get nuked / on this jolly holiday!")
3) Neil Young: "Touch the Night" (An amazing production with a
hand-held camera and Neil as a small-time newsman vulturing around a
crash scene. Seems to have been shot in two takes -- that is,
there's only one cut that I can detect.)
4) Weird Al: "Dare to be Stupid" (Al out-Devos Devo. "You gotta
squeeze all the Charmin you can / when Mr. Whipple's not around...")
5) Wax UK: "Bridge to your Heart" (Changes animation styles every
couple of seconds, and the song's good, too. Gives me a happy
feeling in my spine.)
If I was going on, Weird Al's "Fat" would show up there soon. In
fact, Al is a common thread in all but #3 of my top 5, since the
only time I saw those was when he hijacked MTV for one of his "AlTV"
sessions. I miss those, although the last one I saw was pretty weak.
Kip Williams
> As it happens, I was ruminating on my favorite videos the other day.
>
> 1) Devo: "Are You Experienced?"
> If I was going on, Weird Al's "Fat" would show up there soon...
Also (seeing as I wrote about this back in July),
The Beatles: "Free As a Bird" (Incredible visuals and a nice song)
and
Sid Vicious: "My Way." ("It's like... you hear the song, and you see
the video!" --Beavis & Butt-head)
mike weber
>Ed Dravecky III wrote:
>> mike weber <mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I am also aware that "parody" may be general or specific...
>>>that is, in SFPA, i once referred to a particular song by the
>>>Turtles as a parody of an Association song.
>>>
>>>Someone demanded to know *which* Association song i meant and
>>>refused to accept that you could parody a body of work rather
>>>than a specific work.
>>
>>
>> 'Weird Al' Yankovic does style parodies all the time. His "Dare
>> to be Stupid" is a parody of Devo but not any one specific song.
>
>I thought a style parody was a pastiche. Hm.
Pastiche may be parody, but need not. For instance, take August
Derleth's "Solar Pons" stories...
OTOH, now that you mention it, a style parody would, of necessity,
almost have to be a pastiche .
mike weber
wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 03:41:55 GMT, Kip Williams <ki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>Ed Dravecky III wrote:
>>> 'Weird Al' Yankovic does style parodies all the time. His "Dare
>>> to be Stupid" is a parody of Devo but not any one specific song.
>>
>>I thought a style parody was a pastiche. Hm.
>>
>>"Dare to be Stupid" is a true gem, though. I was just singing it in
>>the car today.
>
>My common-usage sense of the word "parody" involves a deliberate
>comedic effect (cf. Merriam-Webster, "a literary or musical work in
>which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic
>effect or in ridicule"), while a "pastiche" does not necessarily (cf.
>"a literary, artistic, musical, or architectural work that imitates
>the style of previous work; also : such stylistic imitation").
>
As has been pointed out up-thread, parody need not be humourous.
mike weber
Reitman) wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:06:42 -0500, mike weber
><mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote:
>
>>. . . .
>
>>I am also aware that "parody" may be general or specific... that is,
>>in SFPA, i once referred to a particular song by the Turtles as a
>>parody of an Association song.
>
>>. . . .
>
>Which Turtles song?
>
Ummm, one of the songs on "Battle of the Bands" -- "Elenore", maybe...
I'd have to dig it out and listen to it.
Gee, what a terrible and onerous duty.
Kip Williams
> As has been pointed out up-thread, parody need not be humourous.
Oh yeah... come to think, I've heard some hymns referred to as
parodies, because they used the tune of an existing song. (I guess
"filk song" ain't good enough for -some- people.)
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
(sarcASCII)
Kevin J. Maroney
<mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote:
>As has been pointed out up-thread, parody need not be humourous.
As I was pointing out, the common-sense meaning of the word does, in
fact, require humor.
I have only studied copyright law to a limited degree, but I have
never encountered anything that supports Eloise's statement that there
is a legal sense of "parody" which doesn't include a comedic effect;
the benchmark cases which define parody law (the Jack Benny
"Autolight" case and the Carol Burnett "Went with the Wind" case) are
both about comedies. I'd be perfectly happy to see specific examples.
David G. Bell
ki...@cox.net "Kip Williams" wrote:
> mike weber wrote:
> > As has been pointed out up-thread, parody need not be humourous.
>
> Oh yeah... come to think, I've heard some hymns referred to as
> parodies, because they used the tune of an existing song. (I guess
> "filk song" ain't good enough for -some- people.)
There is a technical musical term for a song written to a tune of
another.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid
of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?"
From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross.
David G. Bell
<tm8s2vo8ch3l44l1u...@4ax.com> k...@panix.com
"Kevin J. Maroney" wrote:
The case, a few years ago, concerning 2 Live Crew and "Pretty Woman"?
It involved only a small, but distinctive, part of the "Pretty Woman"
music, focused on fair use, but I think there was some mention of
parody.
