Wal-Mart Parody Site Censored by DMCA 469
davidwr writes "Wal-Mart used the Digital Millenium Copyright Act to temporarily shut down a university student's parody of the Wal-Mart Foundation." The story's details are also available via BusinessWeek. From the article: "Papasian launched the Web site April 16 for an art class at Carnegie Mellon University called 'Parasitic Media.' The class teaches students about the political uses of satire in the media. He acknowledged using Wal-Mart's graphics on his Web site but said he believed he could use the images as part of a parody."
Just call it MalWart (Score:5, Insightful)
If you alter the content, they have no claim against DMCA. MalWart != WalMart.
Re: Just call it MalWart (Score:2, Funny)
Re: Just call it MalWart (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Just call it MalWart (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, wait!
Re: Just call it MalWart (Score:5, Funny)
It's more than just DCMA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's more than just DCMA (Score:3, Interesting)
That distinction only makes sense if there is a distinction between logos copied off the web site and logos faithfully reproduced by hand using some graphics software and a pen and tablet. Let's say they looked pretty recognisable, obviously referring to the retail giant, but they were a bit off in many dimensions, and they were an original work? Can a publisher or advertiser push DMCA on an artist if their work gets cut up and pasted into a collage?
The real issue here is that the DMCA C&D adds more
Re:It's more than just DCMA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's more than just DCMA (Score:5, Insightful)
The MAFIAA [mafiaa.org] has successfully killed most fair use through technological methods coupled with laws like the DMCA. Add in a dose of SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) and the Walmarts of the world can do whatever the hell they want to you.
You don't just list one factor (Score:4, Informative)
Another factor is the amount of the work used:
3 - The amount and importance of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
Fair use does not allow one to completely copy a Web site images and HTML, nor does non-profit or parody use completely exempt one from infringement liabilty.
Man, you open-source fanatics really think people don't have any rights in their IP. Fortunately, the US Constitution and US Copyright law disagree.
Re:You don't just list one factor (Score:3, Informative)
In fact it does.
You can go into business selling derivative copies [wikipedia.org] under Fair Use.
The law to which you reffer [warwick.ac.uk] really only says one single thing with binding legal effect, and that is:
the fair use of a copyrighted work [] is not an infringement of copyright.
That law, secotion 107, really doesn't impose any other restrictions or limitations. The part I clipped out of the middle was a nonbinding list of examples of Fair Use. T
Foolish boy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exceptions to copyright for parody, fair use, etc. only apply to those who have lawyers.
Re:Foolish boy... (Score:2)
Wonderful way to put it. This one will have to go in my scrap book.
All my mods are belong to you... (Sorry I have none today)
Re:Foolish boy... (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know why this would fall under the DMCA, other than the fact that its a website. Standard copyright/trademark law would apply.
Re:Foolish boy... (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit. Try reading section 107 of the copyright act.
If you are you're violating their copyrights
Again, pure bullshit. Use of a work for parody is *NOT* a copyright violation.
possibly open for libel/fraud depending on what you're attributing to the company
It's not fraud unless you claim that you are the entity in question, and it's only libel if the claims are false, and only in some situations (libel is more difficult to prove against public entities.)
Standard copyright/trademark law would apply.
Yes, and because it's parody, it has an exception under Section 107 - so he's protected.
Re:Foolish boy... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Foolish boy... (Score:2, Informative)
Go to his site and click on the Cease and Desist PDF. After looking at the screenshots they presented, I'd say Walmart has a pretty good case for unfair use of copyrighted material. Not to mention all the trademarks he appropriated in this stunt...
Re:Foolish boy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Foolish boy... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Foolish boy... (Score:3, Interesting)
If you don't read the articles, then you think it's a legitimate WalMart website. Then what? Since the images are WalMart's own images, it doesn't harm WalMart that you see those images, does it?
It's only the content of the articles that could potentially harm WalMart, but when you read them, you quickly realize that it is a parody, therefore it's no longer copyright infrigement.
Eithe
Re:Foolish boy... (Score:3, Insightful)
anyway - the standard for parody is something like - is a a reasonable person likley to confuse the parody work as the work of the original
Yes, however I believe that deciding if something is a parody or not is a different issue than whether a parody is protected.
