Universal Music Using Copyright To Kill Off Wacky Charlie Brown / Smiths Comic Mashup
from the it-always-looks-darkest-just-before-it-gets-totally-black dept
In the past, we've written a few times about various fun online attempts to take classic comic strips and remix them into something else. Probably the most famous is Garfield Minus Garfield (which is just what it sounds like). What amazed us about that story was that, not only did Garfield author Jim Davis not freak out about it (he actually loved it), he and his publisher agreed to publish a book of those strips.Unfortunately, other comic remixers haven't had the same sort of luck. "Real Calvin and Hobbes" (taking panels from the strip and putting them in "real photographs") was shut down by publisher Andrews McMeel Universal. And, Iconix Brand Group, owners of Peanuts Worldwide, shut down Peanutweeter, a site that took semi-random tweets and fit them to panels from classic Peanuts' strips.
This latest example also involves Peanuts, though it appears not to have been Peanuts Worldwide that brought it down this time. At issue is the blog This Charming Charlie, which has taken lyrics from songs by The Smiths, and placed them into Charlie Brown comics. It was set up by Lauren LoPrete nearly two months ago, and got a ton of attention back in August, with articles in Slate, Time and Esquire among some others. I had actually missed all of that, but came across the blog today totally by accident (literally: was researching something totally unrelated and a confused Google search sent me to the blog), where I discovered that LoPrete says it's over as of last week because she's been getting takedowns.
But here's the odd part. The takedowns aren't from the Peanuts side of things, but the Smiths. Universal Music Publishing Group is claiming that the use of the Smith's lyrics here violate their copyrights. Frankly, that's ridiculous. First of all, as you can see from a few of the examples below, the strips use just very small snippets of lyrics, and do so in totally transformative ways, in a manner that is clearly commentary on those original lyrics (as well as on Charlie Brown). If anything should be considered fair use, it's this. But, really, what does Universal Music Publishing think they're doing here? Do they honestly think these comic strips somehow hurt the copyright on those lyrics? Really? It seems like just another jerky kneejerk reaction for no reason other than copyright allows them to censor.
Thankfully, it appears that LoPrete isn't just going to fold. She's been hearing from some lawyers who are interested in representing her, and she sounds like she's going to fight this. She's currently filing counternotices and apparently is ready to fight back even more if Universal decides to try to continue to censor her.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, charlie brown, copyright, dmca, fair use, lauren loprete, morissey, parody, peanuts, remix, the smiths
Companies: universal music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
And this second-hand grifting is consistent throughout Mike's notions. It's why he's so keen on Pandora and Megaupload: both those let someone else do all the work, then insert themselves to grift off the created value. -- at least Pandora pays a pittance! Megaupload never handed over a cent of its income to those who did the work.
Anyhoo, since there's NO attribution of the lyrics -- I for one would NEVER know unless informed -- it's just simply stealing, whosit may have a "legal" argument, but not a moral claim -- putting 3rd party text into 2nd party's cartoon? THAT'S what you regard as innovation?
Why do you force me to side time and again with heartless grifting corporations, Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
I'm inclined to say you should shoot yourself in the head for such types of comments but I'll try not to do it. Oops. Still, you are an obnoxious idiot if you truly believe in what you said. You are simply saying that the small folk, the ones that are really responsible for the majority of the cultural output should be ignored simply because they are creating on top of something bigger. Yep, you are a moron.
it's just tacky to rely on someone else's creativity for your income
And there we are, you were thinking it. (I read just the title) You see, almost anything created relies on something that already exists at least in part. Yeah, though truth I know. So yes, Universal and "The Smiths" are plain thieves. They are freeloading on previous existing culture. What a tacky reliance on someone's else creativity for their income, no?
It's why he's so keen on Pandora and Megaupload:
Irrelevant. They don't compare to what is being discussed here. Take your head out of your ass for some air so you won't mix stuff that are unrelated.
Anyhoo, since there's NO attribution of the lyrics -- I for one would NEVER know unless informed -- it's just simply stealing
No it is not. It wouldn't hurt to have some attribution I do agree. But it could have been requested. It's rather common to simply forget to add it to the work. It does not make the work illegal or any of the stupidity coming out of you.
Why do you force me to side time and again with heartless grifting corporations, Mike?