Daniel R. Reitman
<mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote:
>Ummm, one of the songs on "Battle of the Bands" -- "Elenore", maybe...
>I'd have to dig it out and listen to it.
>. . . .
OK, I can see that as moderately Association-ish.
Dan, ad nauseam
mike weber
wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:24:25 -0500, mike weber
Ummm -- "parody", as also "satire" need not be humourous, but the most
common/popular variety *is* -- or at least intends to be, i guess,
which would be why the important case law would involve humourous
parody.
However, i can envisage parody for, say, political purposes, in which
one produces a parody of an opponent's advertising tat would not be
humourous at all; say, by exaggerating a relatively-harmless sentence
into outright anti-semitism, say.
mike weber
If you've seen "Battle of the Bands" in its original cover, you know
that the inner fold of the album cover shows the members of the
Turtles in costume as the various "bands" they portray on the album;
whichever song i'm thinking of -- might be "You Showed Me", come to
think -- shoes them dressed in white sweatshirts with their names on
the front, looking like one of those generic
white-preppies-singing-harmonies groups of the period...
Kip Williams
> On Wednesday, in article <3E2E1DFA...@cox.net>
> ki...@cox.net "Kip Williams" wrote:
>
>>mike weber wrote:
>>
>>>As has been pointed out up-thread, parody need not be humourous.
>>
>>Oh yeah... come to think, I've heard some hymns referred to as
>>parodies, because they used the tune of an existing song. (I guess
>>"filk song" ain't good enough for -some- people.)
>
> There is a technical musical term for a song written to a tune of
> another.
Unfortunately there is not room enough in this margin to write it down.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>On 16 Jan 2003 22:10:16 -0500, t...@panix.com (Tom Galloway) wrote:
>
>>Julie Lim <womba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>IIRC, "The Wind Done Gone" was initially blocked from publication by
>>>the Mitchell estate as copyright infringement on GWTW, but a federal
>>>appeals court later decided that it qualified as a parody and was thus
>>>eligible for fair-use protection.
>>
>>Horrible decision in my mind, since prior to the Mitchell estate coming down
>>on them, the author and publisher of TWDG didn't seem to realize it was a
>>parody, but rather promoted it solely as a significant literary work. Only
>>after they needed to get around the copyright did they start refering to it
>>as a parody. I would've tossed the case out for sheer blatent lack of intent
>>to have written a parody as such.
>>
>There was a movie called "Motel Hell", which wa successful as a comic
>horror-film parody.
>
>It wasn't originally intended as one... it was intended as a straight
>horror film. But audiences laughed at it.
>
It happens that my first real job was for a company that did computer support
for payroll and accounting for independent motion picture productions, and one
of their customers had been the "Motel Hell" production. There was a backup
tape labeled "Motel Hello" (because the Mormons that owned the company were a
little uncomfortable with the "Hell" in the name, but not enough to turn down a
paying gig) hanging in the rack in the computer room all the time I worked at
that site.
-- Alan
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 06:18:51 GMT, drei...@spiritone.com (Daniel R.
>Reitman) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:06:42 -0500, mike weber
>><mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>. . . .
>>
>>>I am also aware that "parody" may be general or specific... that is,
>>>in SFPA, i once referred to a particular song by the Turtles as a
>>>parody of an Association song.
>>
>>>. . . .
>>
>>Which Turtles song?
>>
>I'd have to dig it out and listen to it.
>
It's transparent that "Battle of the Bands" is entirely composed of genre
pastiches, since if you look at the cover (of the vinyl, anyway) you see
that supposedly each track is recorded by a different band, and there are
even some photographs of the Turtles pretending to be that band. (I think
"Surfer Dan" has the Turtles pretending to be the surfer band that they
once, in fact, were. The Crossfires, maybe? I didn't own that album and
it's been a long time since I looked at it.)
But it was never obvious to me that "Gee, I think you're swell, you're my
pride and joy, etcetera" was a parody of The Association in particular,
nor, indeed, of whom it was.
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>that the inner fold of the album cover shows the members of the
>Turtles in costume as the various "bands" they portray on the album;
>whichever song i'm thinking of -- might be "You Showed Me", come to
>think -- shoes them dressed in white sweatshirts with their names on
>the front, looking like one of those generic
>white-preppies-singing-harmonies groups of the period...
Oh, yeah, "You Showed Me" has the Association sound. (By the time I actually
saw them (the Association), it was the early 1980s, and there was an Asian guy
in the group. I don't know if he was always there; if so, that white preppies
thing might need a little rethinking.)
Michael Alan Chary
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, 510 U.S. 569 (1994)
The analysis is largely as fair use. I, personally, wouldn't want to
handle a non-humor based parody defense, but it's theoretically possible.
(But then, as Homer Simpson says, "Communism works in theory."
--
"There's only one god / He is the sun god / Ra! - Ra! - Ra!"
