Remix America

It has been a fascinating week in the world of media, as election protests in Iran have shown us a new face of reporting. Iranian citizens, rather than Western journalists, are the main sources of information, sending their stories through youtube videos, twitter updates, and blogs among a bevy of other global communications outlets. While the United States is watching the events unfold from afar at least for now, our relations with Iran are historically complex.

In the aftermath of World War II, the United States began to see Iran as a potentially strong ally in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. In the early 1950s, the American government became concerned over the democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq’s nationalization of the petroleum industry. The United States and Britain attempted to assist a coup d’état that would replace Mossadeq’s government with the pro-western Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. While this coup was initially unsuccessful, the CIA helped foment protests in Iran that became a movement to install the Shah as dictator. This 1973 documentary outlines CIA involvement in the overthrow:

In the years that followed, the United States and Iran maintained close relations, despite human rights violations by the Shah’s regime. The Shah made frequent visits to the White House and the American government praised his agenda of Westernization. However, this began to incite conflict among more conservative Iranian citizens, and by the mid-1970s the country was increasingly polarized.

President Jimmy Carter was the first to openly criticize the Iranian government’s human rights record, which angered many political critics who stressed the importance of maintaining relations with a pro-Western Iranian leader. In a progression of events that came as a shock to the United States, a nationalist revolution in Iran toppled the regime and replaced the Shah with the anti-American Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini. Shortly after the Islamic revolutionaries gained control, the American government was directly engaged by the new administration, when a revolutionary group that was infuriated that the United States had allowed the Shah into our borders for cancer treatment occupied the American embassy in Tehran and held 52 diplomats hostage. This clip helps to explain how the crisis unfolded:

The hostage situation only exacerbated United States-Iranian relations, and the Reagan administration significantly hardened policies against the Middle Eastern nation. Today, Iranians in the streets are protesting alleged election fraud in the 2009 Presidential elections, which declared the victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Most of the protests that we have seen covered are by supporters of the primary opposition candidate, Mir-Hossein Mousavi. In an address on Tuesday, President Obama said he was “appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days,” and condemned any unjust actions of the Iranian government in stifling citizens’ rights to protest. Check out this clip from the White House press conference:

UPDATED: if you are interested in reading the original CIA history briefing on the United States’ involvement in 1953, along with more background on Iranian revolutions, check out this article

Here’s the link for the CIA documents

(via Finding Dulcinea and NYtimes)

Sphere: Related Content

In a closely followed ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court upheld a well-known provision of the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965, a keystone piece of civil rights era legislation. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. delivered the 8-1 verdict, which sidestepped re-examining whether Section 5 of the Act is constitutional, writing instead that the utility district in Austin, Texas that challenged the law could under narrow statutory grounds “bail-out” of the Section 5 provision. Check out this news clip that explains the ruling:

When the Voting Rights Act was signed into law, it was meant to counter a legacy of discrimination and violence against African-Americans who tried to exercise their right to vote. In 1870, the 15^th amendment declared voting discrimination on the basis of race unconstitutional. However, the end of reconstruction marked a period of intimidation, violence, and even legislation such as the Jim Crow laws against blacks who wished to vote. At the turn of the 20^th century, some Southern states wrote new constitutions that included discriminatory provisions like literacy tests, poll taxes, and grandfather clauses, all which made it more difficult for blacks to become enfranchised.

As the civil rights movement gained influence in the 1960s, citizens and organizations pushed the government to permanently secure black voting rights. Famous campaigns like Martin Luther King Jr.’s marches from Selma to Montgomery were met by violence and some protesters were even killed. In this speech from a gripping joint-session in March of 1965, Johnson appeals to congress to help him pass legislation to guarantee voting rights for every citizen, regardless of race. Watch his historic speech!

A few months later, the Voting Rights Act was signed into law. Section 5, which the Supreme court addressed on Monday, was a signature piece of the legislation that required that some jurisdictions that had a precedent of racial discrimination to demonstrate that any changes to their voting procedure (like location of polling places) will not have an effect of discriminating based on race or language.

So what does Monday’s ruling mean? By using narrow statutory grounds to declare that the jurisdiction that challenged the act’s constitutionality is not necessarily covered by Section 5, the Supreme Court avoided overturning a significant piece of civil rights legislation. The decision has been hailed as satisfying both sides of the issue, as the district won the ruling on a narrow ground while civil rights proponents kept intact their legacy. However, some say the time has come to move on from potentially outdated legislation; Justice Roberts admitted that while “The historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable, things have changed in the South.”

Still, the Court deferred the opportunity to overturn the 1965 law to congress, saying that “Whether conditions continue to justify such legislation is a difficult constitutional question we do not answer today.”

Sphere: Related Content

While Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation (an executive order that outlawed slavery in the confederate states, and eventually the entire nation) on September 22, 1862, many enslaved African Americans did not find out that they were free until almost three years later. Today marks the anniversary of Juneteenth (a portmanteau of the words “June” and “nineteenth”), the day in 1865 when Union troops arrived in Texas to enforce the emancipation of slaves. 

