This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/business/media/happy-birthday-is-free-at-last-how-about-we-shall-overcome.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
A Fight to Make Two Classic Songs Copyright Free to You and Me A Fight to Make ‘We Shall Overcome’ and ‘This Land Is Your Land’ Copyright Free
(about 17 hours later)
The song has rung out at marches and vigils throughout the country over the last week: “We Shall Overcome.”The song has rung out at marches and vigils throughout the country over the last week: “We Shall Overcome.”
With its message of solidarity and hope, and its legacy as a civil rights anthem, “We Shall Overcome” has become a symbol of peaceful protest. Along with Woody Guthrie’s “This Land Is Your Land,” it is so deeply woven into the country’s fabric that it is considered an American treasure, akin to a national park or a presidential monument.With its message of solidarity and hope, and its legacy as a civil rights anthem, “We Shall Overcome” has become a symbol of peaceful protest. Along with Woody Guthrie’s “This Land Is Your Land,” it is so deeply woven into the country’s fabric that it is considered an American treasure, akin to a national park or a presidential monument.
Both songs are considered private property, however, since each of them enjoy copyright protection. But that status could soon change, through a pair of lawsuits that seek to have the songs added to the public domain, where they would join “Happy Birthday to You,” a formerly copyrighted classic recently ruled to be among the creative works available for any and all to use as they choose.Both songs are considered private property, however, since each of them enjoy copyright protection. But that status could soon change, through a pair of lawsuits that seek to have the songs added to the public domain, where they would join “Happy Birthday to You,” a formerly copyrighted classic recently ruled to be among the creative works available for any and all to use as they choose.
While money is at the heart of almost every copyright case, the lawsuits over “We Shall Overcome” and “This Land” also have a decidedly political tinge — they seek to decide who gets to co-opt the message of songs that were written in service of a particular point of view.While money is at the heart of almost every copyright case, the lawsuits over “We Shall Overcome” and “This Land” also have a decidedly political tinge — they seek to decide who gets to co-opt the message of songs that were written in service of a particular point of view.
According to Nora Guthrie, a daughter of Woody Guthrie, having the copyright for “This Land” has let her prevent the song from being exploited in ways that her father — well known for his Communist sympathies — would never have approved of, including what she said were attempted uses by Ronald Reagan, the National Rifle Association and the Ku Klux Klan.According to Nora Guthrie, a daughter of Woody Guthrie, having the copyright for “This Land” has let her prevent the song from being exploited in ways that her father — well known for his Communist sympathies — would never have approved of, including what she said were attempted uses by Ronald Reagan, the National Rifle Association and the Ku Klux Klan.
“Our control of this song has nothing to do with financial gain,” Ms. Guthrie, the longtime keeper of her father’s cultural legacy, said in an interview. “It has to do with protecting it from Donald Trump, protecting it from the Ku Klux Klan, protecting it from all the evil forces out there.”“Our control of this song has nothing to do with financial gain,” Ms. Guthrie, the longtime keeper of her father’s cultural legacy, said in an interview. “It has to do with protecting it from Donald Trump, protecting it from the Ku Klux Klan, protecting it from all the evil forces out there.”
Others see the fact these songs are copyrighted at all as anathema to the spirit in which they were created. Adding these songs to the public domain, where they could be freely adapted and built upon by new generations — and where they would generate no royalty payments — is “just part of the folk tradition,” said Mark C. Rifkin, a lawyer for the firm Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, which has represented the plaintiffs in all three suits.Others see the fact these songs are copyrighted at all as anathema to the spirit in which they were created. Adding these songs to the public domain, where they could be freely adapted and built upon by new generations — and where they would generate no royalty payments — is “just part of the folk tradition,” said Mark C. Rifkin, a lawyer for the firm Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, which has represented the plaintiffs in all three suits.
“And I don’t think Woody would be bothered by it at all,” Mr. Rifkin said.“And I don’t think Woody would be bothered by it at all,” Mr. Rifkin said.
The presence of copyright protection for very old works can surprise people outside of the industry. The estate of George Gershwin, for example, still maintains rigorous control over his 1935 opera “Porgy and Bess,” stipulating that the piece should be performed by all-black casts.The presence of copyright protection for very old works can surprise people outside of the industry. The estate of George Gershwin, for example, still maintains rigorous control over his 1935 opera “Porgy and Bess,” stipulating that the piece should be performed by all-black casts.