--ancient Egyptian religious chant, attrib. to Robert Anton Wilson
"Woah. Edsger Dijkstra died. GOTO a better place, Eddie."
- Geoffrey Kinnel
Michael J. Lowrey
> At Chattacon this weekend I was told
We missed each other all weekend? AARRGGHHH!
--
Michael J. Lowrey
recovering
James Nicoll
>David G. Bell wrote:
>> On Wednesday, in article <3E2E1DFA...@cox.net>
>> ki...@cox.net "Kip Williams" wrote:
>>
>>>mike weber wrote:
>>>
>>>>As has been pointed out up-thread, parody need not be humourous.
>>>
>>>Oh yeah... come to think, I've heard some hymns referred to as
>>>parodies, because they used the tune of an existing song. (I guess
>>>"filk song" ain't good enough for -some- people.)
>>
>> There is a technical musical term for a song written to a tune of
>> another.
>
>Unfortunately there is not room enough in this margin to write it down.
>
tune from Joe Hill's _Pie in the Sky_ was from an actual hymn as might
be played at a Catholic funeral, eg: my mother's. Given certain circumstances
of that funeral it was a good choice of song.
--
"Repress the urge to sprout wings or self-ignite!...This man's an
Episcopalian!...They have definite views."
Pibgorn Oct 31/02
mike weber
("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr") wrote:
>In article <l0rs2vg34k8au7bud...@4ax.com>, mike weber <mike....@electronictiger.com> writes:
>>On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:20:57 GMT, drei...@spiritone.com (Daniel R.
>>Reitman) wrote:
>>If you've seen "Battle of the Bands" in its original cover, you know
>>that the inner fold of the album cover shows the members of the
>>Turtles in costume as the various "bands" they portray on the album;
>>whichever song i'm thinking of -- might be "You Showed Me", come to
>>think -- shoes them dressed in white sweatshirts with their names on
>>the front, looking like one of those generic
>>white-preppies-singing-harmonies groups of the period...
>
>Oh, yeah, "You Showed Me" has the Association sound. (By the time I actually
>saw them (the Association), it was the early 1980s, and there was an Asian guy
>in the group. I don't know if he was always there; if so, that white preppies
>thing might need a little rethinking.)
>
They *sounded* that way.
mike weber
("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr") wrote:
>It's transparent that "Battle of the Bands" is entirely composed of genre
>pastiches, since if you look at the cover (of the vinyl, anyway) you see
>that supposedly each track is recorded by a different band, and there are
>even some photographs of the Turtles pretending to be that band. (I think
>"Surfer Dan" has the Turtles pretending to be the surfer band that they
>once, in fact, were. The Crossfires, maybe? I didn't own that album and
>it's been a long time since I looked at it.)
Crossfires, right.
>
>But it was never obvious to me that "Gee, I think you're swell, you're my
>pride and joy, etcetera" was a parody of The Association in particular,
>nor, indeed, of whom it was.
>
As i later said, i'm inclining to think it was "You Showed Me", now
that i think.
mike weber
("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr") wrote:
>It happens that my first real job was for a company that did computer support
>for payroll and accounting for independent motion picture productions, and one
>of their customers had been the "Motel Hell" production. There was a backup
>tape labeled "Motel Hello" (because the Mormons that owned the company were a
>little uncomfortable with the "Hell" in the name, but not enough to turn down a
>paying gig) hanging in the rack in the computer room all the time I worked at
>that site.
Oh, i dunno -- that may have been the title at one point, since it is
the official name of the motel in the film, kind of like "Hot L
Baltimore"...
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
>Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, 510 U.S. 569 (1994)
>
>The analysis is largely as fair use.
Of course--parody is a specific statutory instance of fair use.
>I, personally, wouldn't want to
>handle a non-humor based parody defense, but it's theoretically possible.
I've just read the decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose
<http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html>, and
throughout it makes reference to the comedic intent and effect of 2
Live Crew's "Pretty Woman":
In 1989, Campbell wrote a song entitled "Pretty Woman," which he
later described in an affidavit as intended, "through comical
lyrics, to satirize the original work . . . ."
and
e.g., Like less ostensibly humorous forms of criticism, it can
provide social benefit, by shedding light on an earlier work, and,
in the process, creating a new one. We thus line up with the courts
that have held that parody, like other comment or criticism, may
claim fair use under § 107.
