jibjab.com

[cold_cash]

If you guys haven't seen this yet you should check it out. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

(Just click where it says "click to play")

www.jibjab.com

[astroglide]

guy at work claims the copyright holders for the song are suing the site

[Ed Miller]

guy at work claims the copyright holders for the song are suing the site

Parody isn't a copyright violation. Otherwise Weird Al would be out of business.

[brassnuts]

So the plug-in is safe? I just spent a bunch of time cleaning up a hijacker. Now I use Mozilla anyways.

[astroglide]

http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/26/comm...ex.htm?cnn=yes

[Ed Miller]

They can whine all they want, but they have no legal case.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
They can whine all they want, but they have no legal case.

[/ QUOTE ]

The NPA of course is correct. The only case as difficult to win against a media type as this one is a libel case.

[charlie_t_jr]

[ QUOTE ]
guy at work claims the copyright holders for the song are suing the site

Parody isn't a copyright violation. Otherwise Weird Al would be out of business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true, but they are suing anyway. Claim it puts the song in a bad light or something.

[M.B.E.]

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a parody of a work is a fair use (and thus does not infringe copyright in the work), it isn't clear to me whether the jibjab animation is actually a parody of the song "This Land Is Your Land". Rather, it seems to be a political satire that uses Guthrie's song to criticize the presidential candidates.

Justice Souter's judgment in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. is a clever analysis of this issue. The copyright holders of Roy Orbison's song "Pretty Woman" were suing over a rap version of the song by 2 Live Crew. One of the key findings, in holding that 2 Live Crew's version was a fair use, is that it criticized the original song (by showing how bland and banal its lyrics are).

Justice Souter described parody as follows:

"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."

[SaintAces]

f