Blogs > Cliopatria > Sampling This Land and Sampling Justice ...

Oct 6, 2009

Sampling This Land and Sampling Justice ...




You remember JibJab's amusing version of Woody Guthrie's"This Land Is Your Land"? Well, of course, it drew a complaint from the copyright owners of Guthrie's lyric and the complaintpre-occupiedthe powerfullegal brainof the seniorVolokhfor muchof the week. (Did you get all that? How many grand worth of pro bono blogging do you think that amounts to?)

It further turns out, of course, that Woody, himself, had no great devotion to private property rights and, therefore, apparently paid them his highest tribute by filching his famous melody from the Carter Family. You can hear a clip of their tune recorded 10 years before Guthrie used it. Truth to tell, the Carter Family may very well have picked it up from earlier musicians. This is a process known as"sampling" and it is common both in folk musical and rhetorical traditions. I've written about it in the preaching of Vernon Johns and Martin Luther King and Derek Catsam at Rebunk points to a TNR article about an instance of it in African literature.

As I've watched the King Estate become increasingly litigious about its property rights in Dr. King's work, the irony of its folk sampling, freely borrowing from the work of others without attribution, has grown on me. An attorney I spoke with about it said:"Well, it may be a patchwork, but it is his patchwork." Yes, of course, but when sampling is an elemental part of the creative folk process, it seems to me that the application of property law to it is not likely to be very satisfying. One of my favorite examples of the consequences of all this is an inscription on the Civil Rights Memorial at the front of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery:

‘Let justice roll down like waters; and righteousness like a mighty stream.'
– Martin Luther King, Jr.

(Click on Civil Rights Memorial Online).
Of course, King knew that they were the words of the prophet, Amos, several thousand years ago. Subsequent prophets, preachers, and mullahs have repeatedly invoked them and their more biblically literate audiences undoubtedly knew the tradition that gave those words authority. Our superficial popular culture may think that they are authoritative only because Martin Luther King said them.


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Oscar Chamberlain - 8/2/2004

From Wired.com
http://wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,64428,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4


Simon Kornblith - 8/1/2004

"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."

Unfortunately, Woody Guthrie's copyright is now controlled by a group that seems uninterested in what he stood for.


chris l pettit - 7/31/2004

Having studied it intensely (and it was painful) in law school...I now know better than to think anyone is ever saying anything that has not been said before. It is amazing that people actually think that they are coming up with new ideas or ways of putting words together. If I ever claim to be saying anything novel, just shoot me and get it over with...

In terms of science, the advent of new technology enabling us to be able to "prove" something does not necessarily mean that the idea had not been proven logically thousands of years ago. For instance, quantum theory is proving to be true ideas that were postulated by Buddhism 2000+ years ago...and yet they want to claim that they are somehow "new?" Give me a break...

On another tangent...in terms of scientific knowledge, it should be free for all to use and take advantage of...this is part and parcel of international human rights law...the Bush administrations approach to AIDS technologies is but one of the hypocritical approaches that exist.

CP
www.wicper.org


Jonathan Dresner - 7/31/2004

I read a story a few years ago, a futuristic fantasy, in which it was illegal to sing, because there was no melody that you could sing without infringing on someone's copyright.....

Literal application of property law to trademark, copyright, patent could well be the death of our culture as we know it. Start with the patenting of DNA patterns, and the seemingly perpetual extension of copyright (the Steamboat Willie Laws) and work your way up from there.

Truly original work is very rare, and rarely is it actually any good. Great work is usually incrementally revolutionary, revisionist, pointing the way without going all the way there. And the invocation of accumulated meaning is so much more effective than the creation of brand new meaning every time you speak. But it's getting harder to do that without paying for it....