Souter even quotes the Merriam-Webster definition I cited above to
establish a framework for parody:
The germ of parody lies in the definition of the Greek parodeia,
quoted in Judge Nelson's Court of Appeals dissent, as "a song sung
alongside another." 972 F. 2d, at 1440, quoting 7 Encyclopedia
Britannica 768 (15th ed. 1975). Modern dictionaries accordingly
describe a parody as a "literary or artistic work that imitates the
characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or
ridicule," [n.12] or as a "composition in prose or verse in which
the characteristic turns of thought and phrase in an author or
class of authors are imitated in such a way as to make them appear
ridiculous." [n.13] For the purposes of copyright law, the nub of
the definitions, and the heart of any parodist's claim to quote
from existing material, is the use of some elements of a prior
author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part,
comments on that author's works. See, e. g., Fisher v. Dees, supra,
at 437; MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, 677 F. 2d 180, 185 (CA2 1981). If, on
the contrary, the commentary has no critical bearing on the
substance or style of the original composition, which the alleged
infringer merely uses to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in
working up something fresh, the claim to fairness in borrowing from
another's work diminishes accordingly (if it does not vanish), and
other factors, like the extent of its commerciality, loom larger.
[n.14] Parodyneeds to mimic an original to make its point, and so
has some claim to use the creation of its victim's (or collective
victims') imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet
and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing. [n.15]
See Ibid.; Bisceglia, Parody and Copyright Protection: Turning the
Balancing Act Into a Juggling Act, in ASCAP, Copyright Law
Symposium, No. 34, p. 25 (1987).
I guess it's possible to read the paragraph in its entirety to
*suggest* that a parody could be a critical work which quotes from the
work which it parodies without humorous effect, but like you I
wouldn't want to have to argue that. I think that the fair use
exception for "criticism" would be more likely to be applied in such a
case rather than an appeal to parody.
Michael Alan Chary
>wrote:
>>Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, 510 U.S. 569 (1994)
>>
>>The analysis is largely as fair use.
>
>Of course--parody is a specific statutory instance of fair use.
Yes, but the opinion largely ignores that and discusses fair use
generally. That's why it's important.
>>I, personally, wouldn't want to
>>handle a non-humor based parody defense, but it's theoretically possible.
>
>I've just read the decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose
><http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html>, and
>throughout it makes reference to the comedic intent and effect of 2
>Live Crew's "Pretty Woman":
Yes, but I'd say it merely pays lip service to the former cases.
I think the case in its entirety stands for the weakening of a humor
"requirement." Sadly, I can all too easily envisage having to argue it...
> I think that the fair use
>exception for "criticism" would be more likely to be applied in such a
>case rather than an appeal to parody.
2 Live Crew had tried to buy permission from the people, and were refused.
The critical road would have failed the laugh test. (They were making a
derivative work rather than a straight cover, so they needed either
permission or an affirmative defense.)
Jim Toth
> In <m> Ed Dravecky III <e...@panix.com> writes:
>>mike weber <mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote:
>
>>> I am also aware that "parody" may be general or specific...
>>> that is, in SFPA, i once referred to a particular song by the
>>> Turtles as a parody of an Association song.
>
>>> refused to accept that you could parody a body of work rather
>>> than a specific work.
>
>>to be Stupid" is a parody of Devo but not any one specific song.
>
> boy-band song.
That's such a formula song.
--
Jim Toth
jt...@acm.org
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> David G. Bell wrote:
> > On Wednesday, in article <3E2E1DFA...@cox.net>
> > ki...@cox.net "Kip Williams" wrote:
> >
> >>mike weber wrote:
> >>
> >>>As has been pointed out up-thread, parody need not be humourous.
> >>
> >>Oh yeah... come to think, I've heard some hymns referred to as
> >>parodies, because they used the tune of an existing song. (I guess
> >>"filk song" ain't good enough for -some- people.)
> >
> > There is a technical musical term for a song written to a tune of
> > another.
>
> Unfortunately there is not room enough in this margin to write it down.
To spoil the joke-- "Contrafactum?"
--
Bill Higgins | "Between the death of live television and
Fermilab | the birth of the Internet, there was a gap
| of about twenty years when it was impossible
| to make a fool of yourself instantaneously
Internet: | in front of millions of people."
hig...@fnal.gov | --Mark Leeper, quoted by Evelyn C. Leeper
Julie Lim
> In <m> Ed Dravecky III <e...@panix.com> writes:
>
> >'Weird Al' Yankovic does style parodies all the time. His "Dare
> >to be Stupid" is a parody of Devo but not any one specific song.
>
> Or "DaVinci's Notebook"'s song "Title of the Song", a generic
> boy-band song.
Or much of the oeuvre of the Arrogant Worms, whose best-known work is
probably the protest folksong "Carrot Juice is Murder", but who have
also recorded the Guns'N'Roses-esque "I Want to Log In to You", the
Nirvanic "My Dog Bob", another generic boyband song called "Boy Band",
the Barney-oid "Rippy the Gator", the Gilbert and Sullivan-tinged "Big
Fat Road Manager", and so on.
Dorothy J Heydt
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <hig...@fnal.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Kip Williams wrote:
>
>> David G. Bell wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, in article <3E2E1DFA...@cox.net>
>> > ki...@cox.net "Kip Williams" wrote:
>> >
>> >>mike weber wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>As has been pointed out up-thread, parody need not be humourous.