Sphere: Related Content

While better known as a center for critical political undertakings, the White House has also seen its fair share of important musical events. From the United States Marine Band’s recitals for John Adams to the Beach Boys concert on the South Lawn during the Reagan years, a wide array of harmonious happenings have graced 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. On Monday, First Lady Michelle Obama continued this musical tradition, welcoming 150 aspiring artists and a handful of famous jazz musicians to the first in a series of three planned music education sessions. Wynton Marsalis, his brothers, and other jazz greats held workshops for the young musicians in temporary classrooms around the Presidential home. Check out this video of the song-filled day at the White House!

The music education series is part of the First Family’s effort  to encourage appreciation and investment in the arts; in an interview shortly after his election, Barack Obama said that “Part of what we want to do is to open up the White House and remind people this is the peoples’ house…thinking about the diversity of our culture and inviting jazz musicians and classical musicians and poetry readings in the White House, so that once again we appreciate this incredible tapestry that’s America.”

While introducing the program, the first lady asserted that there is “no better example of democracy than a jazz ensemble; individual freedom, but with responsibility to the group.”

Monday’s event has historical parallels; the East Room of the White house, where the Marsalis brothers schooled participants in blues and jazz techniques, is the same place where the Lester Lanin’s Big Band Orchestra played the infamous “twist” in 1961, causing a bit of a scandal. At that time, two dancers demonstrated the raunchy routine for then-President John Kennedy, though he declined to join in.

The Kennedys were also staunch supporters of the performing arts, and Jacqueline organized a series of “Concerts for young people by young people” on the White House Lawn. One exciting incident involved an opera performance for embassy teenagers in the State Dining Room, where a performer’s turban burst aflame when it bumped into a lit candle sconce. Take a look at this historical footage of Pablo Casals’ concert for the Kennedys!

Just as Michelle Obama makes it clear that she wants her daughters to be “aware of all kinds of music- other than hip-hop,” Jacqueline Kennedy said her main concern was to “present the best in the arts, not necessarily what was popular at the time.”

What role do you think the Presidential family should play in supporting the performing arts? What concerts would you like to see at the White House?

via NYTimes

Sphere: Related Content

On June 17, 1972, five burglars were arrested while trying to break into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Office complex in Washington, D.C. Originally dismissed as a passing news story, the Watergate incident quickly became a national scandal that led to the indictment and conviction of a handful of Nixon’s closest advisors and ultimately to the resignation of the President himself.

The Watergate scandal, which exposed the Nixon administration’s ongoing attempts at espionage and political sabotage, was a watershed event that changed American politics forever. By the summer of 1973, it was clear that the burglary at the Watergate offices was only the tip of the iceberg, and two official investigations into the event were underway. In this clip from a hearing of the Senate Watergate Committee, White House lawyer John Dean testifies that Nixon was involved in the scandal, and calls the coverup a “cancer on the presidency.”

View the video HERE.

In the following months, a definitive struggle over executive power emerged as Nixon refused to provide personal tape recordings of conversations in his office and other documents that could be used in the hearings. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ordered the White House to hand over the tapes to the prosecution, and the recordings served as a major catalyst for Nixon’s decision to resign.

Watergate’s legacy is apparent today; the aftermath of Nixon’s resignation included amendments to the Freedom of Information act, an increasing atmosphere of cynicism among the American public, and a general push for greater transparency in government. Today, we label political scandals with the suffix “-gate.”

The Watergate incident and its consequences are why it was so hard for the current administration to allow President Obama to keep his beloved blackberry- as part of the 1978 Presidential Records Act, every White House communication must be recorded.

To those of you who remember Watergate, how did it change the way you think about politics? For those of you who don’t, do you see its repercussions today? What do you wish was more transparent about the American political system?

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, June 6, marked the 65th anniversary of D-Day — the day that TIME Magazine christened “the 24 hours that saved the world.”

Check out this clip from Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s June 6, 1944 radio address to the nation, in which he he announces the invasion of Normandy and vows to fight until France is liberated and Germany is defeated:

This year, President Obama honored the anniversary of D-Day by visiting Omaha Beach with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Check out this video of the proceedings. Obama shouts out FDR in the first section and goes on to pay homage to the great young men who fell at Omaha beach:

Sphere: Related Content

General Motors filed for bankruptcy this week. Founded in 1908, GM was an icon, symbolic of American ingenuity, industry and suburban sprawl. Check out this great promotional video from the 1920’s showcasing GM’s extensive global reach:

By 1954, General Motors proudly dominated 54% of the American automobile market. Today, experts estimate that GM’s reach has dwindled down to a 19.5% market share. To make matters worse, the latest analysis from BusinessWeek dictates that GM must become an even smaller company over the next five years in order to stay afloat. Check out GM’s new commercial, “Reinvention:”

The imagery and language focus less on the global reach of GM and more on good old-fashioned American hard work…What a difference 50 years can make!

Sphere: Related Content

Check out the new Remix America Promo. It’s American History meets Minority Report! Use our free online editing tools to grab footage from America Then and America Now and create your vision for America’s Future.

Inspired? Click here to get started! Mix it up. Pass it on.