The previous poster said that parody is not considered fair use, and that it's a violation of copyright to use someone else
Re:Foolish boy... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a law student, but I think your description may be a bit misleading. Consumer confusion is usually more relevant to the trademark issues, although it may be considered under the question of substantial similarity in the copyright infringement inquiry.
He used walmart-foundation rather than walmartfoundation in the URL. This could easily lead to what's called initial interest confusion, where consumers are siphoned away from a legitimate site by a confusing label. This can be a basis for a claim of trademark infringement. If he had used walmart-foundation-sucks or something similar, it would avoid this problem. Also, there's a big trademark dilution law getting ready to go through, that will increase the likelihood that trademark owners can succeed in suits for 'tarnishing' or 'blurring' of their mark, e.g. by associating it with pornography.
As for parody, the more important considerations are of fair use, such as whether the parody is criticizing or commenting on the actual work that's copied, whether the copier has taken more than what he needed in order to make the parodic point, whether the use is commercial, and the effect of the parody on the market for the works.
Re:Foolish boy... (Score:2, Informative)
Deere & Co. v. MTD Products, Inc., 41 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 1994).
Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd., 604 F.2d 200, 206 (2d Cir. 1979).
Libel applies whereever you attribute something in writing to someone who does not hold that belief. It is always legally actionable.
It's *parody,* people (Score:3, Insightful)
Libel applies whereever you attribute something in writing to someone who does not hold that belief. It is always legally actionable.
Check out the Flynt case, before the Supreme Court. Said libel also has to be *believable.* Hence, when Flynt published things about Falwell's mother's, ah, *taste*, it was found to be parody because no one in their right mind would believe it.
That's kinda what parody is.
No it doesn't (Score:3, Informative)
The Dallas Cowboys, Inc v Pussycat Cinema is, *again* a commercial case where "Debbie does Dallas" producers were enjoined from referring to the sports team in promotion of the film. Even trying to call th
Re:Foolish boy... (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly, and until the US legal system starts making those who sue and lose, pay for the defendant's legal costs, corporations and others with lots of funding, will continue to use the legal system as a business tool, used for intimidation and career advancement.
Until the legal system is changed so it applies equally to all people and not just those who can afford a good lawyer, corporations will continue to get away wit
Re:Foolish boy... (Score:3, Insightful)
A corporation can easily afford to pay the legal bills of their opponent if they loose. How many individuals can say the same? Individuals would be even less likely to face off against corporations if the consequences of loosing was a mamoth corporate legal
This is waaaaay overblown... (Score:4, Insightful)
Walmart Foundation: www.walmartfoundation.org
Parody Site: www.walmart-foundation.org
Walmart is NOT bitching about this.
He basically has a site where people probably stumble onto when they are trying to go to a legit site. Walmart's ONLY beef was that he was using their images.
I can't tell you how we ALL have known since the web was invented that you don't steal other peoples graphics. Sure, there may be some grey area with parodies, but its the same thing we knew when we were just getting into making HTML.
But, since this kid wants press, he starts using "CENSORED BY THE DMCA" so we'll all cry fowl.
He rolled the dice and lost... and all it was was over the stupid graphics.
I say, "its an art class, how about making PARODIES of the IMAGES too?"
No extra publicity in that, though...
Re:This is waaaaay overblown... (Score:5, Funny)
WalMart don't like his site using their graphics? Well, I'm sure some good Slashdotter will soon post a link to the image he should put up instead... I'm sure WalMart won't like their customers inadvertently staring into the Great Gaping Hole O' Horror, but hey, it's not their image, so screw 'em!
Re:This is waaaaay overblown... (Score:5, Funny)
Uhmm....Chicken! Albatross! Swallow (African and European)! Emu! Canary! Oh, you meant foul.
Re:This is waaaaay overblown... (Score:5, Funny)
-Peter
Of course (Score:3, Informative)
I'm guessing that if this went to court, it would be thrown out as this site is fairly clearly a parody site. This allows considerable freedom in copying images, ideas, logos, and so on.
