JibJab Explains That Fair Use Only Applies To Stuff They Agree With
from the selective-fair-use? dept
David Goldenberg from Gelf Magazine wrote in to tell us about a blurb they have on their site quoting Gregg Spiridellis of JibJab on why they decided to sue the maker of a parody video for using a 9 second clip from their own parody “This Land Is Your Land” for which, they, themselves were sued. The message boils down to them being upset that the video was being used in a partisan way — but that doesn’t answer the claim that it was fair use. The thing with fair use is you don’t really have control over how the content is used.
Comments on “JibJab Explains That Fair Use Only Applies To Stuff They Agree With”
dupe...
and to think I came here as a slashdotter…
Re: dupe...
??? This isn’t a dupe. It’s a follow up to the original story (which we link to in the post…).
Re: Re: dupe...
Mike,
Slashdotters are either correct and loud, or wrong and silent. He won’t be back.
Re: Re: Re: dupe...
As a fellow slashdotter, I agree. He (obviously not a she if they read slashdot) will never be back again. BUt hey, at least we don’t have dupes every day.
Wrong again
While I agree that JibJab’s position has no legal basis, once again Techdirt gets the facts wrong. JibJab was not sued for the original parody (they received a C&D letter). Likewise, JibJab did not sue Black Lantern; they sent them a C&D.
While this site is sometimes interesting, its frequent errors and knee-jerk anti-IP stance ruin any credibility it may be trying to acheive.
Re: Wrong again
What’s wrong with an anti-IP stance? The idea that immaterial things can be counted as property is holding back the development of humanity in a hundred different ways.
And everybody makes errors sometimes. That it means so much to you says more about you being anal-retentive than it does about techdirt.
Re: Re: Wrong again
Very big of you to attack me personally rather than arguing the merits. Why stop at suggesting that ownership of intagible property is bad; do you advocate for no private property at all? If not, how do you make a prinicpled distinction? the protection of creative expression (copyright, in case you’re unaware) encourages authors to make their work available, secure in the knowledge that someone else cannot come along and steal it for free)
I suspect your anti-IP stance is not an informed one and you probably don’t know the difference b/n patents, copyrights and trademarks. And you likely wear birkenstocks w/ socks.
Re: Re: Re: Wrong again
Haha, that’s hilarious. You’re so backward. You really think that money is the reason why people are creative, don’t you? Man, you REALLY don’t get it. And I’m not going to explain it to you.
I won’t discuss the merits of intellectual property laws with the likes of you though, as discussing alternate points of view with those who have opinions such as yours is usually as pointless as talking with a wall.
However, I would like to know just how much of the funny statement you made above you truly believe in so if you don’t mind, could I ask you a question?
If all the money in the world vanished tomorrow, do you think that people would stop inventing, researching, programming, writing, making movies, and making music, since there wouldn’t be any cash in it?
Please say yes, I love a good laugh.