>> >>
>> >>Oh yeah... come to think, I've heard some hymns referred to as
>> >>parodies, because they used the tune of an existing song. (I guess
>> >>"filk song" ain't good enough for -some- people.)
>> >
>> > There is a technical musical term for a song written to a tune of
>> > another.
>>
>> Unfortunately there is not room enough in this margin to write it down.
>
>To spoil the joke-- "Contrafactum?"
Or in French, "contrefait."
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Del Cotter
David G. Bell <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> said:
>k...@panix.com "Kevin J. Maroney" wrote:
>> I have only studied copyright law to a limited degree, but I have
>> never encountered anything that supports Eloise's statement that there
>> is a legal sense of "parody" which doesn't include a comedic effect;
>> the benchmark cases which define parody law (the Jack Benny
>> "Autolight" case and the Carol Burnett "Went with the Wind" case) are
>> both about comedies. I'd be perfectly happy to see specific examples.
>
>The case, a few years ago, concerning 2 Live Crew and "Pretty Woman"?
>
>It involved only a small, but distinctive, part of the "Pretty Woman"
>music, focused on fair use, but I think there was some mention of
>parody.
I know little about 2 Crud 2 Live, but I'm sure I can guess which eight
notes the case was about :-)
--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .
JustRead::NeilGaimanAmericanGods:GwynethJonesBoldAsLove:KenMacLeodDarkLi
ght:DamonKnightWhyDoBirds:JRRTolkienTheTwoTowers:RobertCharlesWilsonBios
ToRead:ChinaMievilleTheScar:ChristopherPriestFugueForADarkeningIsland:Gu
David G. Bell
<Pine.SGI.4.31.0301221...@fsgi01.fnal.gov>
hig...@fnal.gov "Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey" wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Kip Williams wrote:
>
> > David G. Bell wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, in article <3E2E1DFA...@cox.net>
> > > ki...@cox.net "Kip Williams" wrote:
> > >
> > >>mike weber wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>As has been pointed out up-thread, parody need not be humourous.
> > >>
> > >>Oh yeah... come to think, I've heard some hymns referred to as
> > >>parodies, because they used the tune of an existing song. (I guess
> > >>"filk song" ain't good enough for -some- people.)
> > >
> > > There is a technical musical term for a song written to a tune of
> > > another.
> >
> > Unfortunately there is not room enough in this margin to write it down.
>
> To spoil the joke-- "Contrafactum?"
That looks right. I had a vague feeling that there was a contra in it
somewhere. This has come up a time or two on rec.music.filk.
Has the word been verbed yet?
Beth Friedman
>David G. Bell wrote:
>> On Wednesday, in article <3E2E1DFA...@cox.net>
>> ki...@cox.net "Kip Williams" wrote:
>>
>>>mike weber wrote:
>>>
>>>>As has been pointed out up-thread, parody need not be humourous.
>>>
>>>Oh yeah... come to think, I've heard some hymns referred to as
>>>parodies, because they used the tune of an existing song. (I guess
>>>"filk song" ain't good enough for -some- people.)
>>
>> There is a technical musical term for a song written to a tune of
>> another.
>
>Unfortunately there is not room enough in this margin to write it down.
And I don't know what that term is, but according to a recent post on
the copyediting list, "quodlibet" means the simultaneous playing of
two independently viable melodies, like "Lida Rose" and "Dream of Now"
in _The Music Man_.
--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com
Eloise Beltz-Decker
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:59:34 -0600, Eloise Beltz-Decker
> <elo...@ripco.com> wrote:
>
> > You both do realize, don't you, that 'parody' is a legal term and
> >doesn't imply humor, necessarily? It implies comment upon, in a particular
> >legal way that is protected more thoroughly than ordinary fair use.
>
> Yes.
>
> I am also aware that "parody" may be general or specific... that is,
> in SFPA, i once referred to a particular song by the Turtles as a
> parody of an Association song.
>
> Someone demanded to know *which* Association song i meant and refused
> to accept that you could parody a body of work rather than a specific
> work.
Certainly. Of course, you can't get the same 'parody protections'
from the law for doing such a thing. Luckily, you probably won't need to,
as if it's not a parody of any one particular thing, you're unlikely to
be sued for infringement of any one particular thing.
--
Eloise Beltz-Decker + elo...@ripco.com + http://www.fishdragon.com/
"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all
who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they
laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also
laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan
Kip Williams
> My entire family was somewhat startled to discover that the
> tune from Joe Hill's _Pie in the Sky_ was from an actual hymn as might
> be played at a Catholic funeral, eg: my mother's. Given certain circumstances
> of that funeral it was a good choice of song.
"In The Sweet By and By." I think they sang that in the Baptist
church I used to attend, too. I have the Joe Hill version in a book
called "Songs of Work and Protest."