Much like the Gone with the Wind publisher battling The Wind Done Gone [freedomforum.org], it can be fairly counterproductive for large corporations to try and fight these parodies. They do nothing but draw unwan
Re:Of course (Score:2)
Did you see the screenshots from the Cease and Desist letter? It's not quite the "parody" the author is making it out to be.
It isn't Boring Boring (Score:5, Funny)
My latest favorite parody is Boring Boring [boringboring.org], a parody of Boing Boing [boingboing.net].
How about we just give him a C+ for his school assignment and keep the lawyers out of it?
Re:It isn't Boring Boring (Score:2)
Re:It isn't Boring Boring (Score:3, Funny)
Sure because I always seek legal advice from art school teachers. You might have found a group that knows less about the law than most Slashdot posters.
Re:It isn't Boring Boring (Score:3, Informative)
Just clarifying, in case anyone thought I added that after the takedown notice.
Re:This is waaaaay overblown... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, they're not bitching, they're having their lawyers shut the place down.
Walmart's ONLY beef was that he was using their images.
Which is irrelevant, as (according to Section 107 of the US Copyright act) it was fair use:
Parody is both criticism and commentary.
there may be some grey area with parodies
Uh, no. There is no gray - it is very much black and white.
he starts using "CENSORED BY THE DMCA" so we'll all cry fowl
And rightly so. His First Amendment rights are being violated.
Re:This is waaaaay overblown... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is waaaaay overblown... (Score:2)
Well, no. He had the option under the DMCA to file a refutation requiring that the site be put back online pending the resolution of any lawsuit that Walmart wished to file. He chose not to.
Re:This is waaaaay overblown... (Score:4, Informative)
Uh, no. There is no gray - it is very much black and white.
Not quite. Remember the case with Penny Arcade and American Greetings? They made a parody of their Strawberry Shortcake in the style of an American McGee's Alice game.
IIRC, it wasn't protected as a parody since they weren't parodying Strawberry Shortcake, but using that character to parody something else (American McGee, in this case).
Re:This is waaaaay overblown... (Score:5, Informative)
Just as the images of Strawberry Shortcake were being used to parody something other than Strawberry Shortcake, the trademark images of Walmart are being used to parody something other than...wait a minute...
They're parodying Walmart with images of Walmart. I call Red Herring on you, Dr Dank. This is a pretty clear example of classic parody.
Re:This is waaaaay overblown... (Score:4, Insightful)
How is that fair? By all means, use the DMCA and whatever other laws to request that he remove the offending graphics. But remove the site from public access? That, too, is crossing the line.
Also, IANAL, but aren't parodies deemed fair use?
Re:This is waaaaay overblown... (Score:2, Informative)
Parody Site: www.walmart-foundation.org
Walmart is NOT bitching about this.
That's the part they should be bitching about because people could get mislead into thinking that it's the actual WalMart site. The URL should be changed.
I can't tell you how we ALL have known since the web was invented that you don't steal other peoples graphics. Sure, there may be some grey area with parodies, but its the same thing we knew when we were just getting into making HTML.
Every week Sa
Re:This is waaaaay overblown... (Score:2)
Re:This is waaaaay overblown... (Score:3, Insightful)
He further stated this is not a legal requirement, just an attempt to keep relations between him and the music industry on good terms.
I, for one, always make my legal decisions based on Weird Al quotes.
Re:This is waaaaay overblown... (Score:2)
Which is silly. A copyright case would be DOA in court if the guy bothered to fight it. Indeed, his site could go back online immediately simply by presenting a letter to the effect that, "I, soandso at this address certify that I am making fair use of the graphics under the parody exception to copyright law. Restore the site." If the ISP refused to restore the site, they'd actually be breaking the law!
Walmart should have gone after the trademark iss
Re:This is waaaaay overblown... (Score:2, Interesting)
I just hate it when people overhype crap to get attention.
