Comic Genesis Forums

That was hilarious! I love it. You really improved the original comics 100%.

My favorite part was "Lazy artist! Why I don't have a face?"

Now, about copyright laws and parody, you can make fun of other artist's comics as long as you are not REPRODUCING his original work. There is "rule of thumb" that if your artwork uses about 70% of the original art, you doing "parody" and can't be punished for it.

But in this case you used original art, so they can legally prosecute you.
As much as I detest this Chick and his poisonous propaganda comics, the truth is that is his artwork and belongs to him legaly.

My adivise is if you want to make fun of someone, copy his cartons... but do them a little bit different, so it will be recognizable, but not an exact reproduction.

My father is a blacksmith and one guy tried to sue him becasue he claimed he had the copyright on the campfire triangle bell. My dad just laughed at him in the face.

The other way to avoid Chick's lawyers is simply to have mirror sites run by different people.

Tha_Pig wrote:But in this case you used original art, so they can legally prosecute you.

This is another one of those complexities of law, and another thing that annoys me in posts. Not anything personal to you, I just hate it when people use the word "prosecute" in a civil setting.

Chick cannot prosecute anyone over copyright infringement. Until fairly recently, copyright infringement was almost entirely a civil matter (with some rather narrow exceptions meant to catch the wholesale bootleggers). People are prosecuted in criminal cases, not civil cases. I don't know what the civil equivilent would be, except maybe "being sued". Even now, with the DMCA et al., there still generally has to be a commercial aspect (or at least a "they're denying me sales" aspect) for any criminal prosecutions to take place.

(Don't worry, those of you who are fellow USians, the MPAA/RIAA are working hard to change it so that any copyright infringement becomes a criminal matter. That way, not only can they throw those nasty infringers in jail and throw away the key, they get to do it on our (the taxpayers') dime, not theirs.)

(IANAL, but sometimes I do like acting like I am. )

I used the wrong word, so sue me!

Did I use the correct term now?

Yes.

Except you haven't actually done anything to me, so the case would be thrown out for lack of claim. Unless I file it in the county north of me (considered a "Judicial Hellhole" by the organization that decides such things. Basically, said county judges more or less rubber-stamp class action cases.)

This can be argued as parody.

As would be Chick's actual publications, lest they be refered to as Hate Speach.

-Kitty

Neat work, btw...

Another parody, done by fellow Internet Infidel Vinnie, Jack Meoff Chicks. He hasn't been sued yet.

I got threatened by Answers in Genesis over these ones. They claimed that someone might be confused that it looked too much like the originals...so I made sure to alter the headers and bylines and make sure the artist's signature wasn't in there. Since I'd also altered the artwork, they couldn't claim I was just changing the text. This was actually part of a larger action against Internet Infidels, where the images were part of an ongoing contest to parody AiG's really lame pair of online cartoons "After Eden" and "Creationwise."





You can see the other ones I did in this directory:
http://gw.retro.com/employees/lee/Parody

Tha_Pig wrote: ...There is "rule of thumb" that if your artwork uses about 70% of the original art, you doing "parody" and can't be punished for it.

Not to fan any flames, but that's a dangerous and common misconception.

The oft misquoted and misunderstood 70% rule, where it applies (which isn't much) is more about content originality than parody. The idea being that if it can be shown that my work is only 70% similar to yours, there is a reasonable argument I came up with it on my own. More importantly, it's not a legal benchmark, only a common litmus test.

This is a matter of "Fair Use Policy" which is summarized on http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Baiscally, there are four factors to be considered in the detirminiation of whether something can be judged to constitute "fair use":

...1... the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

...2... the nature of the copyrighted work;

...3... amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

...4... the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

In this case (and, noteably, in my unsolicited, non-liability bearing, 'this-is-not-legal-counsel' opinion only):

1. The use in question is of a satirical (parody) nature, and could be argued to be educational... But that'd be a stretch.
2. The copyrighted work is propaganda (oops... I mean 'educational') material intended for free distribution.
3. You could argue the amount used is fifty percent or less, if you choose to heavily weight the value of the writing, they will surely argue the artwork is the greater portion of the work, and so the percentage used is higher.
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market or value of the copyrighted work is negligible, since the original work is intended for free distribution. The parody does not directly dilute the "branded" value of the original, if it is clearly marked as a parody of the original and not to be considered to reflect the views or beliefs of the original 'artist'.

The most important part of the above disclaimers may well be the part where I point out that it's not my ass in a sling if he comes at you all guns blazing... So it's all well and good for me to sit here and explain copyright law as I feel it applies in this case, but if you want to be sure, you'd be well advised to seek what education and/or legal counsel you feel comfortable with, and then a little more.

Links to start with, if you're interested:

World Intellectual Property Organization, at http://www.wipo.int/
or the US Copyright Office at http://www.copyright.gov/

jackalope, the 2nd comic about summierizes my christian point of view

heheh yes indeed. If you read the motherfucking book, you realsie that most so called christians aint.

The fuck? No burnt offerings? No slaughtered animals? The hell kind of Christian Church you call this?

Heh, no drinking poisons? helping the needy? No daughters drugging their dad and having their way with him? Scary shit, that christian bible.

RantinAn wrote:heheh yes indeed. If you read the motherfucking book, you realsie that most so called christians aint.

After reading the Bible for real, I realized anyone calling himself a Christian either neved read the book it or is a sick bastard.

I don't know how anyone can model his life about a book that condones smashing the skull of little kids in the name of God and other holy atrocities.

After they started making legal threats, I made sure to do one that would really offend the fuck out of them:

Also helped that my next door neighbors were among the first couples to be married in SF...

For the full benefit, see the lame original. Note that I made sure to make the women look radiantlly happy in my version.

Tha_Pig wrote: After reading the Bible for real, I realized anyone calling himself a Christian either neved read the book it or is a sick bastard.

That'd be the latter.

-Kitty

Sorry for veering the thread back to the topic of fair use and parody, but I was thinking in the shower this morning, and somewhere between capping the shampoo and washing my ass, it hits me. If the RIAA wants to make copyrights so iron clad, that if you even humm the tune without paying, they can have you murdered, how the hell are they going to release some %50 of the "music" thats coming out these days.
Ever notice that half the songs on the radio are either crappy remakes or contain a great song, only it's been "sampled" so whatever Flavor of the Week can yell shitty poetry over the top?

How does that fit in with musical copyright? Do all of these artists retain rights to the music, or can a recording company do as it sees fit with the work?

You forget that they claimed Manifest Destiny on all music everywhere. It's not copyright infringement if you own all the copyrights.

I susspect anyone accused of doing a remake will start using the "no they only influneced me speel that Vanilla Ice gave the public back in the early 90's....

vanilla Ice wrote:
no no no.... Under Presure goes "di di di di di di di" while Ice Ice Baby goes Di DI DI DIdidididi DI.... They're two different songs!

.... whatever VI... whatever.....

Great rage and furious anger came down on the poor little bastard who was in my store, and upon hearing the first riff from under pressure said
"Woah! Cool! I haven't heard Vanilla Ice in like forever."
"This is Queen and David Bowie" I said
"Dude, they totally ripped off Vanilla Ice."

The beating, it was through

squidflakes wrote:"Dude, they totally ripped off Vanilla Ice."

*sputtering, almost incoherant rage...*

Say this again... and I will fong you. Until your insides are out, your outsides are in...your intrails will become your extrails. I will wring...

...all the...

...pain... lots of pain.


You were very right to beat the little cretin. I hope you hit him a few times for me.