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.
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.