Re:This is waaaaay overblown... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Because that store carries other parts Walmart just won't carry. That little store has a guy who will do some free fixing and adjustment on my chain-saw just to sell me a new chain now and then, and when I needed a file to sharpen it, that store had one in stock that was 'right', not 'halfway close'. That store will sell me one washer or Woodroffe key from a bin, and for the washer, Walmart wants to sell me a pack of a dozen with a dozen-minus-one sizes I don't need, while for the Woodroffe key, Walmart wants to sell me a blank stare. Go compare a section of Walmart with a specialty store that sells just that section, and that 'low selection' is 'on the other foot'.
I can save money at Walmart now. When that drives the little hardware store out of business, I will spend all that money I saved, and a whole lot more, doing things like hiring a professional to completely replace that window with the busted crank, instead of replacing a simple assembly myself, because only a few full-time pros can now afford to keep the parts for thousands of different windows in stock, and the only way they can make money is to charge for more repairs than are strictly needed.
I'm one of those jack of all trades guys. I build my own PCs, do my own carpentry, plumbing and wiring, rebuild my transmission, and even have liscences and paperwork for some of these skills. The only time I turn a car, a plumbing job, or electrical work over to a pro is when it would take me more than my time's worth, and they are actually cheaper. Walmart is pushing out the supplyers I need to keep this up, and even the original poster's claim to detest Walmart and all it stands for doesn't seem too strong. Frankly speaking any more politely than that about Walmart feels about like saying "This pesky Multiple Sclerosis is getting in the way of my laying a new tile floor in the bathroom and I find that a trifle inconvenient.".
And no archive.org either (Score:3, Interesting)
--
get a free laptop [coingo.net]
Ahhh, good old fair-use, remember the days? (Score:4, Insightful)
Due to all the retarded behavior that our fellow citizens exhibit on a daily basis I am never surprised when I see people falling for direct parody.
I am also not surprised that corporations are allowed to shutdown *what was likely fair use*. Sadly, someday, we will all look back on this and say, "look how free we once were. It survived 400 hits before it was taken down. They didn't even have to approve the webpage before it was posted."
Re:Ahhh, good old fair-use, remember the days? (Score:5, Funny)
You see how the system works to everyone's benefit? Everything fits together tidily. It's called feuda^H^H^H^Hcapitalism, and it's a good thing, despite what Comrade Tyler and his gang of pinko subversives might have you believe.
Re:Ahhh, good old fair-use, remember the days? (Score:3, Insightful)
Will we ever rise above hording goods and looking to the sky for answers?
Re:Ahhh, good old fair-use, remember the days? (Score:3, Funny)
As the maintainer of whitehouse.net I can speak to this. You'd be amazed how many irate letters I get about Bush's proposal to paint the whitehouse green.
http://www.whitehouse.net/index1.html [whitehouse.net]
Parodies are great, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Making a parody is cool. Using the original artwork to create your parody isn't.
Even when making a parody of a song, you must pay royalties on the original and you must obtain permission should you use any portion of the original mechanical.
If you're gonna create a parody site, you simply cannot snag artwork from the original, and you certainly can't use the company's actual logo!
Wrong on Song (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Parodies are great, but... (Score:5, Informative)
No. I refer you to the US copyright act section: 107 Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use, which states:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted
work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or
by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment,
news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
While it does not explicitly mention parody, that is covered under criticism, comment, or news reporting. This is why John Stewart can show clips of copyrighted works on the Daily Show and not infringe.
Re:Parodies are great, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Not to mention that Gangsta's paradise. (Score:4, Insightful)
What does the DMCA have to do with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
I still hate the DMCA..
Re:What does the DMCA have to do with this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What does the DMCA have to do with this? (Score:4, Insightful)
The relevant part of the DMCA [eff.org], in fact, is just the opposite. Sec 512, "Limitations on liability relating to material online" provides a means to ESCAPE liability for copyright violation. Specifically, it allows an ISP not to be held liable as long as it follows a certain procedure. The ISP has to publish an address for complaints; upon receiving a complaint from a copyright holder, it has to take down the material and notify the client who posted it; and then the client has the option to contest the takedown order, in which case the ISP has to put the material back up, absent a court order.
This part of the DMCA is actually end-user- and ISP-friendly. Without it we would see much less support for possibly copyrighted materials appearing online.
