MESSAGE BOARD

Welcome, Guest. Please Login

WEBZINE
A/V CLUB
Pages: 1
What was the one about the pot and the kettle? (Read 2642 times)
In front of a computer



I am hearts!

Posts: 1459

Master Mason
What was the one about the pot and the kettle?
01/26/12 at 9:21am
 


Really, I cannot believe Disney made this T-Shirt.  Disney who has worked soo hard over the last 100 years to corrupt copyright law.
Back to top
 
 

Hearts Love intrigue Niceness and Kisses
View Profile | WWW | AIM   IP Logged
New Jersey



Self-aware Pretenses

Posts: 1305

Master Mason
Webzine Staff
Re: What was the one about the pot and the kettle?
Reply #1 - 01/26/12 at 1:13pm
 
But is it infringement, or parody?

Look at it this way: It's a Mickey Mouse head/silhouette drawn in the style of a Joy Division album cover—it's a wholly-owned object rendered in such a way that it references another person's intellectual property.

Ergo: a pastiche, which is (generally) protected under Fair Use.

Is it gauche? Certainly. Disney may have pulled the shirt after enough complaints were made—never let it be said that the Mouse abides bad PR—but there's a lot of legal leeway for parody and pastiche, and any concessions that Disney might have been inclined to make to appease the surviving members of Joy Division would be implicitly designed to curry public favour (and to avoid the bad press and legal fees of an inevitably settled-out-of-court lawsuit), and not out of any real legal obligation. Path of least resistance and all that, yeah?
Back to top
 
 

View Profile   IP Logged
In front of a computer



I am hearts!

Posts: 1459

Master Mason
Re: What was the one about the pot and the kettle?
Reply #2 - 01/26/12 at 2:09pm
 
Yeah I know that it probably would past muster as a pastiche or parody.
But what would that parody be saying?  I think that is what is particularly angering about this or anything.  Disney and their friends over at the MPAA have and still lobby to distort copyright law for their corporate benefit, and they can distort and coopt such and iconic and important cultural image that runs counter to everything they stand for.  It just pisses me off.
Back to top
 
 

Hearts Love intrigue Niceness and Kisses
View Profile | WWW | AIM   IP Logged
New Jersey



Self-aware Pretenses

Posts: 1305

Master Mason
Webzine Staff
Re: What was the one about the pot and the kettle?
Reply #3 - 01/26/12 at 3:24pm
 
Maybe the designer was hoping that there are more Ian Curtis devotees out there who also like Mickey Mouse? Retired rockers have kids too, y'know.
Back to top
 
 

View Profile   IP Logged
In front of a computer



I am hearts!

Posts: 1459

Master Mason
Re: What was the one about the pot and the kettle?
Reply #4 - 01/26/12 at 3:55pm
 
Maybe the designer shouldn't have sold out to the man?
Back to top
 
 

Hearts Love intrigue Niceness and Kisses
View Profile | WWW | AIM   IP Logged






Posts: 158

Entered Apprentice
Webzine Staff
Re: What was the one about the pot and the kettle?
Reply #5 - 01/27/12 at 10:19am
 
A Cat Named Virtue wrote on 01/26/12 at 1:13pm:
But is it infringement, or parody?

Look at it this way: It's a Mickey Mouse head/silhouette drawn in the style of a Joy Division album cover—it's a wholly-owned object rendered in such a way that it references another person's intellectual property.

Ergo: a pastiche, which is (generally) protected under Fair Use.

Is it gauche? Certainly. Disney may have pulled the shirt after enough complaints were made—never let it be said that the Mouse abides bad PR—but there's a lot of legal leeway for parody and pastiche, and any concessions that Disney might have been inclined to make to appease the surviving members of Joy Division would be implicitly designed to curry public favour (and to avoid the bad press and legal fees of an inevitably settled-out-of-court lawsuit), and not out of any real legal obligation. Path of least resistance and all that, yeah?

you're one of the few people to whom I would recommend law school.
Back to top
 
 
View Profile | WWW   IP Logged
New Jersey



Self-aware Pretenses

Posts: 1305

Master Mason
Webzine Staff
Re: What was the one about the pot and the kettle?
Reply #6 - 02/03/12 at 1:59pm
 
beau wrote on 01/27/12 at 10:19am:
you're one of the few people to whom I would recommend law school.


Haha, thanks! I think...?  Undecided

(As much as I enjoy the idea of quibbling for a living, the prospect of astronomical student loans, an absurdly glutted job market for J.D.s, and +80-hour work weeks kinda takes the shine off of it.)


