Woody Guthrie on Copyright
Peanutjake
"This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years,
and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we
don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's
all we wanted to do."
Frank Hamilton
co-writer?
1939 is a long way from 2003.
Ludlow might have something to say about this today. :)
Frank Hamilton
"Peanutjake" <peanut...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:bhum1n$3d5c5$1...@ID-134303.news.uni-berlin.de...
ADG01369
song "Oklahoma Hills" had been sung, published, written, swung to, and possible
yodeled without giving him any credit. Eventually (after years) his name was
added as a co-writer. Sometimes you can think one way about something and then
think about it again differently - I think he would certainly approve of the
way most writers these days form their own publishing companies to protect
their work - instead of selling it for almost nothing to people who do nothing
but collect royalties (their hard work being the dividing of the money the
songs earn). Beginning with the work of Stephen Foster songwriters have been
screwed for a long time now, but thankfully that era seems to be coming to and
end.
"Make yourself useless as well as decorational" WWG
Ray E
name off the credits and put yours on. I think what upset Woody was that
someone else was claiming authorship, not that someone else was singing his
song, recording it, etc.
--
Ray from Rochester, NY
Trombone, Keyboard, Guitar, Mandolin,
and Bass, Player wanna be.
"ADG01369" <adg0...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030824162248...@mb-m26.aol.com...
ADG01369
name off the credits and put yours on. I think what upset Woody was that
someone else was claiming authorship, not that someone else was singing his
song, recording it, etc. >>
Exactly right... Although we are talking about copyright here (ownership and
publishing). But there's more to it. As his heir I get to speak up for him
against groups or individuals using his songs or his image to promote ideas
that are contrary to his own about freedom, justice and decency such as the KKK
using "This Land" in their programs.
So in this instance, for example, his kids get to decide whether or not others
get to sing, record or promote their own agendas using his works, his image,
his name or likeness... His vote on this (being otherwise not available) will
not be based on the passage quoted in the original message posted here. It
doesn't mean the passage is without merit - it's wonderful!
12-stringer
"Money -- money changes everything." Cyndi Lauper.
ADG01369
:)
Jim Hill
With respect to the protection of copyrighted material by the heirs of WWG,
"12-stringer" wrote:
> "Money -- money changes everything." Cyndi Lauper.
Let me take a wild guess here . . . you have no idea whose message you're
replying to, right?
Jim Hill
Madison WI
(Where, by the way, we're sorely in need of an ADG concert)
Dav Vandenbroucke
not too many in a quart."
Dav Vandenbroucke
dav_and_france...@compuserve.com
Peanutjake
"Frank Hamilton" <ham...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Ec52b.7739$8i2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> This is wonderful! Which song did he refer to? Did the "we" indicate a
> co-writer?
>
> 1939 is a long way from 2003.
>
> Ludlow might have something to say about this today. :)
>
> Frank Hamilton
>
Do a google search for the phrase
"Copyright # 154085"
You will be amazed at how many responses you will get.
PJ
--------------------------------------------------
ADG01369
not too many in a quart." >>
One of my personal favorites! :)
Peanutjake
"ADG01369" <adg0...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20030826065916...@mb-m22.aol.com...
One night, backstage at a "Hoot" I asked Woody why he used so many old tunes instead of writing new
ones.
His answer to me was.
"Good tunes live many lives."
PJ
Stephen L. Suffet
> Woody gave permission to sing, write, etc. the song he didn't say leave my
> name off the credits and put yours on. I think what upset Woody was that
> someone else was claiming authorship, not that someone else was singing his
> song, recording it, etc.
>
> --
>
Greetings,
In the case of "Oklahoma Hills" the someone else was Woody's cousin Jack
Guthrie. Woody and Jack had a radio program together in L.A. around 1937, and
both had appeared in the live stage show version of "The Beverly Hillbillies."
From what I've read, Woody and Jack pretty much had a "what's mine is yours"
relationship at the time, so when years later Jack went fishing for a song to
record for RCA he came up with one that he and Woody had sung together many
times. Jack, however, neglected to tell RCA that Woody was the true author.
When the record company found out, Jack fessed up. But rather than letting the
lawyers get involved, Woody and Jack agreed to share the credit and any future
authors' royalties. After all, it may have been Woody's song, but it was Jack's
bum-thwack-bum-thwack western swing arrangement that brought "Oklahoma Hills"
to the top of the C&W charts.
Play Jack's recording and then play Arlo's, and you will be astonished how much
alike they sound.
--- Steve
Jack Aldrich
& Jack wrote the melody.