Legal experts say that such cases show the difficulties in determining the proper limits of copyright, which is meant to encourage creators by giving them limited monopolies over their works. Yet the terms have gradually increased with the lobbying of corporate owners.Legal experts say that such cases show the difficulties in determining the proper limits of copyright, which is meant to encourage creators by giving them limited monopolies over their works. Yet the terms have gradually increased with the lobbying of corporate owners.
“We can respect the rights of creators, but creators are often in the position of building on other works, and there has to be freedom for that, too,” said James Boyle, a Duke University law professor and the author of “The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind.”“We can respect the rights of creators, but creators are often in the position of building on other works, and there has to be freedom for that, too,” said James Boyle, a Duke University law professor and the author of “The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind.”
As an example of art that builds freely on pre-existing work, Professor Boyle pointed to the tradition of folk music — exactly the realm from which “This Land” and “We Shall Overcome” grew.As an example of art that builds freely on pre-existing work, Professor Boyle pointed to the tradition of folk music — exactly the realm from which “This Land” and “We Shall Overcome” grew.
The tension is heightened when it comes to material considered essential heritage. The family of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. has used copyright to prevent his “I Have a Dream” speech — delivered at the March on Washington in 1963, where “We Shall Overcome” was most famously performed — from appearing in documentaries. Yet they also once allowed it to be used in a cellphone commercial.The tension is heightened when it comes to material considered essential heritage. The family of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. has used copyright to prevent his “I Have a Dream” speech — delivered at the March on Washington in 1963, where “We Shall Overcome” was most famously performed — from appearing in documentaries. Yet they also once allowed it to be used in a cellphone commercial.
Mr. Rifkin portrayed his firm’s music copyright cases as each pitting a struggling artist against a “greedy corporation” that is misusing copyright. The “Happy Birthday to You” suit started when Jennifer Nelson, an independent filmmaker, objected to paying a $1,500 licensing fee to Warner/Chappell, the giant music publishing house that controlled the song.Mr. Rifkin portrayed his firm’s music copyright cases as each pitting a struggling artist against a “greedy corporation” that is misusing copyright. The “Happy Birthday to You” suit started when Jennifer Nelson, an independent filmmaker, objected to paying a $1,500 licensing fee to Warner/Chappell, the giant music publishing house that controlled the song.
By some estimates, “Happy Birthday” generated about $2 million a year in royalties and licensing income, but last year a federal judge ruled Warner/Chappell’s copyright invalid. Mr. Rifkin said that his firm’s success with “Happy Birthday” led to the other cases.By some estimates, “Happy Birthday” generated about $2 million a year in royalties and licensing income, but last year a federal judge ruled Warner/Chappell’s copyright invalid. Mr. Rifkin said that his firm’s success with “Happy Birthday” led to the other cases.
“You’ve got David and Goliath,” Mr. Rifkin said. “We usually represent David, not Goliath.”“You’ve got David and Goliath,” Mr. Rifkin said. “We usually represent David, not Goliath.”
That power dynamic is less clear with “We Shall Overcome” and “This Land Is Your Land.” Both songs are controlled by the Richmond Organization, a midsize publisher whose catalog includes works by Guthrie and Pete Seeger.That power dynamic is less clear with “We Shall Overcome” and “This Land Is Your Land.” Both songs are controlled by the Richmond Organization, a midsize publisher whose catalog includes works by Guthrie and Pete Seeger.
Ms. Guthrie said that she and the publisher refuse most commercial requests for “This Land,” whose copyright was registered in 1956. Despite its fame, she said, the song earns less than some tracks on “Mermaid Avenue,” the 1998 album in which Billy Bragg and Wilco set Woody Guthrie lyrics to new music.Ms. Guthrie said that she and the publisher refuse most commercial requests for “This Land,” whose copyright was registered in 1956. Despite its fame, she said, the song earns less than some tracks on “Mermaid Avenue,” the 1998 album in which Billy Bragg and Wilco set Woody Guthrie lyrics to new music.
“The joke is that they can never make money off of Woody,” she said of the Richmond Organization. “All the requests we get for ‘This Land,’ whether to show it in a popcorn commercial, a diaper commercial, to really exploit it if we want to — we always say no.”“The joke is that they can never make money off of Woody,” she said of the Richmond Organization. “All the requests we get for ‘This Land,’ whether to show it in a popcorn commercial, a diaper commercial, to really exploit it if we want to — we always say no.”
