When A Senator Reads 'Green Eggs & Ham' On The Floor, What About The Copyright?

from the questions-questions dept

Wed, Sep 25th 2013 12:58pm — Mike Masnick

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

49 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 1:00pm

Congressional record
Isn't everything said on the floor of the Senate and House put into the Congressional record, copied, archived, and distributed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 1:17pm

Clear copyright infringement, Take him to court, and ruin his life. Make an example of him. Then maybe, just maybe. There will be an actual discussion, in the senate and congress, of how absurd copyright has become.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 1:23pm

This could be one of the stupidest articles ever posted on this site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 1:28pm

Re:
How so? What if a senator reads an entire work, and this reading is recorded? Aren't all works produced by the federal government automatically public domain? Would someone then using that recording in their own way be violating a copyright or making using of a government produced public domain work?

If it's your opinion this article is stupid, fine. That's your opinion. But please, give your reasoning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 1:34pm

Why the lack of confidence? Techdirt's never been shy of saying "this is the way it is", " this way is right", "this way is wrong".

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 thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 1:42pm

A better question
Dr. Seuss died 22 years ago. How in the hell is he benefiting by having this 53-year-old work under copyright?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 1:45pm

Re: A better question
Because copyright was created by the spirits of ancient Egyptians!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oblate (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 1:47pm

Finally someone who understands public speaking.
An important rule of public speaking- target your speech to the educational/mental level of the audience. I believe that this was done in this case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 25 Sep 2013 @ 1:48pm

Well, he could have read the Constitution; most in Congress NEED that.
@ Rikuo: If it's your opinion this article is stupid, fine. That's your opinion. But please, give your reasoning.

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 thread ]
kog999, 25 Sep 2013 @ 1:59pm

"WHEN DOESN'T RAISE ANY"

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 thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 2:01pm

Re: Well, he could have read the Constitution; most in Congress NEED that.
You hate it, and yet you keep reading it. Who's the stupid one here?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rapnel (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 2:18pm

Re: Well, he could have read the Constitution; most in Congress NEED that.
a) It looks like several critical copyright observations
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 thread ]
Ben (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 2:24pm

Hmmm seems like Article I Section 6 needs updating...
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, Breach of the Peace, and Copyright Infringement, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Article I Section 6
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 2:24pm

Re: Well, he could have read the Constitution; most in Congress NEED that.
You should try actually reading the article.

BTW... Drudge? Really? He's one of the yellowest of "journalists" around. People still pay attention to him?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 2:32pm

Re: A better question
One day a rich man was diagnosed with cancer, fearing death and loss of his wealth he preyed each night that God would let him take his hard earned wealth with him to heaven.

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 thread ]
s2lim, 25 Sep 2013 @ 2:33pm

Imagine if he had recited a Prince song? That guy would be going down! Cuffed and stuffed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 2:36pm

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, Breach of the Peace, and unauthorized use of Intellectual Property, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 2:36pm

Re: Re: A better question
Perhaps someone truly believed Disney would be brought back to life, and wanted to keep his copyrights warm for him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 25 Sep 2013 @ 2:53pm

Another example of just how judiciously politicians use the money they steal from us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gorehound (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 3:27pm

Cruz is a scumbag grandstander.........does what he does for himself.He does not care about others and he is so unintelligent.Has about the same intellect as the people who actually Voted for the creep.
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 thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 4:14pm

Re:
This could be one of the stupidest articles ever posted on this site.

Thanks. We always strive to top our previous bests.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anonymouse (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 4:36pm

Re: Cruz is a scumbag grandstander
fyi - name calling and belittling people with whom you disagree removes credibility from your opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 4:38pm

Re:
You've just accused Techdirt of having both a lack of confidence and hubris in one short comment. Perhaps you should learn the meaning of these words before making completely contradictory claims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 5:37pm

Re:
This could be one of the stupidest comments ever posted on this site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 5:40pm

Re:
huh, my reaction was that it was one of the funniest articles ever posted on this site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 6:36pm

Queue Rush Limbaugh...
...who played the entire reading on his radio broadcast this afternoon. Any wild speculation on the copyright or fair use implications of *that* ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Original Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 7:01pm

Can I get a free copy of Green Eggs and Ham now?
After all, it will be in the Congressional Record, and that document is available to everyone for free. It starts on page S6732 in the Congressional Record for Tuesday, 24 September. Here's a link to that PDF document:

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 7:21pm

Re: Re:
Nothing is more contradictory than intellectual property.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 9:02pm

Re: Re:
You should just read it again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Liz (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 9:22pm

I'm wondering if Sen. Cruz realizes the irony of reading Green Eggs and Ham when grandstanding against the ACA.

