quote:
quote:
I presented a counterargument to what you said. Something that nullified your assertion that stripcreator is breaking copyright law. You offer no counter argument, but instead pat me on the head, saying you appreciate my enthusiasm, but that random excerpts from a webpage won't convince you.
I doubt you even read the page. If you did, you'd see that it covered specific court rulings on copyright law, and did so in an unbiased manner.
You raised an assertion. I raised counter points. You sidestepped.
Address my points, and we can have a worthwhile debate. Hide behind your patronizing attitude, and we can't.
OH YEAH!!! Step into the ring, bitch! Let's dance!!!
If there were a ring here, I'd beat your ass. If you want to get into an insult war, I'll win that too. But I thought we were talking copyright law. I know
I am anyway - you're acting like a fucking immature idiot that's letting his/her emotions cloud their judgment.
If only we all lived in your world where I'm the one who's immature and childish
by citing judicial findings about copyright and you're the the mature one with your rational pleas of "Step into the ring, bitch! Let's dance!!!"
To quote Cheers, "What color's the sky in your world?"
quote:
quote:
There's two ways I can tell when I've won an argument (or, more accurately, that the other person feels they've lost) - 1. They attack me rather
than my arguments and 2. They fall into the old opinion maelstrom. (That's just my OPINION. I'm entitled to it. This is like the fetal position of debates.)
With this kind of attitude you're already showing that you aren't even interested in an honest, open discussion.
Bzzz, wrong, thanks for playing. I AM interested in an honest discussion. YOU'RE not. I could tell by the last response to my post. My post was offered as a genuine discussion point, not to show off my knowledge. If I was trying to
impress anyone, why would I admit the sum total of my knowledge on copyright law had been gathered up in an hour, tardling?
I'm interested in the issue. You're interested in social status, or what we all think about your sorry ass, or maybe just in a flame war. It's like evil_d said, you're obviously a troll. And like kajun said, probably some high school brat who felt the need to poke holes in stripcreator. Someone looking for a fight. That's no sin in the fights-go-here forum, I had just assumed you really wanted a discussion, since you'd said you'd thought about putting this topic in the Bugs, Reports, and Suggestions forum.
I get labeled as close-minded simply because I disagree with you? That kind of reasoning is rather, how would I put it, close-fucking-minded, you nip whistle!
Honestly, I don't even know why I should go on with this post. You've shown your ass, thealiasmen. You're an overly-emotional dickhead that can't counter my points at all deftly, so instead attacks me. You're bottled teenager.
I don't care about "winning", I'm interested in the issue. I already said that a couple of times. I doubt you've heard it yet.
Zealously? What part of what I said was zealous? Or is just the mere act of disagreeing with you considered zealous?
Talk about the issue, not about me. Then maybe you'll stop being what you accuse me of - someone who isn't
"even interested in an honest, open discussion."
I mean, if you want to call names, start a new thread, and we'll see who can make the other cry more. But if you want to talk copyright law, settle down, get your panties out a bunch, and put your focus on the issue.
quote:
quote:
The entire bredth of my copyright knowledge was gained in the last hour from
here.
From that page:
"Court's are more likely to find a parody to be a fair use, that is, non-infringing or diluting, if the parody appears in a traditional medium of protected free speech, finding such use to be "noncommercial". For example, the First Circuit reversed the district court's finding of dilution against High Society magazine's 2-page feature "L.L. Beam's Back to School Sex Catalog, depicting models in sexually explicit positions, holding that the article was protected as a noncommercial, editorial or artistic parody."
You are claiming that stripcreator.com is a protected form of free expression.
But "a protected form of expression" is NOT the key here. You've completely missed the meaning of the citation as it applies to stripcreator.com.
While creating and publishing images on a website is a protected form of expression, it doesn't automatically mean that what you are expressing isn't
infringing or diluting. That's for the courts to decide.
But these are comics, see. Not pictures. We're not creating Mona Lisa Bongos, here. We're using bongo as a means to express ourselves THROUGH WORDS in comics.
So are internet comics a protected form of expression? bwuh? I asked myself that as I was reading the citation. I think it is for the courts to decide, and I think that they'd decide it is. But the point you bring up with your "do you think brad
wants to take the chance" is that it IS murky water. And the fact that it IS murky water highlights how assanine your self-confident "stripcreator.com is illegal" statement is.
quote:
The key phrase that should stand out in your head is "more likely to". As stated in your citation, "Courts are more likely to find a parody to be fair use..." This doesn't automatically mean that courts will find in your favor just because you're publishing in a "traditional medium of protected free
speech." And, as stated in my previous post, I question whether or not a court or jury would see that the use of this site is non-commercial in nature. The exchange of money is happening, and in return for your 'dontations' your comic strips gain greater placement on the website. (Comic strips that could and probably do contain unauthorized copyrighted characters, I might add). It's a
subtle form of manipulation or upselling, and it gives the appearance of impropriety. It goes to prove intent of commercial gain.
