• Matthew Saroff

    All of you have missed the boat regarding the artistic considerations, specifically its call for “unity”, of “This land is your land”.

    I would refer you to the “missing verses” that have not generally been sung:

    “Was a big high wall there that tried to stop me
    A sign was painted, said ‘Private property.’
    But on the other side it didn’t say nothing.
    This land was made for you and me.”

    and

    “One bright sunny morning
    In the shadow of the steeple
    By the relief office I saw my people
    As they stood hungry, I stood there wondering
    If God blessed America for me.”

    It is more of an anthem against greed and poverty than it is a unifying song.

  • http://www.teledyn.com/mt/justus/ mrG

    The vresion I heard was slightly different:

    … And on that sign it said �Private property.�
    But on the other side it didn�t say nothing.
    THAT SIDE was made for you and me.�

    and thanks for that Relief Office verse … it’s a keeper :)

  • http://www.teledyn.com/mt/justus/ mrG

    Related to this, I am curious: what is the relevence of the actual copyright Woody Guthrie applied to his works from that era:

    “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.”

    This ‘license’ was included in every copy of the magazine Woody published and was where most of his now-familiar material was premiered. Does the artists only wish cease to have any relevence after they are no longer around to cuss about it?

  • http://loglynx.blogspot.com mark

    As noticed by the Blawg Channel the Nader vs. Master Card is an interesting case to compare this one with. As I also commented under the post at the Blawg Channel the decision proves itself especially useful in citing the Campbell-case.

    e.g.:
    “A parody that more loosely targets an original than the parody presented here may still be sufficiently aimed at an original work to come within our analysis of parody. if a parody whose wide dissemination in the market runs the risk of serving as a substitute for the original…, it is more incumbent on one claiming fair use to the original. By contrast, when there is little or no risk of market substitution, whether because of the large extent of transformation of the earlier work, the new work’s minimal distribution in the market, the extent to which it borrows from the original, or other factors, taking parodic aim at an original is a less critical factor in the analysis, and looser forms of parody may be found to be fair use…”