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 thread ]
Atkray (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 10:22pm

meh
Cruz was OK but, I still think that the reading Jesse Jackson did of Green Eggs and Ham on SNL was the definitive version.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2013 @ 4:19am

Re: Re:
The reading is public domain, the text in the federal record is public domain but I doubt you could get away with selling either stripped of the settings of C-span and the federal record.

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 thread ]
Ninja (profile), 26 Sep 2013 @ 4:34am

Re: A better question
I've said before, how the heck are our fine creators going to maintain their afterlives without copyright? In fact I believe we should amend the DMCA to provide spiritual money payments for eternity so these poor souls will benefit from their works properly in their afterlives. You know, converting real currency to spiritual currency needs quite the effort (see: Pharaohs and their pyramids).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rocco Maglio (profile), 26 Sep 2013 @ 5:22am

Re: Re: Well, he could have read the Constitution; most in Congress NEED that.
You are claiming Drudge is a yellow journalist even though he does not write articles. He simply picks articles from other news sites to highlight and writes a short title that links to the article. I guess you like the news being controlled by a few gatekeepers that choose to highlight the articles that provide the narrative that they are pushing. I guess that you do not like to have to read articles that talk about things that challenge your beliefs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rocco Maglio (profile), 26 Sep 2013 @ 5:33am

Affordable Care Act Meant to Fail
You do realize that the Affordable Care Act, he was railing against is intended to fail. It is intended to be an unworkable combination of public and private bureaucracies that leads to the creation of a government run healthcare system. President Obama has implied that this public option was his preference, but the public was not ready for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 26 Sep 2013 @ 6:05am

Re:
Not to mention linking. Oh, the horror!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 26 Sep 2013 @ 6:07am

Re: Queue Rush Limbaugh...
Oh, good one! Yes indeed, how long till the Dr. Seuss estate comes after him for "diluting the currency of the work," or some such crap?

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 thread ]
dennis deems (profile), 26 Sep 2013 @ 6:07am

Re: Re: A better question
I don't get the point of the story. Why was the suitcase full of bricks? Was the man Ignatz Mouse?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 26 Sep 2013 @ 6:10am

Re: Affordable Care Act Meant to Fail
Actually, the public has been misled by the Far Right, whose tinfoil-hattery has stifled debate and turned it into a case of Death Panels V Freedom instead of Public Good V Private Healthcare rip-offery.

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 thread ]
FarSide (profile), 26 Sep 2013 @ 6:12am

Re:
Yes, because if you don't like Green Eggs and Ham you can choose to never eat it again.

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 thread ]
Rocco Maglio (profile), 26 Sep 2013 @ 6:26am

It was a bed time story to his kids
He read the story as a bed time story to his kids. I agree that it is interesting to look at the copyright implications of this. In fact, it is interesting to look at the copyright of reading bed time stories to your kids when you are on the road. Copyright is broken and leads to all sorts of unjust outcomes. Lets put the Green Eggs and Ham story in context, it was a minuscule part of what he was talking about. It is kind of interesting that this is the tiny unimportant part of the speech is getting all the coverage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2013 @ 6:47am

Re: Re: Re: A better question
Heaven is commonly depicted as having streets of gold.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Liz (profile), 26 Sep 2013 @ 7:12am

Re: Re:
I can tell that your Irony Meter is broken if you can't see the irony in Sen. Cruz using the story in an attempt to stall, block, and repeal ACA. That or you're one of those annoyingly stubborn and misinformed Dead Dog Republicans.

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 thread ]
Out_of_the_Hubaloo, 26 Sep 2013 @ 7:41am

Re: Re: A better question
RETUUUURRRN THE SLAAAAB.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 26 Sep 2013 @ 8:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re: A better question
I must be an idiot. I still don't get the joke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 26 Sep 2013 @ 9:03am

Re: Re: Re: Well, he could have read the Constitution; most in Congress NEED that.
He does occasional journalism -- that's how he made his name -- but it's the worst kind, false character assassinations.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2013 @ 11:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A better question
Gold is often cast into bars that resemble paving bricks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2013 @ 9:25pm

Re: Re: Re: A better question
What's yer offer?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 27 Sep 2013 @ 5:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: A better question
Ooh, baby, do you know what that's worth?
[ link to this | view in thread ]