Posted on 11/03/2009 5:06:23 AM PST by markomalley
Michael Palin and Terry Jones have complained that Chris Christie, the Republican candidate for the New Jersey governorship, used clips from a Monty Python sketch in a campaign advertisement.
Mr Christie, who hopes to unseat his Democratic rival Jon Corzine as governor in an election on Tuesday, removed the video from his website and YouTube page hours after complaints from Michael Palin and Terry Jones.
The offending advertisement featured Palin in a vintage Monty Python's Flying Circus piece as a television presenter asking viewers if they had ever suffered from déjà vu and then repeating the question several times. Mr Christie's commercial, which was aired on numerous occasions, drew parallels with his rival's repeated attempts to impose higher motorway tariffs.
(snip)
Republicans have an established record of upsetting liberally inclined entertainers by using their material without consent. Earlier this year the singer Jackson Browne won an undisclosed financial settlement from Senator John McCain for his use of the song Running on Empty during his failed 2008 presidential bid.
Tom Petty threatened to sue George W Bush if he refused to stop using his song I Won't Back Down in 2000, while Bruce Springsteen refused to allow Ronald Reagan to play Born in the USA during his 1984 re-election campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
But it is good to see the libs scream.
The other Palin.
Michael Palin and Terry Jones have complained that Chris Christie, the Republican candidate for the New Jersey governorship, used clips from a Monty Python sketch in a campaign advertisement.
And now, for something completely different.
See: Rush, using "My City was Gone" from The Pretenders.
Sounds like a great mechanism for leveraging certain demographics.
Bottom line is he should have gotten permission to use the skit first. I’m thinking he didn’t. Still hope he wins though!
They should be grateful for the exposure - How many new voters have never even heard of Monty Python?
I'm afraid I'm not personally qualified to confuse cats, but I can recommend an extremely good service.
Has a lib politician ever been subjected to this? I don’t recall any.
We apoligize for that.
Know full well that the person responsible was sacked!
Yeah seems like he didn't. And politics aside, that's pretty dumb for anyone to do. And a politician with all his people should definitely know better.
Is it required? If ones shows something for profit, yes. If one shows something in its entirety, yes. But a tiny clip? Used as a parody of a political opponent?
I’m not a lawyer, but it seems like there ought to be a case for ‘fair use’...
“Republicans have an established record of upsetting liberally inclined entertainers by using their material without consent.”
No, liberal politicians get a pass from entertainers.
On the other hand, make a big deal of paying the license fees, and then announce that the advertising team responsible has been sacked and replaced by Ralph the Wonder Llama.
It'll show he has a sense of humor and a sense of fair play.
Know full well that the person responsible was sacked!
No doubt the responsible person's last day working for the Christie campaign will be today. He will turn in his campaign car keys, laptop, cell phone and credit card -- and begin to prepare for 2010.
Christie should have licensed the footage.
He should pay the penalties now.
He should also win the governorship in NJ.
Fair use is for editorial or research, not advertising. I’m not a fan of libs, but if it was my work, I’d object to a Rat using it to try and get elected.
Don’t you know it burns their butt to know that’s Rush’s “theme song”?
17 USC § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
He was using the work commercially...in an advertisement...so I don't think it could be claimed that it was for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.
Like I said, he should have gotten somebody to license the work from their publisher and then used it legally.
fair use.
I guess I think of political advertisements as a form of editorial. If they were hawking a car to make cash, I’d understand the concern.
And since politicians WRITE the laws, they usually extend themselves every possible courtesy!
But it is good to see the libs scream.
It was absolutely delicious when Heart was screaming about "Barracuda" and had no legal recourse because the license fees had been paid. I still laugh at them every time I hear the song. I'm smiling just thinking about it.
fair use for political speech.
this is just left wingers protecting themselves for their hollyweird sycophants.
Copyright Laws like any law passed by our ijits is complicated and "Fair Use" is limited. But if they consulted a Copyright Lawyer first, it could have been resolved pdq (Yes or No).
The rights of Copyright owners, like say for Photographers have expanded over the past 30 years. A 'Model Release Form' isn't even required any more. If done at all, its just a 'feel good' measure.
Yes Ma'am.
That's why I used it as the ultimate example.
It's these asinine liberals who love to hate people who love the wisdom to support the Idea Of America. Come to think of it, this is only news because the LIBERAL SELFISH reporter thought it would hurt the republican candidate.
Yours faithfully,
Brigadier Sir Charles Arthur Strong (Mrs).
P.S. I have never sued a Republican gubernatorial candidate for the unauthorised use of 40 year old comedy sketch in a campaign advert.
I hate to say this, but the Pubs should just KNOW this by now. Get permission before you use it!! They invariably, always get their undies in a bunch!
In order to receive permission to use our material, any conservative must first chop down the tallest tree in the forest with,......
a herring!
Well first of all I'd like to apologize for the behaviour of certain of my colleagues you may have seen earlier, but they are from broken homes, circus families and so on and they are in no way representative of the new modern improved Republican Party. They are a small vociferous minority; and may I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism in the Republican Party. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit, but all new campaign workers are warned that if they wake up in the morning and find any toothmarks at all anywhere on their bodies, they're to tell me immediately so that I can immediately take every measure to hush the whole thing up. - Michael "Palin" Steele
Oh sorry, this is ABUSE, augument's are down the hall on the left.
About 40 years ago.
Yet George Lucas never filed any attacks against Obama for his campaign's use of "Star Wars" footage to defeat Hillary in the democrat primary. Did "The Sopranos" agents attack Hillary for using their theme to promote her campaign?
It's amazing to see the masks come off these damn ugly and hypocritical celebreties whenever a pro-American candidate uses pop culture in advertising.
On the other hand, the democrats are allowed to do whatever they want however they want.
It
I'll have to side with the Pythons on this one. His campaign should have checked before using the clip.
It may be fair use. If it is not, the candidate should responsibly handle any penalties. If so, the pythons should stuff it. :-)
As do I. It's not fair use. 40 years is a very long time for copyrights to apply, but that's not the way the law reads in this country right now and they should obey the law.
It's all the more sad. That sketch is perfect for a campaign ad.
My Brain Hurts !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.