7 ms·

‘We Shall Overcome’ Is Put in Public Domain in a Copyright Settlement

132 points by denzil_correa 9y ago

drdeadringer 9y ago
Now I'm curious about church hymns and then again about how UUs can "get away with" changing the words to "others' hymns" and republish as new.
- matt4077 9y ago
  You can create a new work subject to copyright incorporating other works. Any movie with music is an example, and so is “sampling” in music, or translations of books. At issue here is wether the changes to the song were significant enough for it to be considered a creative work. This is no different than the test for a de novo work: Echo „hello world“ Is not enough to trigger copyright protection. Yet the MacOS source code is. Somewhere between the two, there is a line of demarcation. Where exactly that line is was the subject of this lawsuit.
- peterburkimsher 9y ago
  Relevant discussion recently about copyright and church songs (disclaimer - I wrote the first rant, and people contributed in the replies): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16227520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16227520
- djsumdog 9y ago
  Most of those traditional church hymns are really old; many not subject to copyright or, those that are, simply no one cares. If the UU had to fight for them, some could be protected under satire/parody.
vanderZwan 9y ago
> In a statement, Ludlow said royalties from the song since the early 1960s had been donated to the nonprofit Highlander Research and Education Center in Tennessee, which created the We Shall Overcome Fund to distribute all of the royalties through grants and scholarships in black communities. It was not immediately clear how much money the fund had distributed. “Without the same scope of copyright protection, Highlander’s grants and scholarships will be deeply affected in the future,” the statement said. Without transparency, I am leaning towards assuming there is a hefty dose of Hollywood Accounting (or whatever the name for the the music industry's equivalent is) going on[0]. > Ludlow also said uses of the song had in the past been “carefully vetted” but warned that its words and melody could now be used by advertising agencies and others “in any manner they wish, including inaccurate historical uses, commercials, parodies, spoofs and jokes, and even for political purposes by those who oppose civil rights for all Americans.” Oh I am sure that a for-profit company "vetting" potential clients is much more reliable than the inevitability of a huge social backlash against anyone foolish enough to use this song for selfish purposes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
- halestock 9y ago
  Eh, I'm sure this is going to end up in a Coca-Cola commercial eventually.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  Parodies, spoofs, and jokes are often fair use. It's bizarre that a copyright owner would say that.
  - wutbrodo 9y ago
    > It's bizarre that a copyright owner would say that. I dunno, intellectual dishonesty from any party when it comes to this topic doesn't strike me as "bizarre" as much as "super common".
- ENOTTY 9y ago
  CharityNavigator entry for Highlander Center: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7634 https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...
  - arkades 9y ago
    They seem to do reasonably well on the Transparency subsection.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    I went in hoping for blood, but that’s actually pretty good. Unless they’re fudging their financials in a truly criminal way, and there’s no reason to believe that, it’s a tight ship with low administrative overhead. They’re spending a bit over 70% on their programs, and not too much on admin or fundraising.
  - vanderZwan 9y ago
    Glad to see that the charity donated to is OK, but that is still after the royalties are donated. Hollywood accounting is not yet ruled out.
  - 9y ago
amag 9y ago
'We Shall Overcome' was unfortunately forever destroyed for me by a Swedish politician (Birgit Friggebo) who suggested it once in a meeting with a lot of agitated people[1] in order to "lower the mood" (sic). As stated in the Wikipedia article[2] this is probably one of the most embarrassing moments in Swedish politics. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZqPMROclcM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZqPMROclcM [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Shall_Overcome#Widespread_adaptation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Shall_Overcome#Widespread_a...
- alsetmusic 9y ago
  > As stated in the Wikipedia article[2] this is probably one of the most embarrassing moments in Swedish politics. I checked the linked Wikipedia entry and it didn’t give any context for why this was such an embarrassment. I also searched Google for more info, but the English-only search results didn’t turn up anything useful. I gave up after the first five or so had nothing to add. I’m curious if you can give a more detailed explanation of why this was such a gaffe. The limited info on this incident isn’t helping me paint a picture of the situation. As it stands, it seems to be a rather harmless request. I’m missing something significant, I think, about the delivery or tone. Edit: I should clarify that I’m reading this at a time when I am not in a position to follow the YouTube link.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    As the attempted serial killer "Lasermannen" shot several immigrants around Stockholm in 1992, Prime Minister Carl Bildt and Immigration Minister Birgit Friggebo attended a meeting in Rinkeby. As the audience became upset, Friggebo tried to calm them down by proposing that everyone sing "We Shall Overcome." This statement is widely regarded as one of the most embarrassing moments in Swedish politics. Seems pretty obvious to me. Responding to a real political problem with an empty gesture of solidarity is everything people don't like about politicians.
    - wutbrodo 9y ago
      I'm not sure how you're interpreting that as the response to the political problem instead of "trying to calm down an agitated audience so that the response to the problem can actually be discussed". Peaceful, democratic govt doesn't work without dialogue, and this seems like a ham-handed attempt at getting back towards dialogue instead of yelling.
icebraining 9y ago
An interview with Pete Seeger about the song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-FmQEFFFko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-FmQEFFFko
phjesusthatguy3 9y ago
The moral of the story is: if you're running into (truly) BS legal ramifications for your project, fight it.
- omeid2 9y ago
  Assuming, you can afford a law firm.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- moomin 9y ago
  Not what I’d consider the moral of the story at all. I’d say the moral was: just because you can win, doesn’t mean you should. Some movie gets to use a clip, a whole bunch of project for disadvantaged people don’t get funded. Hard to cheer a victory against BS copyright this time.
peterburkimsher 9y ago
Non-paywalled link, anyone? (ironically)
upofadown 9y ago
Where is the settlement here? It was a court clarifying that some people didn't actually have the copyright they claimed.

