[joe-frank-list] what's real, what's not

Tom McDonald awkwardgrace at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 18 23:03:27 PDT 2020

I do agree that "Figuring out what's real is sometimes part of the fun.” 

It’s also fun to consider what were real transgressions on Joe’s part—violations of privacy, violations of copyright law for example. If any. And if there were, how does or doesn’t it change one’s opinion of the shows or of the man. 

An interesting facet of his programs are the use of Jack Kornfield dharma talks (if that’s the right term) as a part of the tapestry. I remember rolling my eyes at these Jack Kornfield segments when I was first getting know Joe Frank's body of work—not that I knew who Jack Kornfield was back then, or cared. I only wished the show would get back to the perversions and the darkness and the emotional turmoil of the other segments. I thought Frank was inserting this Kornfield/Mindfulness stuff to parody the Northern California zeitgeist. A cynic move, a comment on that culture's self-congratulatory elitist bent as it were, so out of touch with urban or working class realities, and so on and so forth. But eventually I realized there was something worthwhile in the Jack Kornfield segments. I began to look forward to Kornfield's musical voice and his unusual cadence. I sought out Jack K audio books and printed books and other forms. And I think coming to take that stuff seriously did me some good, though I don’t engage with it much any more. I imagine Joe Frank found the Kornfield material to be valuable too, but I don’t know.

But the issue is did he violate Kornfield's copyright, steal his intellectual property? I once heard an interviewer ask Kornfield about Joe Frank’s use of his material. Kornfield said “Who is Joe Frank?” He appeared not to know or care. I honestly find it hard to believe that Kornfield was unaware of it. I find it equally hard to believe he was aware of it and let it take place. (Dang, I wish I made a note of who ran that interview—it might have been a podcast. This was more than 5 years ago, perhaps closer to ten years ago.)

But perhaps there’s no issue—perhaps Joe had permission from Korfield’s publisher, or had legal counsel saying his use was protected under Fair Use provisions of copyright law. Were the stations that broadcast his shows put at risk from a legal angle (if Kornfield or his publishers decided to take action)? Dunno.  

Similarly did JF have permission for the music he used? I imagine so. But I do wonder. I like artists that raise these sorts of questions. 

> On Sep 18, 2020, at 5:12 AM, russellbell at gmail.com wrote:
> 	Quoth Sander Antoniades:
>        'Figuring out what's real is sometimes part of the fun. Like
> you the one with dogs haunts me a little and the other which oddly
> sticks with me is did that Russian guy who needed help from the Jewish
> community ever get circumcised?'
> 	Refused it, so I figured it; about 12 minutes into 'Prison
> Songs'.
>       'Another question is about Joe's true story about After Hours,
> why does he get unofficial credit at least in IMDB?'
> 	They cribbed one of his stories
> http://andrewhearst.com/blog/2008/05/the_scandalous_origins_of_martin_scorseses_after_hours
> 	'He goes on in No Show about it, but what makes it extra odd
> is how Larry Block got a role in it and did they know each other at
> the time.'
> 	Larry appears in 'Warheads' (1983); 'After hours' was made in
> 1985.  Larry got a lot of work, mostly small roles.
>        'Thanks for keeping this list alive!'
> 	You're welcome!  Little help?
> russell bell
> _______________________________________________
> Joe Frank Mailing List
> joe-frank-list at armory.com
> http://www.armory.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/joe-frank-list

More information about the joe-frank-list mailing list