If you think commercial gain and not expression are stripcreator.com's primary intent, you're way off. "Appearance of impropriety" doesn't mean shit. Intent does. To quote again:
[i]"Another example of the broader scope allowed trademark parody in a noncommercial context is Cliffs Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Corp., 886 F.2d. 490 (2d Cir. 1989), which involved the use by the publisher of Spy Magazine of the cover design elements of Cliffs Notes for tongue-in-cheek parody called "Spy Notes." [b]Reversing the district courts injunction based on a likelihood of confusion, the Court stated that a greater risk of confusion must be allowed for works such as parodies, in which
expression, and not commercial exploitation, is the primary intent.[/b] Id. at 497."[/i]
This is just wrong. If you realize that trademarks can be used in parody, and that trademarks are the exact trademark, and not a closely-imitated one, you'll (hopefully) realize
you're wrong.
quote:
quote:
Copyright law has always been a battle betweeen two entities: the rights of ownership, and the freedom of expression. And courts have stumbled around clumsily trying to define the balance that will throw these two entities into equilibrium with each other. Courts have overriden each other,
contradicted each other, nullified and reversed each other, the whole time blindly groping for this balance.
Except in one case. In one case, the courts have been very consistent. Freedom of expression, without dilution to a trademark, and with no intent of commercial gain is ALWAYS LEGAL.
ALWAYS.
First you openly admit to doing research for only one hour, and then you proceed to pontificate. "Copyright law has always been..." Well. All hail the copyright expert! After an hour of reading you know what copyright law has always been!
Read this sentence: The world has always been round.
How long did it take you to read it? Less than an hour? And yet you now know the world has always been round.
Imagine.
Can't separate me from the argument, eh? It's funny to see, but not the only amusing thing I'm getting from your writing. You're speaking out your ass. You haven't cited one source. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about and you're getting mad for no apparent reason. Simmer down, big guy, and hit the books.
Oh jesus christ. I'm trying hard to not make this a personal reply, but you're making it hard with both your idiotic retorts and your jabs at me.
Now go stick your head in a trough till you realize that "freedom of expression without dilution to a trademark is always legal" implies copyright law and
parody. Your bringing it back to the old pathetic shouting-fire example is, well, old and pathetic.
You're adding nothing new with
this. My assertion, the one you only partially quoted and lambasted was "Freedom of expression, without dilution to a trademark, and with no intent of commercial gain is ALWAYS LEGAL." So obviously I'm not saying commercial gain is the only criteria.
If anything, this case goes against stripcreator.com. The magazine in question above used appropriate labels to identify the two pages as a parody.
Stripcreator.com does not provide any such label or disclaimer. Furthermore, the parody above was only a small part of that particular issue. Comic strips on
stripcreator.com are the lifeblood of the site. The bulk of the site's content is the comic strips. The issue isn't that Bongo appears in a fraction of the site. The issue is one of impropriety.
Your reasoning eludes me.
Let me see if I understand:
The magazine used appropriate labels to identify the two pages as parody and stripcreator does not. Fair enough. Now here's where you lose me -- the fact that the LL Bean parody (the potential copyright infringement) made up only a fraction of that particular magazine is important, while the fact that bongo (the potential copyright infringment) is in only a fraction of the comics made at stripcreator isn't.
Were you dropped on your head as a baby?
This is an interesting point
despite it having come from you.
If it were found that using bongo is a copyright infringement, would Brad be responsible for copyright infringement for every comic made, whether or not it
had bongo, since every comic offered bongo as a potential character in the make.php page? Or would Brad only be responsible for copyright infringement
for those comics that used bongo? Or only for those comics that used bongo in a non-parody way? Or not at all, if his intent was to post bongo to be used only
as parody? Or not at all since his main intent is expression and not monetary gain?
My opinions the latter - he's not at all responsibile for copyright infringement since his main intent is expression, not monetary gain, he doesn't use bongo on merchandise, or to advertise the site, there is no confusion or dilution, and even if there were some, courts have said a higher amount of confusion is allowed when the primary intent is expression and not monetary gain.
quote:
quote:
The only two things that might negate this are parody and dilution. First off, is the bongo character being used in parody or comment on its original source. Hell no, thealiasmen says! To which I counter
...comics, comics, comics...