Really? Go find a psychiatrist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
There is not attribution on the individual strips, but there is very much attribution on the Tumblr where they are posted, both to Schulz and to The Smiths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
http://thischarmingcharlie.tumblr.com/about
I checked to make sure but I didn't do it hard enough =/
Thanks for the heads up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
if you are xtian, dog almighty is the ONLY original 'author', since then, EVERYONE has been cribbing...
if you are rational, Slimey the Pond Ooze is the ONLY original, ALL the rest of us are derivatives...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
Ninja, you definitely sound like you are in desperate need a bj if ever anyone needed a bj, but don't look to techdirt to ease your cynicism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
Says the person who parrots the maximalist line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
Because, I'm just guessing here, most Universal employees aren't actually rock stars, but do marketing and human resources and accounting, and just rely on someone else's creativity for all their income.
THOSE DIRTY FREE-RIDING THIEVES.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
-
"I for one would NEVER know unless informed" - Hence the idiot in a hurry. Maybe if the idiot in a hurry took the time to listen... maybe, just maybe... he would be informed and have a new appreciation of the Peanuts and new found liking for The Smiths. Nah... that never happens in real life. Jus sayin.
-
"Why do you force me to side time and again with heartless grifting corporations, Mike?" How is that new office at Google HQ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
You mean like the **AA cartels, and their membership?
Or that Disney fellow and all of those fairy tales someone else wrote and he just stole their creativity?
Or that James Cameron fellow who painted Pocahontas blue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
- Jim Jarmusch
See where your argument lacks debt?
Besides, there is attribution courtesy of the remixer:
http://thischarmingcharlie.tumblr.com/about
Somehow parody would seem like an appropriate way of describing the mix, making it internationally recognized fair use. That the mixer owns a record-label herself just seems to further compound the notion (She must know how it feels having an artists lyrics used etc.).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
Indeed, reading and using your brain are difficult for you, so you wouldn't have noticed the about page on the blog in question that states the following:
"All images adapted from Charles Schulz�s Peanuts comic series. All words adapted from Smiths lyrics written by Morrissey, Johnny Marr and The Smiths."
Yet another ootb tirade undone by applying simple facts, easily available to anyone actually interested in the truth...
"those let someone else do all the work, then insert themselves to grift off the created value"
Just like Universal? Unless you can quantify how they were involved in creating the lyrics in question, of course. What creativity did they insert to exempt them from the same criticism?
Difficulty: you can't state things like funding, marketing, distribution and so on, since all of those can be applied to other companies you attack on a regular basis and thus would make you a hypocrite.
"Why do you force me to side time and again with heartless grifting corporations, Mike?"
Wait, I thought Mike was the "corporatist", or at least that's what you call him in other threads. Let me guess, your opinion changes completely based on whether you can launch a moronic attack on Mike for supporting something? What a dishonest fool you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
Does this include the very same Smiths who used still frames from famous 50's-60's British movies for every single one of their album covers? Because Morrissey was a fan of Diana Dors, Terrence Stamp, etc and wanted to share his love of them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever notice how Mike focuses on second-handers?
"All images adapted from Charles Schulz�s Peanuts comic series. All words adapted from Smiths lyrics written by Morrissey, Johnny Marr and The Smiths."
Your argument is invalid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd make an "anomaly" and an "it's over 9000" joke but I'm too excited with the perspective of the voice actor starting his own rock band or something. And I'm also afraid of getting Techdirt a DMCA notice because of it and have my house raided by fully geared SWAT guys =(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See Mike? Google is responsible for directing you to infringing content!
Take that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/rimshot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obligatorylyric quote for UMG
Just like everybody else does
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Feeding the troll
Common people must you continue to feed the trolls!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Feeding the troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Feeding the troll
The troll does this as often and as predictably as possible, and I'm not sure why, but the troll is Techdirt's best friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Feeding the troll
Stop it, he'll accuse you of infringing Pulp's lyrics now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's see how we could illustrate this takedown.
We could make a hapless character that just wants to do something good. Since the blog is "This Charming Charlie", there is probably some character that we can all get into our minds.
We have this character get all ready to do something fun and exciting...like kicking a football or something.
Then, we have another character - one a bit mean-spirited pull that opportunity away at the last minute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advertising
But these strips get me thinking I missed something, and make me want to go out and buy a Smiths album. Or several.
And UMG want to take them down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Advertising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Advertising
A record label that was interested in its artists instead of stopping infringement would have embraced this as a promotional opportunity. And they might have too if it didn't also involve Peanuts. That would mean licensing the comic, because the record label lawyers forbid them to ever claim fair use for anything they do. In their world, everything must be licensed, and they don't understand why the rest of the world doesn't behave the same way. It's because they deny that fair use is part of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]