When A Senator Reads 'Green Eggs & Ham' On The Floor, What About The Copyright?
from the questions-questions dept
You may have heard that Senator Ted Cruz spent a fair bit of time on the Senate Floor doing an old fashioned filibuster. Of course, what seems to be drawing almost more attention than the thing he was filibustering about was... the fact that, as part of that, he read aloud the classic Dr. Seuss book, Green Eggs and Ham (though many people pointed out that he appeared to totally misunderstand the meaning of that book).But more interesting from our standpoint are the copyright questions this raises. Some even pondered if his reading the book on the Senate floor would impact the public domain status of the book. The answer to that is no, though some other questions may be a bit more obscure. I've emailed some copyright lawyers for their take on the question, but we might as well discuss them here in the comments. The book is clearly covered by copyright. Cruz's reading of it is likely protected by the speech or debate clause, and even potentially a fair use claim. The bigger question is about everyone else who's showing it. Are TV news programs who show it violating the copyright? It may depend very much on how they present it, and it seems likely that many would have a very strong fair use claim -- it's newsworthy (in some sense), it's unlikely to negatively impact the work, etc. Of course, if a TV program decided to use it, instead, as a "storytime hour with Senator Ted Cruz" in which he reads the book to entertain children... there might be some copyright questions raised. Still, it's worth noting that the owner of the copyright, Dr. Seuss Enterprises, has a history of going legal over pretty clear fair use claims.
Still, there is a larger point in all of this: this is yet another example of a politician realizing that there's benefit in being able to use copyright covered material for his personal benefit, without the permission of the copyright holder. This is why fair use is important, and why attempts to limit it are so problematic. While I've never seen Senator Cruz involved in any copyright debates, but it will be interesting to see, should copyright reform issues ever finally reach the Senate floor, if he's willing to stand up for expanded fair use, based on his own recognition of the value of being able to, say, read an entire book to try to make a point.
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: copyright, dr. seuss, fair use, filibuster, green eggs and ham, speech or debate clause, ted cruz
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Congressional record
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If it's your opinion this article is stupid, fine. That's your opinion. But please, give your reasoning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The best thing Cruz did was provide 21 hours of source material for anti-Cruz messages for political ads.
Cruz proved he failed to read Dr Seuss critically. Green Eggs and Ham goes from irrational hatred of Green Eggs and Ham to love of Green Eggs and Ham. I'm pretty sure he wasn't trying for that argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thanks. We always strive to top our previous bests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just yesterday, "Yes, It's Fair Use To Mashup Charlie Brown And The Smiths,". Is it?, who knows?, except Techdirt.
It's a shame, the hubris is part of what keeps me coming back here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A better question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A better question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A better question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A better question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A better question
A few weeks before death God answers his prayers and agrees to let him bring just one suitcase. After death he approaches the pearly gates where St. Peter stops him stating "you can not bring anything with you." The man replies "I have permissions from God to bring just one suitcase." St. Peter checks the roster "Ok, I see it here but I have to inspect the contents."
The suitcase is opened and St. Peter looks at the man confused and asks "Why did you bring a suitcase of paving bricks with you?"
After that the spirits hired lobbyists to get copyright extended past death. Gold has no use in heaven but apparently locking up works in a twisted web of copyright transfers makes your status in Heaven better. I hear Dr. King is Jesus right hand man for making sure his speeches were under strict copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A better question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A better question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A better question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A better question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A better question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A better question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A better question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finally someone who understands public speaking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, he could have read the Constitution; most in Congress NEED that.
It's stupid because Mike writes: "drawing almost more attention than the thing he was filibustering about was..." WHILE he too is totally ignoring the filbuster.
It's stupid because Mike writes: "But more interesting from our standpoint are the copyright questions this raises." WHEN DOESN'T RAISE ANY -- except maybe among weenies who want to destroy copyright.
It's stupid because Mike writes: "use copyright covered material for his personal benefit" when it's on the floor of Congress and that's always The People's business -- whether they want it or not -- I can't imagine how Mike construes that as "personal benefit", but ask him.
