Also: I wouldn't call them parodies. They're more reworkings.
You would not call them parodies! So it is subject to interpretation.
Why Johnny Can't Read Any New Public Domain Books In The US: Because Nothing New Entered The P.D.
- 03/01/2012 11:33:34 PM
1790 Views
I find it difficult to see this as stealing rights from the public.
- 04/01/2012 11:15:35 AM
923 Views
Are you arguing for illegal use of legally protected works?
- 04/01/2012 09:34:18 PM
853 Views
No. I'm saying that keeping works in copyright doesn't stop them from being read, watched, etc.
- 04/01/2012 10:24:50 PM
861 Views
That's not the point, though.
- 05/01/2012 01:05:17 PM
906 Views
????
- 05/01/2012 03:22:58 PM
880 Views
Re: ????
- 05/01/2012 04:04:21 PM
920 Views
That isn't inspiration that wanting to use the popularity of the original to promote your work
- 05/01/2012 05:04:25 PM
879 Views
I don't get it.
- 04/01/2012 05:51:19 PM
1142 Views
You know those Jane Austen parodies? Only because Jane Austen is in the public domain.
- 04/01/2012 09:32:20 PM
948 Views
Parody is actually covered by the legal definition of fair use so doesn't break copyright.
- 04/01/2012 10:28:08 PM
927 Views
I'm fairly sure the Jane Austen parodies do in fact use actual paragraphs... no? *NM*
- 04/01/2012 10:31:32 PM
495 Views
The zombies one doesn't precisely. It's somewhat modernised. I've not read the others.
- 04/01/2012 10:32:59 PM
862 Views
Precisely the point.
- 04/01/2012 10:45:01 PM
863 Views
Yes, they take tons of text from actual books. Contrast this with Ms. Rowling's reaction. *NM*
- 05/01/2012 07:01:46 PM
406 Views
If there's zero chance of needing a lawyer at some point, it's way more likely to actually happen.
- 04/01/2012 10:43:23 PM
951 Views
Answering you specifically
- 05/01/2012 04:57:33 PM
881 Views
Patents and copyrights aren't meant to last forever (shouldn't, anyway)
- 04/01/2012 10:33:30 PM
910 Views
I know they aren't. I don't necessarily agree that they shouldn't though.
- 05/01/2012 05:01:05 PM
825 Views
Re: I know they aren't. I don't necessarily agree that they shouldn't though.
- 06/01/2012 12:47:50 AM
843 Views
That is a very confusing article.
- 04/01/2012 10:19:22 PM
976 Views
Works published between 1923 and 1978 are different
- 04/01/2012 10:25:16 PM
902 Views
Do you think it is right that Disney can protect its movies?
- 05/01/2012 05:29:08 PM
853 Views
Ok, what has movies Disney done lately that were on par with its classics? *NM*
- 05/01/2012 07:44:20 PM
388 Views
And speaking of Disney's classics...
- 05/01/2012 10:06:16 PM
1009 Views
Until Disney discovered and copyrighted them, they obviouslty didn't exist. *NM*
- 06/01/2012 12:58:55 AM
423 Views
OK why is that even a point of argument?
- 06/01/2012 02:42:47 PM
855 Views
No incentive to make great new works if they can just keep re-releasing Lion King in 3D *NM*
- 06/01/2012 09:45:38 PM
470 Views
I'm a lot older than your five year old, but I'm not sure I disagree Tangled is better.
- 06/01/2012 11:12:32 PM
908 Views
Well, if corporations are now people, then maybe their copyright could be different? *shrug*
- 05/01/2012 07:57:38 PM
1002 Views
Re: Well, if corporations are now people, then maybe their copyright could be different? *shrug*
- 06/01/2012 01:18:04 AM
902 Views
Can you back that up?
- 06/01/2012 04:17:35 AM
1027 Views
Re: Can you back that up?
- 06/01/2012 06:02:01 PM
818 Views
Artist/Singers used to *always* be on tour in order to make a living.
- 06/01/2012 09:34:44 PM
1109 Views