Sphere: Related Content

Last week, Michelle Obama unveiled a statue of Civil War era abolitionist Sojourner Truth at the Capitol. Truth is the first black woman to be commemorated this way. Speaking at the ceremony, the First Lady said:

“I hope that Sojourner Truth would be proud to see me, a descendant of slaves, serving as the first lady of the United States of America.“

Check out this reading of a Sojourner Truth speech called “Ain’t I A Woman?”

In her characteristic, colloquial style, Truth calls for equal treatment – not only of blacks and whites – but women, too. I think we can safely say, Michelle, that Sojourner Truth would be proud… not only of you, but of the great American women who are breaking barriers every day.

Sphere: Related Content

In a case that promises to be a landmark decision in the fledgling history of “Fair Use,” artist Shepard Fairey and the Associated Press have taken each other on. Since this decision may very well set the standard for future rulings on the subject, we’ve asked our good friend and Fair Use expert, Peter Friedman, to explain it to us: 

I have argued that Shepard Fairey’s Obama Hope poster does not infringe Associated Press’s copyright in the photograph from which the poster was derived. Now, in the lawsuit about the poster, each side is hurling accusations of hypocrisy against the other.  And they may indeed seem like hypocrites – in contrast to the positions in this lawsuit, in which Fairey is relying on the doctrine of fair use and AP is claiming infringement on its intellectual property, Fairey sometimes argues his own intellectual property is being infringed, and AP sometimes has to rely on the doctrine of fair use to justify its journalistic practices.  But they’re not hypocrites, and the fact they take different positions in different situations should not have any effect in the lawsuit over the Obama poster.

In that lawsuit, AP highlights Fairey’s cease-and-desist letters demanding that Baxter Orr stop selling as his own a work identical to one of Fairey’s signature images with only the addition of a surgical mask.  This effort and similar ones by Fairey, AP claims, show that despite Fairey’s “misappropriation and commercialization of other creators’ works for [his own gain, [he is] quick to hunt down artists who [he] believe[s] unlawfully use [his intellectual property, without apparent regard to the principles of fair use that [he] conveniently espouse[s] in this case.”

Fairey, in response, points out  that “AP claims copyright ownership in, and makes commercial use of, many photographs that consist almost entirely of copyrighted artwork of Fairey and other artists without permission.”  Fairey’s legal papers illustrate his point with photos from AP’s image database showing works by Fairey and other artists notorious for appropriating images, including Jeff Koons and Banksy.

These points are used by each side to claim the other has “unclean hands.” This metaphor is in fact the name of a legal rule, one that, in the words of Nolo, prevents someone “who has acted unethically in relation to a lawsuit from winning the suit or from recovering as much money as she would have if she had behaved honorably.” Thus, if Fairey has unclean hands, the court would have to dismiss his lawsuit.  If AP has unclean hands, the court would have to dismiss AP’s counter-suit.  And if both have unclean hands, neither would have the right to legal relief.  In that event, Fairey would, by default, “win” – he would be able to continue marketing the Obama poster and AP would have no legal means to stop him.

My own view, however, is that the claims of “unclean hands” in this case are meaningless red herrings that merely feed the public’s thirst for hypocrisy.  You can claim fair use in one case and claim there is no fair use in another.  So Fairey is fighting someone’s claim of fair use  – that doesn’t mean Fairey can’t claim fair use for himself.  Nor does the fact AP claims the right to appropriate images mean it has given up the right to challenge the legality of someone else appropriating its images.  

And the fact Fairey may be wrong about Orr – that Orr’s use of Fairey’s image might be perfectly legitimate parody – does not change my conclusion.  To be so unethical you have unclean hands would require you not merely to be wrong, but to be so wrong that it would be unethical to even argue for your position.  Differentiating between the legitimate and illegitimate uses of copyrighted works requires very difficult, case-by-case judgments.  Is Orr’s use of Fairey’s work legitimate parody?  I think so, but no one could tell you with certainty what a court would rule on the question.  One appropriation can be legitimate and another that seems similar illegitimate. So even if Fairey was wrong when he claimed Orr had committed copyright infringement in reproducing Fairey’s image with nothing but a surgical mask added, it is a monumental stretch to suppose he is so wrong he cannot claim fair use in a different situation.   And, of course, the fact AP sells news photographs containing images created by others – even if some of those photographs do in fact violate fair use — should not preclude AP from trying to stop Fairey or anyone else from improperly appropriating AP’s images.

My own view?  Orr’s use of Fairey’s image was legitimate.  And AP’s news photographs of the works cited by Fairey are legitimate too.  (The analysis is of course more complicated that this, but at bottom I would reach this conclusion because no one would buy Orr’s image or AP’s images as substitutes for the original images.) But the fact I think Fairey was wrong about Orr’s fair use claims doesn’t lead me to conclude Fairey should be forbidden from claiming fair use for his own works. Nor will the court hearing the dispute between Fairey and AP think so.

For more of Peter Friedman’s writing, visit his blog, “Ruling Imagination: Law and Creativity.” (Thanks, Peter!)

Sphere: Related Content