132 points by denzil_correa 9y ago

Now I'm curious about church hymns and then again about how UUs can "get away with" changing the words to "others' hymns" and republish as new.

matt4077 9y ago
You can create a new work subject to copyright incorporating other works. Any movie with music is an example, and so is “sampling” in music, or translations of books. At issue here is wether the changes to the song were significant enough for it to be considered a creative work. This is no different than the test for a de novo work: Echo „hello world“ Is not enough to trigger copyright protection. Yet the MacOS source code is. Somewhere between the two, there is a line of demarcation. Where exactly that line is was the subject of this lawsuit.
peterburkimsher 9y ago
Relevant discussion recently about copyright and church songs (disclaimer - I wrote the first rant, and people contributed in the replies): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16227520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16227520
djsumdog 9y ago
Most of those traditional church hymns are really old; many not subject to copyright or, those that are, simply no one cares. If the UU had to fight for them, some could be protected under satire/parody.

vanderZwan 9y ago

> In a statement, Ludlow said royalties from the song since the early 1960s had been donated to the nonprofit Highlander Research and Education Center in Tennessee, which created the We Shall Overcome Fund to distribute all of the royalties through grants and scholarships in black communities. It was not immediately clear how much money the fund had distributed. “Without the same scope of copyright protection, Highlander’s grants and scholarships will be deeply affected in the future,” the statement said. Without transparency, I am leaning towards assuming there is a hefty dose of Hollywood Accounting (or whatever the name for the the music industry's equivalent is) going on[0]. > Ludlow also said uses of the song had in the past been “carefully vetted” but warned that its words and melody could now be used by advertising agencies and others “in any manner they wish, including inaccurate historical uses, commercials, parodies, spoofs and jokes, and even for political purposes by those who oppose civil rights for all Americans.” Oh I am sure that a for-profit company "vetting" potential clients is much more reliable than the inevitability of a huge social backlash against anyone foolish enough to use this song for selfish purposes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

halestock 9y ago
Eh, I'm sure this is going to end up in a Coca-Cola commercial eventually.
greglindahl 9y ago
Parodies, spoofs, and jokes are often fair use. It's bizarre that a copyright owner would say that.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  > It's bizarre that a copyright owner would say that. I dunno, intellectual dishonesty from any party when it comes to this topic doesn't strike me as "bizarre" as much as "super common".
ENOTTY 9y ago
CharityNavigator entry for Highlander Center: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7634 https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...
- arkades 9y ago
  They seem to do reasonably well on the Transparency subsection.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  I went in hoping for blood, but that’s actually pretty good. Unless they’re fudging their financials in a truly criminal way, and there’s no reason to believe that, it’s a tight ship with low administrative overhead. They’re spending a bit over 70% on their programs, and not too much on admin or fundraising.
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  Glad to see that the charity donated to is OK, but that is still after the royalties are donated. Hollywood accounting is not yet ruled out.
- 9y ago

amag 9y ago

'We Shall Overcome' was unfortunately forever destroyed for me by a Swedish politician (Birgit Friggebo) who suggested it once in a meeting with a lot of agitated people[1] in order to "lower the mood" (sic). As stated in the Wikipedia article[2] this is probably one of the most embarrassing moments in Swedish politics. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZqPMROclcM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZqPMROclcM [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Shall_Overcome#Widespread_adaptation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Shall_Overcome#Widespread_a...

alsetmusic 9y ago
> As stated in the Wikipedia article[2] this is probably one of the most embarrassing moments in Swedish politics. I checked the linked Wikipedia entry and it didn’t give any context for why this was such an embarrassment. I also searched Google for more info, but the English-only search results didn’t turn up anything useful. I gave up after the first five or so had nothing to add. I’m curious if you can give a more detailed explanation of why this was such a gaffe. The limited info on this incident isn’t helping me paint a picture of the situation. As it stands, it seems to be a rather harmless request. I’m missing something significant, I think, about the delivery or tone. Edit: I should clarify that I’m reading this at a time when I am not in a position to follow the YouTube link.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  As the attempted serial killer "Lasermannen" shot several immigrants around Stockholm in 1992, Prime Minister Carl Bildt and Immigration Minister Birgit Friggebo attended a meeting in Rinkeby. As the audience became upset, Friggebo tried to calm them down by proposing that everyone sing "We Shall Overcome." This statement is widely regarded as one of the most embarrassing moments in Swedish politics. Seems pretty obvious to me. Responding to a real political problem with an empty gesture of solidarity is everything people don't like about politicians.
  - wutbrodo 9y ago
    I'm not sure how you're interpreting that as the response to the political problem instead of "trying to calm down an agitated audience so that the response to the problem can actually be discussed". Peaceful, democratic govt doesn't work without dialogue, and this seems like a ham-handed attempt at getting back towards dialogue instead of yelling.

icebraining 9y ago

An interview with Pete Seeger about the song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-FmQEFFFko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-FmQEFFFko

phjesusthatguy3 9y ago

The moral of the story is: if you're running into (truly) BS legal ramifications for your project, fight it.

omeid2 9y ago
Assuming, you can afford a law firm.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
moomin 9y ago
Not what I’d consider the moral of the story at all. I’d say the moral was: just because you can win, doesn’t mean you should. Some movie gets to use a clip, a whole bunch of project for disadvantaged people don’t get funded. Hard to cheer a victory against BS copyright this time.

peterburkimsher 9y ago

Non-paywalled link, anyone? (ironically)

upofadown 9y ago

Where is the settlement here? It was a court clarifying that some people didn't actually have the copyright they claimed.