The point, if not now mind-numbingly clear, is that bongo CAN be used for parody and HAS been for parody consistently. I mean, check the dates of the above comics. They span the entire existence of stripcreator. Why? BECAUSE WHEN SOMEONE SEES BONGO, THEY THINK MATT GROENING!
This is the problem. Bongo is Matt Groening’s creation, and is a recognizable, identifiable, and trademarked character. It is Matt Groening’s legal right to use his character as he sees fit. With regards to parody, how are the above comic strips examples of parody? They are not all poking fun of Matt Groening, nor are they all poking fun of Bongo.
Most of those comics were poking fun at Groening or commenting on his decision to ditch the bongo character. Care to comment on whether those are parody?
quote:
Dilution occurs through either “blurring†or “tarnishment.†Blurring is when the connection in a reader’s mind becomes unclear between the actual
creator’s trademark and your own creation. Tarnishment occurs when the trademark becomes consciously or unconsciously linked with poor quality or a crappy product or creation.
The issue at hand is the potential for confusion that could occur. If a reader has never seen Bongo and then stumbles across stripcreator.com, that reader might assume that stripcreator.com is the authoritative source or creator of Bongo and/or “Life in Hellâ€. If a reader does happen to be familiar
with Bongo, “Life in Hellâ€, and Matt Groening, that reader might assume that stripcreator.com and Matt Groening have partnered. More specifically, the
reader might assume that Matt Groening endorses stripcreator.com and the subsequent use of his trademarked character.
An excellent
explanation, and I thank you for it, despite your prickosity.
My argument is that the potential isn't very high. Especially since Brad's primary intent is expression and not financial gain and, as the Cliff Notes vs.
Bantam Doubleday ruling made clear - "a greater risk of confusion must be allowed for works such as parodies, in which expression, and not commercial
exploitation, is the primary intent."
quote:
quote:
Just further proof that when expression, and not commercial gain, is the primary intent, the court's nearly unanimously favor free expression over
property rights.
“Just further proof†you say. How are you able to read that case study and then make the subsequent assumption that the courts have
“nearly unanimously†favored free expression over property rights? What kind of mental gymnastics are you doing?
The kind where I read a series of
case studies and then summarize.
This magic could be yours too, Gandolph, should you pull the pickle out your ass and read that page, something I'm becoming more and more certain you
haven't done.
No, it doesn't. Copyright law is always bending and changing. Nothing's for certain. (Especially the assertion that stripcreator.com is illegal.) But since that case closely mirrors what stripcreator is doing, it's logical to conclude there's a good chance stripcreator would meet the same judgment -- ie, that it's not violating any copyright laws.
You contradict yourself. How can it be “murky water†and also be “in no way†a copyright infringement?
Pay close attention and this complex answer will be revealed to you
"I strongly believe"
It is murky water - courts don't know the answer themselves. They do reverse each other's decisions pretty regularly. Nonetheless, from what I learned in an hour (threw that in just to fuck with you), I strongly believe that the assemblage of rulings show that having bongo art on stripcreator is in no way a copyright infringement.
quote:
Speaking of contradictions, you complained that I addressed none of your points (which I didn’t until now). Yet you also conveniently failed to
address any of mine.
Fuck no I didn't, you idiot. You'd just skipped over what were all valid points with an arrogant wave of the hand. You showed
yourself to be an ass, and still are showing yourself to be one. Still are making it about you and me instead of about the issue. I just wanted to debate copyright law and to genuinely point and counterpoint and see if we could learn something.
But in one post, you made it a power struggle. You against me. This made yourself dismissable to me. If you want to start the conversation anew, this time
debating instead of insulting, you go first, I'll happily oblige. But if you want to continue pursuing a flame war with an occasional interesting point, count me out. By your making it about you and me, you show yourself more interested in being right than about pursuing the truth. Your motives are biased, and you become a salesman.
I don't trust salesmen.
Then present other sources! Jesus christ, man. It's not a hard concept. Present court cases or interpretations that back up what you have to say. Something, anything. I can't promise you I'll answer you if you continue in this spirit of obdurate competitiveness, but I can sure as shit promise I will if you don't.
I don't care about you; I care about the discussion. Don't insult me; counter my arguments.
I mean, christ, if you're always this combative with people who only seek discussion, I'd be surprised if many people talk to you.
---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.