Kip Williams
> On Wednesday, in article
> <Pine.SGI.4.31.0301221...@fsgi01.fnal.gov>
> hig...@fnal.gov "Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey" wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Kip Williams wrote:
>>
>>
>>>David G. Bell wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wednesday, in article <3E2E1DFA...@cox.net>
>>>> ki...@cox.net "Kip Williams" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>mike weber wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>As has been pointed out up-thread, parody need not be humourous.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh yeah... come to think, I've heard some hymns referred to as
>>>>>parodies, because they used the tune of an existing song. (I guess
>>>>>"filk song" ain't good enough for -some- people.)
>>>>
>>>>There is a technical musical term for a song written to a tune of
>>>>another.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately there is not room enough in this margin to write it down.
>>
>>To spoil the joke-- "Contrafactum?"
>
>
> That looks right. I had a vague feeling that there was a contra in it
> somewhere. This has come up a time or two on rec.music.filk.
>
> Has the word been verbed yet?
Contredance?
(dead silence)
Kip Williams
> And I don't know what that term is, but according to a recent post on
> the copyediting list, "quodlibet" means the simultaneous playing of
> two independently viable melodies, like "Lida Rose" and "Dream of Now"
> in _The Music Man_.
Not to mention "Goodnight My Someone" and "76 Trombones."
Marilee J. Layman
("David G. Bell") wrote:
>On Wednesday, in article <3E2E1DFA...@cox.net>
> ki...@cox.net "Kip Williams" wrote:
>
>> mike weber wrote:
>> > As has been pointed out up-thread, parody need not be humourous.
>>
>> Oh yeah... come to think, I've heard some hymns referred to as
>> parodies, because they used the tune of an existing song. (I guess
>> "filk song" ain't good enough for -some- people.)
>
>There is a technical musical term for a song written to a tune of
>another.
Contrefait.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Jim Toth
Or say, "You Are My Sunshine" and the 1821 Overture. As done by
Peter Schickele (along with many other songs in that piece which
I can't recall, but those two sort of stuck).
--
Jim Toth
jt...@acm.org
mike weber
>Beth Friedman wrote:
>> And I don't know what that term is, but according to a recent post on
>> the copyediting list, "quodlibet" means the simultaneous playing of
>> two independently viable melodies, like "Lida Rose" and "Dream of Now"
>> in _The Music Man_.
>
>Not to mention "Goodnight My Someone" and "76 Trombones."
Except that "Goodnight" and "Trombones" are really the same tune.
Keith F. Lynch
Peter Tchaikovsky wrote the 1812 Overture.
Peter Schickele wrote the 1712 Overture.
I haven't heard of any 1821 Overture.
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.
Kip Williams
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:11:48 GMT, Kip Williams <ki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Beth Friedman wrote:
>>
>>>And I don't know what that term is, but according to a recent post on
>>>the copyediting list, "quodlibet" means the simultaneous playing of
>>>two independently viable melodies, like "Lida Rose" and "Dream of Now"
>>>in _The Music Man_.
>>
>>Not to mention "Goodnight My Someone" and "76 Trombones."
>
> Except that "Goodnight" and "Trombones" are really the same tune.
Not precisely. They're over the same framework, and more or less go
the same places, but they get there with different means;
"Goodnight" starts off with a jump of a fourth, "Trombones" covers
the same distance with four scale steps. One is a waltz, the other
is a march. They are essentially variations on a theme. You couldn't
sing one to the words of the other without changing the tune to fit.
Kip Williams
> Jim Toth <jt...@acm.org> wrote:
>
>>Or say, "You Are My Sunshine" and the 1821 Overture. As done by
>>Peter Schickele ...
>
>
> Peter Tchaikovsky wrote the 1812 Overture.
>
> Peter Schickele wrote the 1712 Overture.
>
> I haven't heard of any 1821 Overture.
Jim, incidentally, was thinking of the "Unbegun" Symphony. Forgot to
chime in with that when he couldn't recall the title.
Jim Toth
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> Jim Toth <jt...@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Or say, "You Are My Sunshine" and the 1821 Overture. As done by
>>>Peter Schickele ...
>>
>>
>> Peter Tchaikovsky wrote the 1812 Overture.
>>
>> Peter Schickele wrote the 1712 Overture.
>>
>> I haven't heard of any 1821 Overture.
>
> Jim, incidentally, was thinking of the "Unbegun" Symphony. Forgot to
> chime in with that when he couldn't recall the title.
Thanks. I couldn't remember if it was within that or "The
Quodlibet".
--
Jim Toth
jt...@acm.org
Jim Toth
> Jim Toth <jt...@acm.org> wrote:
>> Or say, "You Are My Sunshine" and the 1821 Overture. As done by
>> Peter Schickele ...
>
> Peter Tchaikovsky wrote the 1812 Overture.
>
> Peter Schickele wrote the 1712 Overture.
>
> I haven't heard of any 1821 Overture.
Um...
