Posted on 08/03/2007 11:54:49 AM PDT by Registered
Eh, he’s gone now, and good riddance.
First, if components of the parody are protected by copyright then, as much as I hate to say it, you had no right to use the components in your work.That is incorrect. Parody clearly falls under "fair use" in copyright law.
The MSM creates it's own fake images and prints them. Recall Reuters in Beruit. Yours was "fake but accurate" too.
It’s called Karma bud...
= P
Kerry was a loser with plenty of legitimate faults.
How can we complain about fake news photos from Reuters when conservatives put out fake news pictures of Kerry?
That picture doesn’t have the attempt to present it as a legitimate news story with the AP byline.
I was always impressed by your talent, sorry it has come to this.
Good luck, and I hope the legal difficulties sort themselves out to your benefit.
Oh... well that’s Freedom of speech lol
I am so sorry things turned out this way. Unpleasant things can be said in the heat of the moment.
Everyone should know that Registered’s work had a profound mark on the 2000 election.
I am just sorry there cannot be a healing.
Sorry for the outcome of this thread. I see your point in wanting to point out liability.
I also want to thank you for many, many laughs. And I am greatful for the work you created for myself and my Business.
Bobby
Petronski,
I can’t believe you’d say that. Whatever your recent disagreements might be, we’re all still on the same side - that is, against the leftist scourge that is the Democrat Party. Registered and his parodies were an important contribution during the recount in 2000. WHen, before, that, did any shadow of humor or satire come to be connected in a way that spoke well of us and rightfully poorly of the Democrats and Clinton/Gore?
We here on FR owe Registered a debt of gratitude for that.
Obviously Jim Rob allowed Registered to post this thread and that reconciliation was a possiblity. But it turns out the Registered was not really interested in any kind of reconciliation. Apparently all he wanted to do was to troll the forum for contributions and maybe some legal help with his current legal woes.
I don't know what compelled Registered to burn his bridges, but he did. There is a rule in life that when you burn a bridge, you should not expect that you can ever return from whence you came.
I have deliberately burned some bridges in my life. If you do that, you don't look back. And when you find yourself drowning in the river, you don't look to the other side for a lifeline.
It is odd that within just a few posts of posting this thread, Registered lashed out in anger at those whom he burned before and called them "pigs" and accused Jim Rob of being a "pig farmer".
Perhaps Registered should read a chapter or two of this book:
Registered did not come here with a contrite heart. He should have apologized for whatever it was the caused the rift between Jim Rob and him and the other freepers here, and accepted whatever criticism that was dished out as pennance for his past transgressions. But instead he took the opportunity to show us all why it was that he was previously suspended and why it is that he is now banned.
The lesson is that you ought not to burn your bridges and when you do, there is no looking back.
Parody only gets a "fair use" exemption if it is being used to comment upon the copyrighted work being used. A parody of "Les Miserables" using music reminiscent of the show would be protected. A parody of "Cats" using copyrighted music from "Oklahoma!" would not be so protected.
There is an enormous fuzzy area, especially in cases where one is producing works in the style of another work. If one were trying to parody something in "Cats" one could get by with music much closer to that of "Oklahoma!" than if one were trying to write an original musical about rural living. In the former case, even if the primary target of the parody was "Cats", one could argue that making a caricature of "Oklahoma!"'s music (instead of merely reproducing it) also served a legitimate parody purpose for the latter.
I think this case is pretty clear: Registered was in the wrong. Nonetheless, the facts that (1) he ceased distributing the image well before a C&D letter was sent, much less received, and (2) the copyright holder has in fact profited substantially from the infringement, should both severely limit damages.
Good luck to you. Hope it all works out in the end.
Just seeing and reading this for the first time now. WOW!
I'm no Lawyer... but if no money was attached to it, then to me it's a slam dunk in your favor. Best of luck!
I had no idea this had happened until today! I originally wanted to find out if this graphic is the inspiration that eventually led to the Sore Loserman sticker.I wonder if I'm next!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.