In fact, being generous as I can: a) I've NO idea what Mike's point is here: he's basically a machine that spews out text with "copyright" or "DMCA" or "fair use" or other key words in it b) there are DOZENS of more important items on Drudge that he could rant about: my favorite is that Apple has already admitted it's in cahoots with NSA and will turn over fingerprint data! Now THAT'S of interest.
But I do have to disagree with the AC's "could": This MUST be one of the stupidest articles ever posted on this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, he could have read the Constitution; most in Congress NEED that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, he could have read the Constitution; most in Congress NEED that.
a1) Senator moshed Dr. Seuss with a filibuster
a2) Senator provided a public performance
a3) Senator's words are on the record (recorded, copied, disseminated etc.)
b) Copyright is important because it absolutely BLOWS right now.
As for personal gain, well, senator just made himself a little more famous by rallying for something he stands for and at the same time providing entertainment by reading other peoples' works.
They're valid questions to which legal answers would be worthy.
Fair-use is critical to the public. It needs to be better defined and apply to every created work ever.
Creators create. Copyrights manipulate. It's well past overdue to right copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, he could have read the Constitution; most in Congress NEED that.
BTW... Drudge? Really? He's one of the yellowest of "journalists" around. People still pay attention to him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, he could have read the Constitution; most in Congress NEED that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, he could have read the Constitution; most in Congress NEED that.
Also, you should check out how new is intentionally slanted to advocate a certain point of view. The primary technique involves which stories you select to print (or, more importantly, which ones you don't select to print. Writing the stories yourself isn't necessary. The most influential person in setting a newspaper's slant is the editor, not the reporter.
Also, Drudge is just as much a gatekeeper as any other new disseminator, so I'm a bit confused about why you raise that as an argument at all.
Also, you know nothing about me. I love nothing more than reading things that challenge my ideas -- but that's irrelevant to the question of Drudge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue: here are some issue to be raised.
Should the Senator be fined or jailed for reading a copy written work in the open senate, is that illegal?.
Should he have been required to pay a license fee?
If not, what about this being done by a senator make this different then someone reading the book to a group of friends or even charging a feel for a public reading
Can the text of the book now be repeated by other in reference to the events that took place on the senate
If reading the book was "Wrong" either legally or morally, why didn't the senator know that. Or is he just a terrible person who is morally corrupt? How can a common citizen be expected to respect copyright if their senators don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm seems like Article I Section 6 needs updating...
Article I Section 6
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He does not know History either and makes up stuff like his little Munich Speech where he quoted the wrong Year it occurred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cruz is a scumbag grandstander
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Queue Rush Limbaugh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Queue Rush Limbaugh...
And why hasn't Blue slammed him for stealing Dr. Seuss's work from his cold, dead hands, etc.? Enquiring minds want to know. That filthy grifting Senator needs to be called to account! /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can I get a free copy of Green Eggs and Ham now?
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2013-09-24/pdf/CREC-2013-09-24-senate.pdf
Oh oh, did I just post a link to an infringing document?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The moral of Green Eggs is "Don't knock it until you try it." In the end, Sam I Am actually liked green eggs and ham!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And, if we don't like the ACA, we can just repeal it, right?
Yeah, right.
This argument/comparison is ludicrous.
"Don't knock it till you try it" is about as juvenile as you can get when you are discussing national laws with huge impact on every person in the country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The programs that have been enacted so far have greatly benefitted me. For instance, insurance companies can no longer charge me a higher premium because I'm not a man. Also since I have the breast cancer gene (most women in my family do) I cannot be denied coverage due to a "Pre-existing condition." Even though I do not have breast cancer and may not get it until much later in life (if I even do). There's more that works in my favor so I don't really see any issues with ACA as it is now.
But then members and leadership of the Republican party have been attacking women's health for the better part of a decade now so I'm not surprised at this turn either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
meh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Affordable Care Act Meant to Fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Affordable Care Act Meant to Fail
All the while forgetting it was a Heritage project picked up by the Dems in the name of bipartisanship... and rejected for that reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was a bed time story to his kids
[ link to this | view in chronology ]