Well, my girlfriend's license plate has "1821" on it, and she
remembers that part by recalling that it's a transposition away
from 1812. So obviously, my fingers like it better now.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
I suppose the 1821 Overture would be formed by playing the first half
of it straight, then playing the last fourth, then playing the third
fourth.
--
Jim Toth
jt...@acm.org
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> mike weber wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:11:48 GMT, Kip Williams <ki...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Beth Friedman wrote:
> >>
> >>>And I don't know what that term is, but according to a recent post on
> >>>the copyediting list, "quodlibet" means the simultaneous playing of
> >>>two independently viable melodies, like "Lida Rose" and "Dream of Now"
> >>>in _The Music Man_.
> >>
> >>Not to mention "Goodnight My Someone" and "76 Trombones."
> >
> > Except that "Goodnight" and "Trombones" are really the same tune.
>
> Not precisely. They're over the same framework, and more or less go
> the same places, but they get there with different means;
> "Goodnight" starts off with a jump of a fourth, "Trombones" covers
> the same distance with four scale steps. One is a waltz, the other
> is a march. They are essentially variations on a theme. You couldn't
> sing one to the words of the other without changing the tune to fit.
When Willson was putting together *The Music Man* for its first production,
the team's choreographer departed, complaining that too many of the songs
were the same.
--
Submarines, flying boats, robots, talking pictures, | Bill Higgins
radio, television, bouncing radar vibrations |
off the Moon, rocket ships, and atom-splitting-- | Fermilab
all in our time. But nobody has yet been able |
to figure out a music holder for | Internet:
a marching piccolo player. |
--Meredith Willson, 1948 | hig...@fnal.gov
Nancy Lebovitz
>*suggest* that a parody could be a critical work which quotes from the
>work which it parodies without humorous effect, but like you I
>wouldn't want to have to argue that. I think that the fair use
>exception for "criticism" would be more likely to be applied in such a
>case rather than an appeal to parody.
Was parody used as a defense for _The Wind Done Gone_?
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Now, with bumper stickers
Using your turn signal is not "giving information to the enemy"
Bill Roper
>Beth Friedman wrote:
>> And I don't know what that term is, but according to a recent post on
>> the copyediting list, "quodlibet" means the simultaneous playing of
>> two independently viable melodies, like "Lida Rose" and "Dream of Now"
>> in _The Music Man_.
>
>Not to mention "Goodnight My Someone" and "76 Trombones."
The latter case is the *same" melody at a different tempo.
--
Bill Roper, ro...@xnet.com
Kip Williams
> I suppose the 1821 Overture would be formed by playing the first half
> of it straight, then playing the last fourth, then playing the third
> fourth.
Or playing the second half backwards. Hm. Or waiting nine years to
play the rest.
Kip Williams
> the team's choreographer departed, complaining that too many of the songs
> were the same.
So much for the greatness train.
My first memory of Meredith Willson is the exercise record he did,
which they used to play every day on the station my parents listened
to (and which I, perforce, listened to).
"Go, you chicken fat, go away!
Go, you chicken fat, go!"
Kip Williams
For some values of *same*. See my earlier post. More or less the
same, but not identical.
Niall McAuley
news:3E2F2512...@cox.net...
> David G. Bell wrote:
> > Has the word been verbed yet?
> Contredance?
> (dead silence)
...tumbleweed blows by...
--
Niall
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>In article <k0nt2vkn4lsq3aeua...@4ax.com>,
>Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>I guess it's possible to read the paragraph in its entirety to
>>*suggest* that a parody could be a critical work which quotes from the
>>work which it parodies without humorous effect, but like you I
>>wouldn't want to have to argue that. I think that the fair use
>>exception for "criticism" would be more likely to be applied in such a
>>case rather than an appeal to parody.
>
>Was parody used as a defense for _The Wind Done Gone_?
Yes.
-- Alan
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
Neil Belsky
"Julie Lim" <womba...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:711e9c3c.03012...@posting.google.com...
Everything is derivative of something.
Todd Rundgren did an entire album of perfect Beatles rips called "Deface the
Music"
Neil
--
Rowan, It was a stray bomb!
Thank you Adolph!
Mark Atwood
>
> Was parody used as a defense for _The Wind Done Gone_?
Personally, I found it to be a far more readable book.
I wish it would get made (well) into a movie.
It would be especially good if it would match up sync for sync, scene
for scene, with the movie of it's source. It would be good and
insightful to then watch them simultaniously.
--
Mark Atwood | Well done is better than well said.
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
snip
>"Go, you chicken fat, go away!
> Go, you chicken fat, go!"
Ewwww!
(too many memories of PE surface here...the nightmare of my youthful
existence...)
jrw
mike weber
>mike weber wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:11:48 GMT, Kip Williams <ki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Beth Friedman wrote:
>>>
>>>>And I don't know what that term is, but according to a recent post on
>>>>the copyediting list, "quodlibet" means the simultaneous playing of
>>>>two independently viable melodies, like "Lida Rose" and "Dream of Now"
>>>>in _The Music Man_.