ADG01369
that one wrote the music and one wrote the lyrics (either way)... Though it's
certainly possible. They did sing and play together and it makes sense that
they would also write something together. If you listen to other songs that
Jack clearly wrote - You won't find Oklahoma Hills much different. It fits Jack
really well. Jack was my original hero and when I first began singing and
playing I stole and learned everything I could from Jack. I've recorded some of
his stuff over the years and was trying to release his recordings on my own
lable back in 1983 but discovered that Bear Family in Germany had beat me to
it. They've done great things with his recordings and I highly recommend their
stuff to anyone who's interested.
Stephen L. Suffet
I have listened to quite a few of Jack Guthrie's recordings, and Arlo is right:
"Oklahoma Hills" fits Jack's style really well. And I mean not just the
arrangement, but the underlying song itself. However, it stands out as a much
better song than any of the others I have heard. I am afraid in some cases Jack
was trying to recapture the magic of "Oklahoma Hills," but fell short of his goal.
I advise everyone who hasn't already done so to listen to Jack's recording of
"Oklahoma Hills" and then listen to Arlo's. You immediately understand what Arlo
means when he writes, "Jack was my original hero and when I first began singing
and playing I stole and learned everything I could from Jack."
--- Steve
Frank Hamilton
the KKK from using his song on a recording. Even with changes if the
license fees to the publisher were met.
It makes you wonder about the nature of compulsory licenses in the recording
field. Might be that each song ought to have permission by the writer
before it can be recorded by anyone.
I think that a lot of the greed could be taken out of the song publishing
field if there were a cap on royaties, though. ASCAP pays enormous sums to
it's higher echelon of writers and the lesser ones get less and are subject
to the regulations of this performance rights society. They're rich and the
lowly songwriter.....well you know. The big guys get the gravy and the
little guys get the leftovers.
At the same time, hypothetically, what if the kids (not you) decide that
they are OK with their famous songwriter father's songs used being used for
other political purposes than he/she would have liked? Now we get into the
area of censorship.
I think that the problems of contemporary copyright are not advantageous to
the idea of sharing songs with many people. I think Woody's original point
is still well-taken. Of course he didn't know that This Land was going to
be such a big hit. I know Woody probably would have liked the verse we made
up for school kid audiences about saving the environment. We end it with
"This land can be saved by you and me". (We can make it scan.)
So the idea that a song can be changed, messed with, lived with, rolled on
the floor with, and spread around like seeds and allowed to grow with it's
own legs seems consistent with what Woody would have believed.
It's an interesting puzzle.
Frank Hamilton
"ADG01369" <adg0...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030824212320...@mb-m10.aol.com...
ADG01369
Land" conditioned upon him (Elvis) receiving half the writer's royalties. He
was told that it wasn't possible. Far as I know it was recorded anyway - we
knew that no one asks for stuff like that until after it's recorded - not
before.
Then there was the time John Denver recorded "City of New Orleans" with his
name being added as a writer. He later apologised and as far as I know his name
was removed from his version.
These are the kinds of instances where writers or the familes still have a
little say in what goes on. And it goes on much too much for me to stomach
these days.
Even "Alice's Restaurant" was sold to the publisher for $1.00 when it first
came out. You live and learn.
Record companies, TV Networks, movie companies - they all want every dime they
can lay their hands on - and they want the rights to it forever!
I tell everyone I know, the system is not perfect and every songwriter should
publish their own material until we begin to change the antiquated copyright
laws and figure out a better way of doing things.
Mark Covello
group.
I actually liked the changes Denver made to "The City of New Orleans" enough
to not be too offended by his name on the album cover. At least he included
Goodman's name What was most irritating about it was that I'd keep
comparing it to your recording when I'd listen to it. That made it hard to
appreciate.
Now Peter, Paul and Mary were something else. I bought the song book and
was surprised to find that they seemed to have owned the rights to every
melody ever sung in America. I felt the same way about the OLGA problems.
Does some kid playing Stairway to Heaven in his basement constitute some
kind of theft? Seems to me that Led Zepplin was benefitting by kids playing
their tunes.
I guess that's the point of the quote. Well, I'm getting older (hence
wiser, they say), maybe someday I'll learn to shut up and let the
philosophers do all the talking.
Mark
"ADG01369" <adg0...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030827215237...@mb-m14.aol.com...
David Rintoul
"Money -- money changes everything." Cyndi Lauper
------------
I'm not sure if it works the same way in the US, but in Canada songwriters
have something called the "moral rights".
There are two main moral rights:
1) The right to claim authorship in your work, no matter what you decide to
do with the publishing rights.
2) The right not to have your work used "to the prejudice of the honour or
reputation of the author". This includes having it distorted without your
consent, or having it used to promote some product, service or cause you
don't agree with.
I think it's important to understand that the moral rights are at least as
important to artists as the pecuniary rights. Copyright reform isn't
necessarily all about money.
--
David Rintoul
david....@sympatico.ca
http://www3.sympatico.ca/david.rintoul
"In prosperity, our friends know us. In adversity, we know our friends."
J. Churton Collins