How to shoot yourself in the foot in three easy.. (Score:5, Insightful)
How to shoot yourself in the foot in three easy steps.
Simon.
Re:How to shoot yourself in the foot in three easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Walmart is in a world of hurt... (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/ hustler.html [bc.edu]
Re:Walmart is in a world of hurt... (Score:2)
I would like to see references on this; I am inclined to disbelieve it.
Look alike graphics would be OK. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Look alike graphics would be OK. (Score:5, Informative)
The graphics are, granted, the hardest part to prove 'fair use' for, but there is still a fair use case to be made. That's not just my opinion, but also the opinion of the lawyers I have been in contact with.
The graphics are not being distributed by themselves as such, rather, they are part of the website which is a larger work, and in my view, markedly different from the original. That makes it a derivative work, and as such, protected as 'fair use'.
There is a lot of mistaken applications of other types of copyright law here. The big difference is I stand to make no financial gain, directly or indirectly, from this site. I don't owe royalties because I don't have profit. I don't need permission because it's fair use.
Re:Look alike graphics would be OK. (Score:5, Interesting)
Next time do a *good* job of it as call the site "Dull-Mart" or somesuch, and use a matching domain. Also ajust all the images so that they betray the intent of the site (i.e. a parody). Every last line should say something insightful or funny that it difficult to mix up with the original. Someone else pointed to this site [boringboring.org] as an example of how it should be done.
Good luck.
Re:Look alike graphics would be OK. (Score:5, Informative)
CAMPBELL v. ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC, INC., ___ U.S. ___ (1994) [ Footnote 17 ]
Re:Look alike graphics would be OK. (Score:3, Informative)
Wal-Mart has not mentioned trademarks to date, nor have they sued me. They're using the DMCA, yet my case has strong arguments against copyright infringement based on fair use.
WalMart's Import Policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Now they're further hurting our trade deficit by importing clamp-down tactics from the Chinese communist government!
Walmart (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Walmart (Score:2)
Cheap DVD players for me. No future for my kids.
Microsoft Wipe (Score:2)
"If Microsoft made toilet paper it would be called Butt Wiper." Brian Briggs
If Microsoft made toilet paper it would be called Microsoft Wipe. Microsoft would then consider that other uses of the word wipe were possibly infringing on their trademark.
Re:Walmart (Score:5, Insightful)
It's low wages that does this! (Score:5, Insightful)
As an example, my wife graduated from HS in 1974 and her first job was at paper plant. The job was union and paid $7 per hour and worked 40 hours a week. This, mind you, for a HS grad with no college and no special skills in a small city north of Seattle. By the time she left that job (in 1980) she was making over $10 per hour and getting full medical.
Then wages went into the toilet. Now kids are lucky to get a $7 job (at Wal-Mart) and work 20-hours a week.
In 1974 you could buy a house ($35,000 for a 3br/2ba home in the Seattle area) with a $7/hour job. In 2005 houses there average $250,000. Try buying one of those right out of HS.
So ya... people shop for cheap prices but only because we don't have much of a choice any more.
The wonders of inflation.... (Score:3, Informative)
It is so sad that people in this country do not realize they are being ripped off. Under our current economic system, inflation screws the poor and middle classes. It is essentially a RECURRING tax on savings.
For example [frb.fed.us]: try putting in the 7.00 per hour wage from 1974, then compare it to today.
$7.00 per hour in 1974 would be roughly equivalent to making $27.00 per hour today.
But it gets worse. Any money you try to save, is also worth less o
Hmmmm....... (Score:2)
Perhaps they should have left him alone. Then this wouldn't be an issue to them.
Good censorship quotes (Score:5, Insightful)
"Censorship ends in logical completeness when nobody is allowed to read any books except the books that nobody can read." ~ George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) British playwright & novelist
"The Internet treats censorship as a malfunction and routes around it." ~ John Perry Barlow (1947-) Wyoming cattle rancher, a lyricist for the Grateful Dead
"I believe in censorship. After all, I made a fortune out of it." ~ Mae West (1892-1980) American comedienne from "My Little Chickadee," 1940.
