Got a blog tip? Contact us
« Great, a new environmental problem to worry about | Main | Agence France Presse accuses Google of copyright infringement »
Brand Name Bullies
Since I've been running the Illegal Art Exhibit for what seems like forever, I'm pretty jaded when it comes to books about copyright. I figure I already know what I'd want to know, and, besides, there's only so much one's brain can hold. But David Bollier's new book is exceptional; he's one of the most clear-headed, articulate writers about intellectual property around, and a passionate defender of the common trust. Moreover, Brand Name Bullies is loaded with interesting stories and anecdotes. To wit:
"The Girl from Ipanema," a Brazilian jazz standard by Vinicius de Moraes and Antonio Carlos Jobim, was inspired by an actual girl from Ipanema, Heloisa Pinheiro. Forty years after the song first became a hit, Pinheiro secured a trademark on the song title in Portuguese and opened a clothing boutique called the Girl from Ipanema. The heirs of the songwriters filed suit, and not only demanded that she rename the shop, but that she also remove a photograph of herself with the two composers hanging on her boutique wall. As Bollier points out, Jobim is probably rolling in his grave; the songwriter had serious reservations about even commercializing his work.
The same can be said of the artist Alexander Calder, who Bollier also discusses. Since Calder's death, his estate has been on a mission to prevent galleries and museums from displaying large mobiles by other artists. The estate claims that Calder pioneered monumental mobiles, and therefore earned a copyright on the medium.
Brand Name Bullies also tells the sad, revealing history of It's a Wonderful Life. Released in 1946, the movie was such a dud that the rights holders never even bothered to renew the copyright on it (rights holders used to have to apply for the rights that are now automatic). After the film fell into the public domain, TV stations started playing the heck out of it and it became a hit. The success of the movie ultimately had a downside, though: it prompted Spelling Entertainment—which owned the rights to a short story that the movie was based on—to retroactively claim a copyright over the movie. So, ever since 1996, the frequent seasonal airings of It's a Wonderful Life are no more. Though Spellling's claims to ownership are pretty weak, television stations simply can't afford to challenge the company.
For each of these stories, there are many, many others—examples of artists, activists, and small businesses threatened for using, shaping, and remaking the symbols of our culture. Bollier's carefully written book provides a forceful argument that policing the exchange of ideas in such a way defeats and deadens the very culture that copyright is said to protect.
Posted by carrie on 03/22/2005 | Permalink
Comments
Hmmm, I heard from a pretty reputable source, a renowned copyright researcher, that Republic (or whoever owns them now) arranged for an exclusive license to the music soundtrack and that is what keeps the film under strong copyright (negoiating music rights with a film has kept many films from appearing on DVD or being distributed. "Urggh, A Music War" for example).
I'd love to digitally strip out the musical soundtrack and release an open-source "It's A Wonderful Life".
Posted by: Skip Elsheimer | Mar 22, 2005 5:18:33 PM
Bollier doesn't mention music rights, though I've heard that myself (Bollier's source is Stephen Fishman, _The Public Domain: How to Find Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art, and More_, 2001) from Rick Prelinger, when I interviewed him for Stay Free.
But these aren't mutually exclusive. After "It's a Wonderful Life" became popular, it's likely that many constituents came forward with claims.
Posted by: carrie | Mar 22, 2005 5:42:37 PM
What I (and Rick probably) heard was that Republic (actually the owners of Republic) spent a great deal of money (millions of dollars) researching a way to get "It's A Wonderful Life" out of public domain. So it wasn't that the music composer came out of the woodwork to make his/her claim, this was a well-calculated, well-funded legal strategy.
What I wonder is whether any work now considered public domain could survive such a strategy.
Posted by: Skip Elsheimer | Mar 22, 2005 11:25:59 PM
Me and my collaborator, Mark Brownstone, a video editor, did in fact create a reedited version of It's A Wonderful Life in 1989. At the time it was still in the public domain. We are currently thinking of reviving our version and getting it up on the web in various ways and naturally are wondering what the copyright issues might be. We do know that the copyright law leaves room for works of parody so we are hoping to benefit from that. Any ideas or suggestions would be appreciated.
Our 62 minute version is a parody that turns the premise upside down, and shows what happens to George's life when rather than rescuing his younger brother Harry, he fails to save him from drowning. Our plot streams out as a postmodern tragedy, where George's life is doomed to failure, and he ends up, naturally, throwing himself off the bridge at the end (at the urging of the now devil-sent Clarence).
Posted by: Ron Dubren | Aug 10, 2005 3:48:47 PM
Mark, as you suggest, parody is generally protected by fair use when the target is specific (which it sounds like it is in your case: you are parodying It's a Wonderful Life and not, say, a concept like "suburbia"). Of course, that doesn't mean you won't get threatened with a suit; happens all the time when artists have legal grounds for their work (see The Wind Done Gonefor example).
But from where I stand there's very little risk in putting it on the web; the worst that may happen is that some company will send a cease-and-desist asking you to take it down... if that's the case you can decide whether to do so or not at that time.
Posted by: Carrie McLaren | Aug 10, 2005 10:14:25 PM
