George Gershwin's Rhapsody In Blue Is In The Public Domain And Gerswhin's Nephew Is Worried Someone Might Turn It Into Hip Hop

from the culture,-live-with-it dept

Last week we announced our latest Gaming Like It’s 1924: Public Domain Game Jam, and among the newly public domain works first released in 1924 is George Gershwin’s classic Rhapsody in Blue, which you might better know as the United Airlines theme song.

This is extremely noteworthy, because during the debate over the Mickey Mouse Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act fight in 1998, the Gershwin Estate was among the most vocal supporters and lobbyists in seeking an extension for the copyright. Indeed, the head of the Gershwin Estate, George’s nephew Marc was particularly worried about losing artistic control over his uncle’s work. Indeed, he seemed particularly worried that someone might make rap music out of his uncle’s work:

Marc G. Gershwin, a nephew of George and Ira Gershwin and a co-trustee of the Gershwin Family Trust, said: ”The monetary part is important, but if works of art are in the public domain, you can take them and do whatever you want with them. For instance, we’ve always licensed ‘Porgy and Bess’ for stage performance only with a black cast and chorus. That could be debased. Or someone could turn ‘Porgy and Bess’ into rap music.”

Oh, the horror. That same article noted that Gershwin seemed to be ramping up the licensing fees for his uncle’s work in the meantime:

Fifteen years ago, the license fee for using a Gershwin song in a television commercial for one year could be $45,000 to $75,000. The same song might now go for $200,000 to $250,000.

But, sure, it’s not about the money (though I’ll note that Marc recently sold his $5.4 million apartment in Manhattan). Of course, this is even more ridiculous when you realize that Gershwin frequently drew on influences of various other artists, including for Rhapsody in Blue (as for Porgy & Bess, we still have a few more years until that hits the public domain). George Gershwin himself admitted that Rhapsody in Blue was inspired by a variety of other music:

I heard it as a sort of musical kaleidoscope of America, of our vast melting pot, of our unduplicated national pep, of our metropolitan madness.

As the good folks over at the Duke Center for the Study of the Public Domain note, Rhapsody in Blue did draw on a variety of other types of music and now you can too, no matter what Marc Gershwin and the Gershwin Estate think:

Indeed, Rhapsody is a musical melting pot: it draws on everything from African American blues, jazz, and ragtime styles, to French impressionists and European art music, to Jewish musical traditions, to Tin Pan Alley. Now that it is in the public domain, this wonderful composition can be part of your kaleidoscope, where you can draw upon it to create something new, just as Gershwin drew upon his influences.

Of course, it does seem notable that the Gershwin publishing catalog was sold off a few months ago to Downton Music Publishing, who, it seems likely, will try to squeeze the last bit of cash out of it before it drip, drip, drips into the public domain for everyone to use.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “George Gershwin's Rhapsody In Blue Is In The Public Domain And Gerswhin's Nephew Is Worried Someone Might Turn It Into Hip Hop”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
62 Comments
redrum says:

How free is the PD?

Can you just take public domain material and do with it what you want? Like if you find a stash of books from the 1800’s, can you record a song out of a poem you find there? No permission required? Would you call it "Traditional" or cite the original author? No royalties to the authors descendants?

And no, I’m not musician with a pile of old books, I’m just curious.. TIA

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: How free is the PD?

Yes to all of the above. Public Domain is Public Domain. You can do anything with a book from the 1800s that you could do with a book by Homer or Aristotle.

That’s why we have Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Without copyright, that gloriously crazy, great fun mash-up wouldn’t have happened.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 How free is the PD?

Oh yes, I was purely riffing on the mention of Austen.

Shakespeare is a whole other can of worms, ranging from Throne Of Blood (Macbeth) to The Lion King (Hamlet) to West Side Story (Romero & Juliet). All of which were made because Shakespeare’s estate had no say in what happened to his plays after they rightfully returned to the public domain. There are many other examples, of authors and adaptations.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"I’ve got some bad news for Marc Gerswhin…"

Aside from the fact that Marc The Coattail Rider has managed to choke what could have been an ear worm of Rick Roll standards into pseudo-oblivion? I mean, everyone knows the song but imagine how much money that tune could have drawn in?

"Fifteen years ago, the license fee for using a Gershwin song in a television commercial for one year could be $45,000 to $75,000. The same song might now go for $200,000 to $250,000. "

When you can pay a tenth of that to any of ten thousand aspiring talented artists to write a jingle for your ads all this tells us is tat young Marc has expensive tastes and doesn’t have a job covering them.

Caramba. It’s shit like this which clearly brings the bullshit of copyright into the light. What part of this is "protecting culture and furthering the arts"?

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"We’ve found the Magic Money Tree, SDM."

Yup. And it’s filled with the hideous little monkeys who climbed up it and then kicked down the ladder so no one else could follow.