Paul V. LiCalsi, a lawyer for Richmond, said that “We Shall Overcome” generates about $70,000 a year, with the writers’ share of the royalties going to a fund for social programs that is administered by the Highlander Research and Education Center in New Market, Tenn., the current iteration of the school where the song began its current life in the 1950s.Paul V. LiCalsi, a lawyer for Richmond, said that “We Shall Overcome” generates about $70,000 a year, with the writers’ share of the royalties going to a fund for social programs that is administered by the Highlander Research and Education Center in New Market, Tenn., the current iteration of the school where the song began its current life in the 1950s.
Whatever the public debate, the “We Shall Overcome” and “This Land” cases will most likely be decided on the basis of technicalities in the yellowed paper trail of old copyright registrations.Whatever the public debate, the “We Shall Overcome” and “This Land” cases will most likely be decided on the basis of technicalities in the yellowed paper trail of old copyright registrations.
“We Shall Overcome,” whose melody is based on an 18th-century hymn, became associated with the labor movement in the 1940s, and by the 1950s was adapted into its current form by a group of musicians and activists including Guy Carawan and Pete Seeger. That version was first copyrighted in 1960.“We Shall Overcome,” whose melody is based on an 18th-century hymn, became associated with the labor movement in the 1940s, and by the 1950s was adapted into its current form by a group of musicians and activists including Guy Carawan and Pete Seeger. That version was first copyrighted in 1960.
In April, Mr. Rifkin’s firm filed a class-action suit arguing that the song’s copyright is invalid because it is an adaptation of an African-American spiritual “with exactly the same melody and nearly identical lyrics.” And even if the 1960 copyright were found to be valid, the firm said, it would only apply to specific arrangements of the song.In April, Mr. Rifkin’s firm filed a class-action suit arguing that the song’s copyright is invalid because it is an adaptation of an African-American spiritual “with exactly the same melody and nearly identical lyrics.” And even if the 1960 copyright were found to be valid, the firm said, it would only apply to specific arrangements of the song.
In a court filing, lawyers for the Richmond Organization respond that the later versions are derivative works that contain “sufficiently original expression” to justify copyright. The publisher is expected to file a motion to dismiss the case this week.In a court filing, lawyers for the Richmond Organization respond that the later versions are derivative works that contain “sufficiently original expression” to justify copyright. The publisher is expected to file a motion to dismiss the case this week.
The suit over “This Land” was filed in June on behalf of the members of Satorii, a Brooklyn band that says it recorded a version of the song with an alternate melody but cannot release it without the publisher’s approval. According to the suit, Guthrie first published “This Land” in a handmade songbook in 1945, but by failing to file for renewal and publishing lyrics without appropriate notice, Guthrie and his publisher forfeited the copyright long ago.The suit over “This Land” was filed in June on behalf of the members of Satorii, a Brooklyn band that says it recorded a version of the song with an alternate melody but cannot release it without the publisher’s approval. According to the suit, Guthrie first published “This Land” in a handmade songbook in 1945, but by failing to file for renewal and publishing lyrics without appropriate notice, Guthrie and his publisher forfeited the copyright long ago.
Mr. LiCalsi said that “the song is still under full copyright protection and we will vigorously defend it.” Nora Guthrie disputed the assertion about the 1945 songbook, saying that it was never sold or distributed to the general public, and that copies of it remained untouched in the Guthrie household long afterward.Mr. LiCalsi said that “the song is still under full copyright protection and we will vigorously defend it.” Nora Guthrie disputed the assertion about the 1945 songbook, saying that it was never sold or distributed to the general public, and that copies of it remained untouched in the Guthrie household long afterward.
One copy is at the Library of Congress, but she said it was there only because her father had sent a copy to Alan Lomax, “his best friend and producer.”One copy is at the Library of Congress, but she said it was there only because her father had sent a copy to Alan Lomax, “his best friend and producer.”
“Woody was hoping to give Alan some ideas for how his songs might be promoted,” Ms. Guthrie said.“Woody was hoping to give Alan some ideas for how his songs might be promoted,” Ms. Guthrie said.