"Censorship is almost systematically the weapon of first resort for governments in uncertain political situations. So not only are the famous writers and bold journalists in danger; at every level of public and private life, the freedoms to think, read or write are denied. In the absence of a free press, other human rights abuses flourish unabated. Nothing is reported, criticized, questioned. The example of imprisonment, torture or execution imposes a further silence. A blindly obedient mob mentality is encouraged, driven by extremist religious or ethnic loyalties. The citizens do not know what is happening. Fear and ignorance permeate discussion." ~ Marian Botsford Fraser
"Censor: A self-appointed snoophound who sticks his nose in other people's business." ~ Bennett Cerf
[quotes from zaadz.com]
No Credibility (Score:2, Insightful)
This guy lost all credibility with this one statement. What does the ability of someone to mistake this site for a real one have anything to do with absurdity within corporate America? This guy is just spouting off rhetoric. Plain and simple.
Re:No Credibility (Score:2)
Clearly he means that the lengths to which companies like Wal-Mart will go to spin something as positive for themselves would be comic parody if we lived in a sane society.
Fortunately for all corporate behemoths, most Americans have been fashioned by TV into such brainwashed intellectual sloths that they'll believe practically anything.
Therefore, if anyone believed it to be a real Wal-Mart site, it i
Re:No Credibility (Score:2)
Me, I'm more likely to think they believe it because average people are idiots.
Will anti-phishing laws be similarly used? (Score:2)
Although the courts may, eventually, rule in favor of the parody site, the legal costs to defend the site mean victory for those who would resort to barritry.
Is the Wal-Mart Foundation a legit non-profit? (Score:5, Interesting)
Shopping at Wal Mart... (Score:3, Funny)
The DMCA is NOT piperazine (Score:3, Interesting)
The DMCA was NOT designed for the purpose of stifling free speech. (We have libel laws and slander laws for that.
Some humourless lawyer would argue that his client is afforded every protection of the law. I would argue that the DMCA is NOT a protection under the law.
The case is like arguing that you can ONLY have ONE of anything. Reproduction of anything at anytime for any purpose would be outlawed.
Let's all sing along... (Score:4, Funny)
Young man, young man, are you listening to me?
Young man, young man, even this parody is illegal.
Why smart executives don't legally harass parody (Score:5, Insightful)
Then the parody gets recognized far wider than it would have from its initial presentation. This brings recognition to the parodist and simulates discussion on the practices of the corporation and the contrasts between its business practices and its manufactured image. Smart business execs usually know this and will work to avoid publicity amplification. Walmart execs tend to be more mean than savvy.
Perhaps the clearest example of this publicity effect is the Disneyland Orgy [illegal-art.org] which would have disappeared as an urban legend if clueless Disney execs had not have gone batshit when it appeared and mounted a huge effort to destroy it. As you can see, it lives now on the web forever. It still is pretty funny.
DMCA Abused Yet Again (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In Soviet Wal-Mart (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do the teachers at the lefty propaganda mills.. (Score:3, Insightful)
'Scuse me? You want professors to offer a reward - presumably, higher marks - for producing specifically right-wing propaganda?
Re:Do the teachers at the lefty propaganda mills.. (Score:2)
Lefty or just tired of consumer-oriented everythin (Score:2, Insightful)
Sometimes there is no choice, the town has one WalMart and the rest of the small businesses go under leaving you no choice in where to buy -or- you must travel far away to go to a small independent shop.
Greed is the driving factor among everything these days, the competition is brutal and the labor is cheap....is this a lefty view? or just a rational one?
OK, can you spot the parody (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, check out the trademark at this site [sherwin-williams.com].
Some artist decided to stick it to the man, however the man is so dense he hasn't noticed he was being mocked for, what, seventy years now?
Re:I was under the impression... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If this parody is legal... (Score:2)
Re:If this parody is legal... (Score:5, Informative)
The text was flamingly obvious. I said things like (paraphrasing) "we're just undoing a very small portion of the damage we do to communities, because it promotes our image and is a great write-off."
Re:If this parody is legal... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unfortunately.... (Score:3, Informative)
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determin