But, you know Wendy…"being the snot-nosed lesser scion of greater sires" may be a money tree, but it’s hardly a new thing to find. 🙂

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Indeed. One of the reasons I’d do a jig of joy if copyright were abolished tomorrow is that they’d be forced to grow the hell up, leave home, and oh, the horror — get a damn job!

Copyright was never meant to be some kind of social welfare net. If artists want life insurance, life assurance, or pension schemes, etc., they should figure that stuff out or perhaps their publishers, etc., can partner with service providers that offer those schemes. It’s not copyright’s job to fill in for those.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

"One of the reasons I’d do a jig of joy if copyright were abolished tomorrow is that they’d be forced to grow the hell up, leave home, and oh, the horror — get a damn job!"

Concur completely.

I’ve identified two driving forces for copyright.

The first of it is the cult itself. A sectarian movement of loosely allied private actors which resembles the college of cardinals in the 15th century – hell-bent on controlling the narrative of what is arguably the greatest moneymaking machine of the time.

The second is every last creative "genius" which believes, of all their heart, that they are uniquely special snowflakes who can churn out a jingle and expect the crass unwashed public to pay their keep for perpetuity. The useful idiots who stand up and do most of the copyright cult’s PR pro bono out of a sense of outrage that their genius isn’t recognized by the peons who spend the money.

There is only one industry where an individual can claim a profession and then expect, in full earnestness, that because they’ve spent a few years learning the ropes they’ve somehow earned it as a paying full-time job.

For every other job outside of the entertainment industry – whether STEM-based ones, IT, transport, education, finance etc – you know damn well you might end up with 4 years of university and still have to do another job than the one you studied for.

But not in entertainment. Oh, no. The special snowflakes and divas demand a career in their chosen vocation.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: But What About American Airlines?

  1. It’s United Airlines, not American Airlines, and your confusion is probably killing a marketing exec.
  2. Not too difficult to find a few attempts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHjPG6U1uns and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-i0p7Dja9M No idea if any are licensed or what.
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Wait a second, if copyright is life of the author (or whatever) plus n (last I remember 75 years) number of years, why is only one of Gershwin’s songs in the public domain? Gershwin died in 1937, only 81 years ago at the age of 39. So what’s the hold up?

Somehow I suspect that Marc Gershwin is rhapsodizing quixotically about why his uncle had to die so young.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

If that Jonny S. Bach dude’s reputation can survive being Moog-synthesized, whistled, Jazzed-and-drummed-up (not to mention being sung by musical illiterates in churches every Sunday), then Georgio will just have to take his chances with the punk-rappers. In any case, G. G. is just another corpse, and his feelings are beyond our ability to offend.

But I think Wilde’s aphorism still applies: the only thing worse that being rapped-about is … not being rapped-about.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
dan8mx (profile) says:

Re: Re:

So, I just pulled up "Summertime" on YouTube and started beatboxing to it. I don’t want to alarm anyone, but it just… worked. YouTube didn’t crash, my phone didn’t catch on fire, nothing.

I was assured that copyright could prevent this. Maybe I have powers.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

the Gershwin publishing catalog was sold off a few months ago to Downton Music Publishing, who, it seems likely, will try to squeeze the last bit of cash out of it before it drip, drip, drips into the public domain for everyone to use

I fully expect them to try and continue to sell licenses for works that have entered the public domain and be successful at it since too many people don’t bother to check whether they really need a license before purchasing one. We’ve seen it before.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"…we may actually be able to use the “bad faith” provision of the DMCA for once."

In practice almost impossible. "Bad Faith" is very hard to prove because you need to demonstrate verifiable intent to defraud.

And this was known when the DMCA was written which is why that paragraph amounts little more than being window dressing covering up part of that ghastly travesty of bad legislation.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Leigh Beadon (profile) says:

Re: First to air rap version may file bogus lawsuits against oth

After the insanity of Blurred Lines, and pending the decision for Taylor Swift, it’s honestly anyone’s guess. If it’s in the 9th Circuit at this point you could probably sue someone for using the same snare drum let alone the same Gerswhin sample.

David says:

Pah.

Most of the Gershwin compositions had their lyrics written by Ira Gershwin who died in 1983 (way after Mickey Mouse), almost half a century later than his brother George.

So you may rap to Gershwin’s tunes but don’t take the lyrics.

The day the lyrics will become Public Domain is called "Dies Irae" by the Gershwin estate.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Jeroen Hellingman (profile) says:

Re: Pah.

That is not how US copyright works. For any work published prior to 1978, death dates are not relevant, but the publication date is, and you have to add 95 years to that, rounded up to the next new year. That is why 1924 is now open for harvesting by all… After January 1st 1978, this changes to live + 70 of the longest living author (unless they change that again, it will be 2074 before that kicks in, making it much harder to determine PD status of works)

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...