>>>
>>>Not to mention "Goodnight My Someone" and "76 Trombones."
>>
>> Except that "Goodnight" and "Trombones" are really the same tune.
>
>Not precisely. They're over the same framework, and more or less go
>the same places, but they get there with different means;
>"Goodnight" starts off with a jump of a fourth, "Trombones" covers
>the same distance with four scale steps. One is a waltz, the other
>is a march. They are essentially variations on a theme. You couldn't
>sing one to the words of the other without changing the tune to fit.
I was quoting the program book; it's been A Long Time since i actually
listened to either/both.
mike weber
wrote:
Then there's the Dukes of Stratosphear.
Keith F. Lynch
> Peter Tchaikovsky wrote the 1812 Overture.
> Peter Schickele wrote the 1712 Overture.
> I haven't heard of any 1821 Overture.
Jim Toth <jt...@acm.org> wrote:
> Well, my girlfriend's license plate has "1821" on it, and she
> remembers that part by recalling that it's a transposition away
> from 1812. So obviously, my fingers like it better now.
Amusingly, I'm in the middle of reading last year's Hugo winning
novel, and shortly after posting that, I came to a part that's set
in 1821. What are the odds?
> I suppose the 1821 Overture would be formed by playing the first
> half of it straight, then playing the last fourth, then playing the
> third fourth.
If I play the fourth part first and the second part last, I'll have
a composition that depicts events of 115 years from now? This is
worrying. I'd hoped the 22nd century was more peaceful than that.
I've got to stop using the "shuffle" feature on my CD player.
Beth Friedman
>Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey wrote:
>> When Willson was putting together *The Music Man* for its first production,
>> the team's choreographer departed, complaining that too many of the songs
>> were the same.
>
>So much for the greatness train.
>
>My first memory of Meredith Willson is the exercise record he did,
>which they used to play every day on the station my parents listened
>to (and which I, perforce, listened to).
>
>"Go, you chicken fat, go away!
> Go, you chicken fat, go!"
Doing exercises to that was an occasional treat back in grade school
and high school. It wasn't until I went looking for information a
year or so ago that I discovered that it was Meredith Willson's and
Robert Preston's contribution to Kennedy's physical fitness
initiative.
(I found a copy on Napster, back when there was a Napster. It holds
up remarkably well.)
--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com
Kip Williams
It's been working out.
Nancy Lebovitz
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>na...@unix1.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>>
>> Was parody used as a defense for _The Wind Done Gone_?
>
>Personally, I found it to be a far more readable book.
I'm glad I read _The Wind Done Gone_, but I wish it had been
a more popular sort of book.
>
>I wish it would get made (well) into a movie.
>
>It would be especially good if it would match up sync for sync, scene
>for scene, with the movie of it's source. It would be good and
>insightful to then watch them simultaniously.
Probably not feasible--the plots are too different.
I would like to have parallel editions of _Gone with the Wind_ and
_The Wind Done Gone_ with white and black covers.
Kate Secor
Grumer <av...@grumer.org> wrote:
> In article <200120031622490768%aig...@hotmail.com>,
> Kate Secor <aig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <20030115205720...@pong.telerama.com>, James J.
> > Walton <jjwa...@telerama.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip. Summary: Copyright extension passed by Supremes>
> >
> > > Could someone please explain why you find this upsetting?
> >
> > Um... I can explain it, but the ObSF is Spider Robinson's
> > "Melancholy Elephants" (which can be found in _By Any Other Name_).
>
> Or on the net, for free:
> http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___1.htm
Ooooh, I didn't know that one was online! It's one of my favorites!
::greedily downloads:: Thanks!
Aiglet
Kate Secor
wrote:
> mike weber wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:11:48 GMT, Kip Williams <ki...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Beth Friedman wrote:
> >>
> >>>And I don't know what that term is, but according to a recent post on
> >>>the copyediting list, "quodlibet" means the simultaneous playing of
> >>>two independently viable melodies, like "Lida Rose" and "Dream of Now"
> >>>in _The Music Man_.
> >>
> >>Not to mention "Goodnight My Someone" and "76 Trombones."
> >
> > Except that "Goodnight" and "Trombones" are really the same tune.
>
> Not precisely. They're over the same framework, and more or less go
> the same places, but they get there with different means;
> "Goodnight" starts off with a jump of a fourth, "Trombones" covers
> the same distance with four scale steps. One is a waltz, the other
> is a march. They are essentially variations on a theme. You couldn't
> sing one to the words of the other without changing the tune to fit.
My boyfriend says to tell you both that he does *not* appreciate having
to listen to me hum the two sequentially for two hours straight last
night, or having been suckered into singing one so I could sing the
other to see if it really worked.
Aiglet
(Um... As far as I can tell, they're the same tune with different
signatures and ornamentation. That's *wierd*.)