Poet's Son Says No One Can Quote Father Without Paying Up... Even Academic Dissertations...

from the uh,-that's-not-how-it-works,-son dept

crcb alerts us to the bizarre situation where the son (and heir to the copyrights) of poet Louis Zukofsky isn't just brandishing the copyrights against those trying to republish his works, but he seems to be demanding fees from anyone quoting his father or writing about him -- even academic dissertations. It doesn't appear as if Paul is doing this to protect a legacy or anything (if anything, it sounds like he's not a fan of his father), but he does want cold hard cash:

"I hardly give a damn what is said about my father (I am far more protective of my mother) as long as the name is spelled properly, and the fees are paid."

The full copyright notice is quite a doozy, where the son basically seems to think copyright law means he alone gets to determine what is acceptable and what is not -- and, for the most part, his view is that he doesn't want you ever quoting or discussing his father, but if you must, then he wants money. He also seems to think that fair use is as he defines it, rather than what the law actually says.

All Louis and Celia Zukofsky is still copyright, and will remain so for many many years. I own all of these copyrights, and they are my property, and I insist upon deriving income from that property. For those of you convinced that LZ would find my stance abhorrent, the truth is that he kept all copyrights (initially in his name) as he had the rather absurd idea that said copyrights would be sufficient to allow for the economic survival of my mother, and their son. My stance is congruent with that hope.

Despite what you may have been told, you may not use LZ's words as you see fit, as if you owned them, while you hide behind the rubric of "fair use". "Fair use" is a very-broadly defined doctrine, of which I take a very narrow interpretation, and I expect my views to be respected. We can therefore either more or less amicably work out the fees that I demand; you can remove all quotation; or we can turn the matter over to lawyers, this last solution being the worst of the three, but one which I will use if I need to enforce my rights.

Except that, no, fair use is somewhat broadly defined under the law, and just because Paul wants it narrowly defined, it does not follow that this is the case. As Paul's father, Louis Zukofsky once wrote: "The best way to find out about poetry is to read the poems." Apparently, Paul would like to make that a lot more difficult and a lot more expensive. And, yes, Paul, quoting that was fair use.

60 Comments | Leave a Comment..

$1 Trillion Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Oprah Dismissed

from the well,-phew dept

We've seen all sorts of bizarre copyright claims over the years, but I can't recall anything quite like this. Apparently, Oprah Winfrey was sued by some poet for $1 trillion, claiming that the TV talkshow star had ripped off a poem. One would hope that his poetry is better than his legal skills, as the lawsuit was quickly dismissed, noting that the poet failed to register a copyright on his poems, and a prerequisite before a copyright infringement lawsuit is to have the works registered. While it's never good to support bogus litigation, it's difficult not to wonder how this guy planned to substantiate the $1 trillion number. Even the big shots in the RIAA and MPAA don't go that far...

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Intellectual Property Laws... Rewritten As Poetry

from the did-you-copyright-that dept

Damn. Techdirt reader Yehuda Berlinger alerts us to the fact that he recently completed rewriting UK Copyright Law, in verse. Yes, he's reimagined the law as a poem. Here's just a clip:

3
You copyright books
And programs, all sized
Written or recorded
Even unauthorized

3A

Databases, too,
By which they mean lists
Of things, are also
In this here gist

4

Art includes maps
And casts of all sorts
Buildings and sketches
So on and so forth

And it's not just UK Copyright Law. He's actually done US Copyright Law, Canadian Copyright Law, US Patent Law and US Trademark Law. It's impressive, to say the least. Berlinger is the first to admit that the poetry isn't particularly good, but says "that's part of the point." He says he does it "because I want to read the actual copyright codes, but can't do it unless I'm entertaining myself in the process. Also, writing summations of each section helps me to remember." Check them all out...

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Who Cares Whose Footprints Those Are In The Sand... The Real Question Is Who Gets The Copyright?

from the of-all-the-ridiculous-copyright-battles... dept

You've probably come across the infamous "footprints in the sand" poem at some point in your life. It's hard to avoid. It's usually used as a religious parable about having God/Jesus/something "supporting" you during the toughest period in your life. For many years, it was attributed to "anonymous" and found on all sorts of kitschy merchandise. Except, at some point, with all that merchandise, people started to realize that there may be money in "owning" such a poem, and suddenly, out of the woodwork, approximately a dozen different folks have shown up to claim authorship -- with a few filing for the copyright, and a legal battle now ensuing. If you thought the saga over the Happy Birthday copyright was confusing, you haven't seen anything yet.

Some of the stories of alleged authors seem slightly more credible than others, while some are just downright bizarre:

"Meanwhile, there's Carolyn Joyce Carty, the other defendant in Zangare's suit. A self-proclaimed child prodigy and "world renowned poet laureate," Carty surfaced in the "Footprints" debate earlier this decade, saying she wrote the poem in 1963, when she was 6 years old, as an epilogue to a longer story she called "The Footprints of God." Actually, she claims her grandmother first wrote it in 1922, and then young Carolyn wrote it, and it is unclear, from a brief e-mail exchange with a reporter, if Carty understands what it means to have written something. She also filed a copyright on "Footprints," claiming it as her "contribution to society." She maintains a wondrously baffling "Footprints" Web site where, among other things, she claims she wrote the lyrics to "In My Life" before the Beatles did.

The real kicker, though, is that research suggests none of the dozen or so claimants actually wrote the poem or deserve the copyright for it. One researcher has tracked the concept of the story back to a sermon in 1880 and it may go back even further. Even more amusing, that same discussion points to the poet Robert Louis Stevenson writing an essay in 1894, where he discusses tangentially the same idea of footprints in the sand... but uses it to explain why it's so difficult it is for a creative writer to avoid borrowing from the works of those who have come before. Indeed. But, thanks to copyright, there's apparently plenty of money in pretending you came up with the idea all on your own. For one of the many folks who "claim" that she wrote the poem, and who has been most aggressive about licensing it, it has turned into "best-remunerated poem in history," according to her lawyer. Those footprints in the sand sure can carry a lot of weight, but what good does it do if it doesn't come with a copyright and a boatload of cash?

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..