Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:59:09 -0700 From: "D. Goss" <lists@dylangoss.com> To: Greg Barniskis <nalists@scls.lib.wi.us>, FreeBSD questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Demon license? (copyright myths) Message-ID: <D9E17277-A858-4E71-B33C-A2E571ADA194@dylangoss.com> In-Reply-To: <42DE9195.4020205@scls.lib.wi.us> References: <200507201111.42450.bob89@eng.ufl.edu> <BE2E0257-A5A4-46B4-9CA9-D9E844B4D1B7@shire.net> <126eac48050720102610336c2f@mail.gmail.com> <E84EA962-5527-4B16-9840-65D54DAEAD80@shire.net> <42DE9195.4020205@scls.lib.wi.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Unless of course you made it clear that the resemblance was > intentional and your use of the copyrighted image was as part of > legitimate social commentary (e.g. satire, or critique). You'd get > in trouble if you tried to pass it off as an independent work. Thus > the infamous "Beastie F'ing Tux" image is probably not an > infringement of either the Beastie or the Tux image copyrights, > because it's a parody. Only a federal judge could tell you for sure. I am also not a lawyer, but I can tell you that social commentary isn't enough justification for parody. For "fair use" the parody has to reflect back to the copyrighted work being referenced. Ie, you can make a fake Simpsons drawing for example, as long as the joke is "on them". If you want to parody George Bush by using The Simpsons, that is not fair use and is a copyright infringement. Also, enter even grayer area is the idea that the parody must only utilize enough of the referenced work to make the parody identifiable - beyond that you are possibly infringing as well. It's 2AM in Paris so I can't come up with a good example for that one. :) d.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D9E17277-A858-4E71-B33C-A2E571ADA194>