With further regards to the Disney v. Joy Division kerfuffle, I was reminded of a summer 2011 dust-up between veteran cartoonist Scott Kurz and fellow web-based cartoonist Joel Watson, the latter of whom had the moxie to complain in a public forum when "his" (actually ownership being a bit murky in this situation) mash-up of Doctor Who and Peanuts was inadvertently copied and sold by the fine, upstanding, copyright-respecting folk at TeeFury... 'cause you know those guys have licenses for all of the IPs which they so shamelessly reference... and the idea of combining Doctor Who with Schulz's "The Doctor is In" sidewalk stand is so original and inventive...

Anyway, here's Kurz's summary of events:

Quote:
I got into a little twitter scuffle tonight with a cartoonist who, in my opinion, makes his living by doing mash-ups of other people’s IP. It’s a popular thing to do among webcomic circles more and more these days. It used to be that every once in a while we would come up with an idea that skirted copyright infringement and say “Better to ask for forgiveness than permission.” Then we would spend the money to produce the tee shirt and hope we flew under the radar. Sometimes people got C&D letters. Sometimes they didn’t.

But over the years, this practice has become so commonplace that attitudes have changed. Not only does nobody fear the C&D coming form a property holder, we’ve stopped pretending that we’re doing the wrong thing. We throw around phrases like “parody” and “fair use” without fully understanding what those terms mean legally.

And now, things have gotten so far out of hand, that we even get upset when someone steals our stolen ideas. And that’s what I got into a twitter scuffle about tonight. A cartoonist who did a mash up of Doctor Who and Peanuts, got outraged that another tee shirt company made a “The Doctor is In” shirt, and encouraged his readers to send in emails. Really? It’s come to this?

Look, I’m not trying to take the moral high ground here on this stuff. I’ve done my fair share of co-opting popular culture. When Lucas made the prequels and they sucked balls, I came out with the “Joss Whedon is my Master Now” tee. And I was one of the first people to try to make a buck off of the “Han Shot First” shirt. I understand the practice all too well. But it’s one thing to try to make a buck off a larger cultural meme, and another to claim that you’re the only person who’s allowed to do it.

When you make an Ellen Ripley shirt that reads “Believe me or not”, you don’t get to take the moral high ground when Snorg Tees decides they’re going to rip you off. A tee shirt that features Cheetara dressed as a prostitute that reads Thundercats Ho doesn’t work without the Thundercats reference. So unless you paid for a license to make Thundercats tee shirts, you got no grounds for complaint.

And here’s the kicker, most of the time, it’s not that difficult or expensive to get an official license for this stuff. Not always.

Thinkgeek has had such a demand for their fake April fools Star Wars products that they just paid Lucas for a license to make them officially.

It can be done.

So yes, Teefury stole your joke comparing AT&T to the Death Star. Maybe you even made the joke first. But if the joke is dependent on two established IPs to be funny, was it THAT great of a joke to begin with? Is it THAT hard for you to come up with ideas?

Food for thought.
Back to top
 
 

View Profile   IP Logged




I am people!

Posts: 140

Entered Apprentice
Re: What was the one about the pot and the kettle?
Reply #7 - 02/11/12 at 4:28pm
 
If you think about how copyright infringement is suppose to work, disney would have do alter the intellectual property (or just use it as is) in a way that makes it appear to be their property thus damaging sales for joy division. Since it was in context of disney's logo, and the idea behind the shirt assumes the viewer understands that they're using an existing logo- (the point is you would by that BECAUSE it was a joy division reference, not because you wanted a mickey mouse head with wiggly lines) it's a parody.

I want to think they just wanted to associate the words
joy division
unknown pleasures
Disneyland

in a sort of ironic way, and probably cash in on some hipsters, because why not? PERHAPS EVEN TO SUGGEST DISNEY HAS BEEN THE PLEASURES THIS WHOLE TIME.
Back to top
 
 
View Profile   IP Logged
In front of a computer



I am hearts!

Posts: 1459

Master Mason
Re: What was the one about the pot and the kettle?
Reply #8 - 02/16/12 at 10:45am
 
Back to top
 
 

Hearts Love intrigue Niceness and Kisses
View Profile | WWW | AIM   IP Logged






Posts: 12

Entered Apprentice
Re: What was the one about the pot and the kettle?
Reply #9 - 01/01/13 at 6:40pm
 
JD took the image off of the cover of a science book or something, its a public domain image.
Back to top
 
 
View Profile   IP Logged
Pages: 1