Shirt.Woot

Who determines if it's a parody or infringement? I say let the court decide, as that's the only way to settle it once and for all.
i.e. Sue their pants off, the dirty bastages.

If it's actual parody there's really no problem nor is it rational to think there is one. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, nothing is new. Everything is derivative. The major point is that society grows by expanding on the work of others and adding your own tiny piece. As long as it's not a blatant copy (sort of like most of what gets passed for parody here), they did nothing different than you did to create the thing to begin with.

I know it's not a very "principled" approach, but it really depends on my own situation. If I had a well established character and I was doing pretty well with it, I probably wouldn't mind. If I had a character that wasn't well established, and some other guy decided for whatever reason to parody it and it took off and he made millions, then I'd probably be upset, even if it was well within his rights legally.

If I had a particular style that got adapted or used, then I think that'd be pretty cool. I think THAT is how art evolves, not from parodying others' characters, but from truly being inspired by what makes a piece "art."

On a side note, frequently when infringing designs get pulled from sites like Red Bubble, the complaining party isn't the owner or original creator, but rather a licensee--someone who has paid money to produce a t-shirt with boba fett (for example), and doesn't like seeing others doing it for free.

mrwednesday wrote: The major point is that society grows by expanding on the work of others and adding your own tiny piece.

Exactly this! I just finished reading "Imagine: How Creativity Works", by Jonah Lehrer. A lot of the book talks about how free exchange and use of existing ideas are a main building block of creativity and innovation. New ideas don't come from a vacuum after all. (I mean... a vacuum like outer space, not like... a Dyson on woot or something.)

Therefore, I wouldn't mind if someone made a legitimate parody of my work. At this point I can't imagine how anyone would parody my shirt designs, but yea if they did that's cool.

mrwednesday wrote:If it's actual parody there's really no problem nor is it rational to think there is one... As long as it's not a blatant copy...

It depends where on the Creative Commons license spectrum I decided to share it on as well. Most things I allow for modification but insist on attribution and disallow commercial use.

So here's a question I never thought I'd ask:

You create something.
Someone else parodies it.
The parody becomes supervaluable.
Can you then Parody your own work freely, or does the artist who copied it have the rights to the Parody of your work?

bounty42 wrote:So here's a question I never thought I'd ask:

You create something.
Someone else parodies it.
The parody becomes supervaluable.
Can you then Parody your own work freely, or does the artist who copied it have the rights to the Parody of your work?

The value doesn't really enter into the equation. The parody is a new work, and the second artist will own that work. Keep in mind they won't own the original work, so their ownership is really only in the derivative--the parody itself.

Sure you can parody that work, just like they parodied yours.

lonelypond wrote:It depends where on the Creative Commons license spectrum I decided to share it on as well. Most things I allow for modification but insist on attribution and disallow commercial use.

The thing about parody though is that it's protected under the first amendment, so licenses don't really come into play.

If you've put out a license that says derivative works are allowed, then someone can make adjustments (within the limits of that license) without any parody.

But if there's legitimate parody, then your license isn't really considered because it's free speech.

kevlar51 wrote:The thing about parody though is that it's protected under the first amendment, so licenses don't really come into play.

.

I realize that. But part of the discussion off the exact question (and whenever this issue comes up) seems to be about copying rather than parodying. At this point, if someone parodied something of mine + made money off of it, they'd be making more money than I am so my personal level of annoyance/amusement* would partly depend on my intent in creating + sharing it.

*fully realizing that my personal level of anything has nothing to do with the legality of the situtation. And this question seems designed to evoke your gut reaction rather than just an is it right discussion.

lonelypond wrote:I realize that. But part of the discussion off the exact question (and whenever this issue comes up) seems to be about copying rather than parodying. At this point, if someone parodied something of mine + made money off of it, they'd be making more money than I am so my personal level of annoyance/amusement would partly depend on my intent in creating + sharing it.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh. I see what you're saying.

Just a reminder - since I know several of the woot artists have reoccurring/continuing web comics: copyrights are subject to parody, but trademarks are not. If anyone has a character/characters that she/he wants to ensure are protected, trademark might be worth considering - although enforcement, of course, can be a pain.

kevlar51 wrote:The thing about parody though is that it's protected under the first amendment, so licenses don't really come into play.

If you've put out a license that says derivative works are allowed, then someone can make adjustments (within the limits of that license) without any parody.

But if there's legitimate parody, then your license isn't really considered because it's free speech.

I don't know all of the legal aspects, but that isn't true. Parody or other forms of fair use are allowed because there are explicit exemptions for them in copyright law. Without those exemptions you would not have the right to it.

I think it's always important to reiterate because designers here are so blasé because they aren't getting sued, but fair use is an affirmative defense. That means if you are sued the burden of proof is on you to convince a jury that you fit one of those exemptions. The rightsholder doesn't have to prove anything other than the base level of showing that they are similar, which is a very low bar.

mrwednesday wrote:I don't know all of the legal aspects, but that isn't true. Parody or other forms of fair use are allowed because there are explicit exemptions for them in copyright law. Without those exemptions you would not have the right to it.

I think it's always important to reiterate because designers here are so blasé because they aren't getting sued, but fair use is an affirmative defense. That means if you are sued the burden of proof is on you to convince a jury that you fit one of those exemptions. The rightsholder doesn't have to prove anything other than the base level of showing that they are similar, which is a very low bar.

The current copyright law codifies prior court decisions, which established the fair use doctrine (which allows for parody). So even without that section of the copyright law, you'd still have the fair use doctrine via common law, which was grounded in the first amendment--it just wouldn't be set out in a statute. There's a big philosophical discussion about the role of courts and legislature in there too.

All that being said, you're right--it's an affirmative defense, and I used the word "parody" without detailing the difficult steps you'd have to take to prove that your work actually was "parody" and not "infringement."