Join 3,562 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


"we're just two schmucks who thought something was funny."
April 29, 2000 6:25 PM   Subscribe

"we're just two schmucks who thought something was funny." Yet more elian/true news (like you needed more). The two playboy guys have backed down from the AP bully boys. if you are running a mirror site, send in a link to these guys and they'll link to you. With over 1,000,000 visitors in the past couple of days, it might be worth the e-mail.
Meanwhile Salon also has a run down on the story.
posted by Neale (6 comments total)

 
KEWL! I started running it on my site, because Tom Fulp at Newgrounds is a buddy of mine, whom I owe a ton of my "Flash Savvy" to....

Besides, I love a good fray!
(No pun or reference to Mr. Powazek intended)
posted by EricBrooksDotCom at 7:41 PM on April 29, 2000


As to the Salon story, I can well understand why the Playboy lawyer is not concerned. This is clearly parody, and that is explicitly permitted under the "fair use" provision of the copyright law. AP hasn't got a legal leg to stand on here.

posted by Steven Den Beste at 8:58 PM on April 29, 2000


Well, Steven, as I noted in another thread, it's parody, yes, but not of the photos in question; at least, not directly.

Satire, maybe...
posted by baylink at 9:01 PM on April 29, 2000


Baylink, doesn't matter. Say SNL does a sketch on the first family à la American Beauty (damn, good idea there). Does that mean that Mendes and Ball get to sue?
posted by dhartung at 10:10 AM on April 30, 2000


>doesn't matter

Actually, it does matter. Just because something is a parody of one thing doesn't mean you can illegally use other things (which are not being parodied) to produce it. Parody is not this huge brush that exempts the producer of the parody from all legal liability regarding any copyrighted materials used.

Can you steal stock photos from Photodisc to produce a parody? What about using a typeface you didn't pay for? Using scanned photos from the Communication Arts photography annual?
posted by jkottke at 12:00 PM on April 30, 2000


I think a good case can be made that the incongruous juxtaposition of the picture and the soundtrack results in a parody of both the picture and the sound track. I certainly viewed it that way.

Anyway, I think it's defensible in court on that basis.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 1:51 PM on April 30, 2000


« Older Yeah, I think we'd definitely have to say...  |  Strangers When We Meet... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments