When you assume a takedown-first posture regarding intellectual property and DMCA notices, that posture brings with it certain situations which make everyone look foolish. You get 80's music stars yanking six-second vine clips offline, for instance. Or you get radio blowhards using copyright to censor criticism online. And, of course, you get self-proclaimed representatives of aliens from the future issuing takedowns over images that said alien will be creating in said future. In each of those cases, the content was immediately taken down by the service provider, because thems the rules these days. And it sucks.
Less than 24 hours after a ballcap-wearing John Tory bobbed his head to a Kanye West song through Toronto’s subway system, the joke video appears to have been taken down. The mayor poked fun at himself in the one-minute gag clip posted Thursday, after he mistook West, who is American, for a Canadian artist earlier this week.
“This Tweet from @JohnTory has been withheld in response to a report from the copyright holder.”
Yup, because the Mayor wanted to have a little fun with his thought that ol' Yeezy was Canadian, his video gets hit with a takedown. Perhaps it was caught by some kind of automated system designed to weed out content covered by copyright... but that would make this even worse. The video, as Tory's people are acknowledging, was supposed to be a form of parody, one which would be protected as fair use. But in the takedown first culture, that doesn't really matter. The content still comes down. If it comes down by an automated system, then there's literally no possibility any thought towards fair use would be had.
And that sucks. With more ways than ever to share content with each other, these kinds of harmless things are supposed to be fun. But the fun gets killed off by a copyright system designed to restrict first and maybe ask questions later.
If you pay any attention to Valve's Steam platform, you've probably already at least heard about the hot-selling game NotGTAV. The game, just to be clear, is not Grand Theft Auto 5. It's actually not even close. It's a parody game, built to play more like a clone of Snake or something similar. But it is most certainly not GTA5. And nothing in the game is GTA5 either. Here's how the developers of the game explain themselves:
This game is a parody. It is definitely, positively and (hopefully) legally, not the game Grand Theft Auto Five. Sure, it’s called NotGTAV, but those letters stand for Great Traffic Adventure and the V is silent. Like the one in “lawsuit” (which, you’ll notice, is also invisible).
This short tour of the glories of the UK’s M4 corridor is easy to play, hard to master, addictive, very funny, and cheap. 100% of the profits from this game go to young people’s charity Peer Productions. Without Peer Productions the NotGames team would never have met. By buying this game you can help us pay something back.
Now, a parody game would be protected as fair use and going legal on a game that is built specifically to give money to charity would be a public relations nightmare. Not that any of that kept the game from being removed from Steam over a copyright claim, of course. The inevitable claim came and Steam took the game down from the marketplace. Everyone immediately thought that Rockstar games had been the one issuing the takedown, even though the fact that the GTA series essentially relies on parody to exist and survive the lawsuits idiotic celebrities have levied against the company. Indeed, when Steam informed the developers of the takedown, its notice named an employee of Rockstar as the complainant. And so the developers put their plan B into effect.
“We’re currently in the process of getting our game back on Steam, by re-branding to NotDMCAV,” Kendall said earlier today, shortly after NotGTAV’s removal from Steam. “The issue that Rockstar took was with the usage of ‘the Grand Theft Auto V acronym and title GTA’—apparently you can now own a series of letters, even it’s already a police crime in the first place. Our initial reaction was—and remains—that we’re protected under parody protection laws, and we’ve made it clear that we’re not accepting in any way, shape or form that we’ve infringed copyright, we’re just trying to be as compliant as possible right now.”
While I love some good snark as much as anyone, it turns out this good snark was wholly unneccessary. As the team worked to rebrand their hot-selling game, which involved a hell of a lot of work, they were also working with Steam to figure out just what the hell was going on. Turns out, Steam put the original title back in the marketplace having found that the complaint from "Rockstar" was actually "bullshit."
In what has quickly become the weirdest day of our lives, and one of the most hectic, we’ve just received news from Valve that the plaintiff of our DMCA is now being treated as a false complainant.
We’re half-way through rebranding the game as NotDMCAV, and the store page we’ve designed gives us a huge giggle, so we’re leaving you some of our new artwork (you may be able to tell it was done in a bit of a hurry) for a couple of days but, as we’re not being sued, the name and game will be remaining the same.
So good on Rockstar for not filing this complaint and great for the developers, but all this shows is why the permission culture and takedown-first attitude make d-bags out of everyone else. The summary here, should you lose sight of it due to the NotGTAV folks' awesome attitudes, is that some nobody put in a copyright claim that took their work off the market, caused them to begin work rebranding, even though that work wasn't necessary, and then Steam put the game back up. In other words, the mere existence of the claim is all it took to keep the sales from rolling in, even if only temporarily. That's bullshit. It's a wonderful example of how copyright laws and the way that platforms like Steam choose to interact with those laws is a clamp on legitimate speech and art, not to mention tools for jerks to screw with content producers.
Turns out I owe the NFL an apology. Yes, at the beginning of the year, we discussed how an erotic novel that includes Patriots tight-end (heh) Rob Gronkowski had been taken off the Amazon eBook store, with heavy speculation that it was due to the cover imagery.
Much of that speculation, including my own, focused on the fact that a portion of the Patriots trademarked uniforms, as well as a commemorative team patch, appeared on the cover and wouldn't it just be so NFL of the league to get the book taken down over the images being used. Turns out that wasn't the case. A lawsuit filed by two anonymous folks from Ohio likely had it removed and have followed that up with a lawsuit against the author, Amazon, and Apple over the use of their images on the cover. Yes, I'm talking about the two people appearing in the foreground. Those are apparently two people from Ohio who had no idea that an engagement photo of them was being used on the cover of a novella about a housewife banging Gronk.
"The cover of the book contains a photograph of the Plaintiffs which was taken as part of their engagement journey leading toward their wedding," states the complaint. "The photograph was appropriated by the Defendants for commercial gain without the permission of the Plaintiffs nor with the permission of any lawful copyright holder."
The lawsuit targets Noonan, and also Apple, Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble for allowing readers to access the work in iBooks, Kindle and Nook digital formats. The plaintiffs — captioned as "John Roe" and "Jane Roe" — are asserting violations of their rights of publicity under Ohio law.
And the inclusion of the service providers is where this lawsuit gets fun, because Amazon has already replied asserting section 230 protections, and I can't imagine that Apple and Barnes & Noble will be terribly far behind them in doing the same. Including the companies in the suit would obviously be advantageous from a monetary award standpoint, but that would rely on those companies being considered publishers of A Gronking To Remember. Are they?
No, I don't think so. In the context of books such as this, those companies do two things: they assist authors in self-publishing and they provide a platform where self-published works can be purchased. Neither of those actions are consistent with what a book-publisher does and have more in common with websites that allow readers to publish their own comments, which obviously falls under section 230 protections. The platform-providers, or service providers, didn't choose the cover images or create them, so I'm not sure where their culpability would lie. The inclusion of the service providers sounds like an attempt at a money-grab.
In any case, it looks like A Gronking To Remember will be remembered at the very least in court documents.
Here's something you don't see every day: a copyright case in which fair use prevails. David Adjmi produced a play entitled 3C, a parody-take on the classic sitcom Three's Company, the copyright of which is held by DLT Entertainment. After 2 months of off-Broadway production and just before Adjmi wanted to translate the play for literary release, DLT fired off a cease and desist letter. Rather than retreating, Adjmi, with the support of the Dramatists Guild of America, went to court to get his work affirmed as non-infringing, arguing that it is both parody and transformative. U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled in agreement in a whopper of a ruling (you can read the full ruling here or embedded below). Her comments within the ruling demonstrate a textbook understanding of both copyright and fair use.
She writes that the body of copyright law “is designed to foster creativity. It does so by, in effect, managing monopolies in knowledge: granting one in original work to reward its creator, but ensuring it is limited, temporary, and does not operate as a moratorium on certain ideas. The law is agnostic between creators and infringers, favoring only creativity and the harvest of knowledge. Here, ‘further protection against parody does little to promote creativity, but it places substantial inhibition upon the creativity of authors adept at using parody.' ”
In addition to finding that 3C is clearly a transformative work, as opposed to anything resembling blatant copying, this ruling reads like a best-case scenario for those of us that believe all kinds of transformative works building off of existing works are protected, useful, creative and necessary. Adjmi had a message to send and, while the original Three's Company might serve as the starting line for his creative vehicle, the finish line is somewhere far different than that of the original sitcom. Nobody attending the play lacked the understanding that this was something new, something different from the original show, the original show's message, or that the play was anything other than social commentary using a trope-ladened show from the 70's.
According to Adjmi, his 3C was a comment on the "ways the television show presented and reinforced stereotypes about gender, age and sexual orientation" as well as "the times in which the show flourished -- when sexual liberation had begun to reshape American society, and dominant cultural forces like television attempted to channel it in commercially profitable directions, while many forms of sexual oppression continued."
That kind of commentary is important and, even if you disagree with the message, or think that platforming the commentary on a show as silly as Three's Company is misguided, those aren't questions of copyright law. Once the work becomes parody, never mind transformative, there ends the copyright argument. Judge Preska delved into the four-factor analysis of the claim, finding that DLT's claim of direct copying of characters, settings and themes to be baseless.
“Despite the many similarities between the two, 3C is clearly a transformative use of Three’s Company,” she writes. “3C conjures up Three’s Company by way of familiar character elements, settings and plot themes, and uses them to turn Three’s Company’s sunny 1970s Santa Monica into an upside-down, dark version of itself. DLT might not like the transformation, but it is a transformation nonetheless.”
More likely, the more correct assertion would be that DLT might really like money, but they can't get any out of Adjmi just because some elements of Three's Company appear in his parody and transformative play.
Walmart. Just saying the company's name is usually enough to evoke unbidden brain-sounds of terrifying organ music and images of pitchfork-wielding devil-imps. But, hey, it's a large business that's been around for quite a while, so I guess it's doing alright. It seems to me that somebody might want to call a meeting with the Walmart legal brain trust, because the company's campaign against a silly and simple parody website isn't achieving much of anything at all, and is in fact Streisanding the parody site into national views.
This story starts back in 2012, when ICANN saw fit to hold a firesale on domain extensions. Buying them up was all the rage for reasons unfathomable to this author. Still, that was the impetus for how we arrived at Walmart going after a site with a .horse extension.
That explains why, for the mere price of $29, you can now purchase a .horse domain name, if you want to do such a thing. "With .HORSE, there are no hurdles between equine enthusiasts on the Internet," says United Domains. "Giddy up and register .HORSE today!" It doesn't seem like too many people have been receptive to this pun-based sales pitch, but a 34-year-old named Jeph Jacques saw the opportunity for what he calls an "art project."
"I thought, 'Alright I'm gonna buy this and do something stupid with it and see what happens," he told me. And readers, he did just that.
This grand art project? Buying up the domain www.walmart.horse, slapping a picture of the front of a Walmart store with a, you guessed it, horse superimposed over the top, and declaring the whole thing a monumental artistic success. Seriously, this is the only thing at the website if you go there.
Monet it might not be, but the image is suddenly competing with the likes of famous artists for attention and views thanks to Walmart freaking the hell out about it. In its infamous wisdom, Walmart and its crackerjack legal team have demanded that the whole shebang be taken down, claiming infringement of trademark. The C&D letter Walmart helpfully sent along suggested that Jacques' website would confuse customers into thinking that Walmart, who is not in either the business of horses nor in the business of having a sense of humor, might have some affiliation to walmart.horse. Interestingly, the letter targets the domain name, rather than the image on the site itself. I'm not personally aware of any infringement claim on domain name being refuted by the actual extension used, but this would seem to be a ripe candidate for that argument, given that Walmart is not in the horse business.
But this really shouldn't even get that far, given the whole purpose of the site itself and the artistic nature of the creator.
Jacques argues that his site is "an obvious parody and therefore falls under fair use." He also told Walmart in his response that he'd be happy to put a disclaimer on his site to let visitors know he is not actually affiliated with the Waltons. And although he doesn't want to bow to the company just yet, he says he's already proved his original hypothesis: that corporations spend an absurd amount of time policing their trademarks.
Point proven, I suppose. Meanwhile, a tiny joke site has been Streisanded into the national conversation because Walmart just couldn't resist.
On Friday, we had a post about some political comic strips that were posted to the Tumblr blog A Good Cartoon. Whoever is behind that blog (on the blog the name used is "rorus raz," and the post asks people to credit rorus raz, but on Twitter it's "Alan Smithee" which is a popular pseudonym) first posted a bunch of political cartoons by syndicated political cartoonists that demonstrated a near total lack of understanding about net neutrality, and then posted a followup post that took many of those political cartoons and replaced the bubble text with the simple statement "the cartoonist has no idea how net neutrality works." Well-known TV, book, podcast and internet personality John Hodgman then reblogged it on his site.
I first saw it on Hodgman's site and set it aside to write about it. When I got around to it late on Friday afternoon, I noticed, oddly, that the original on A Good Cartoon was now gone. There was no note or anything. It was just gone. However, Hodgman's version was still up, so I wrote about it and posted some (but not all) of the comics and added some additional commentary.
Over the weekend, however, the version on Hodgman's site also disappeared, and Twitter user Michael at BU alerted me to the news that over at A Good Cartoon a DMCA takedown notice had been posted. It appears that the copyright holder representing the cartoonist Chip Bok sent Tumblr a takedown. What's posted to the blog is what Tumblr sent to A Good Cartoon, and not the original takedown notice -- so it's not clear if it was sent via Bok himself or Creators Syndicate, which syndicates Bok's strips. Bizarrely, the notice that's posted to A Good Cartoon is not text and not a single image, but rather each word is a separate image. I have no idea why, but here's the transcribed note:
We've received a notification of alleged copyright infringement on one of your blogs. Here are the details of the content in question:
Description: The work is a copyrighted cartoon by artist Chip Bok. The caption of the cartoon was altered, but the copyright and signature remain, making it look like this work is by the artist, when it is not. You can find an original copy of the cartoon here: http://www.creators.com/editorialcartoons/chip-bok/31500.html
The content has since been removed, in accordance with U.S. law and Tumblr's own copyright policies.
At Tumblr, we implement a strict three-strike policy against copyright infringers. The notice we received counts as one strike against your account. If you receive three uncontested strikes within 18 months, your account will be terminated. You can contest this notification by following the instructions for a DMCA Counter-Notification found here: https://www.tumblr.com/policy/terms-of-service#dmca. A successful counter-notification will remove the strike against your account.
Please note that if your account is terminated for repeat copyright infringement, any new accounts you create will also be terminated.
Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns.
Tumblr Trust & Safety
It would appear that the cartoonist has no idea how fair use works (and the same may be true of Tumblr's "Trust & Safety" staff). Yes, fair use is often a judgment call, but it's difficult to see how this is not classic fair use. It was transformed (as the Tumblr letter even admits), and the transformation was done for the purpose of commentary and criticism of the original -- classic parody, which the courts have recognized as quintessential fair use. Finally, it was not done for commercial reasons and the impact on the market for the original is clearly none (other than the fact that it might make Chip Bok look foolish -- but the courts have been clear that it needs to be the copying, not the commentary that harms the market, and that's clearly not the case here -- i.e., the question is whether or not the copied work might substitute for the original in the market).
To better understand this, we'll post both versions here (which again is fair use, should Bok or his syndicate suddenly wish to try to play this stupid game on us as well). Here's the original:
The line in the bubble doesn't make any sense at all in the context of net neutrality, nor does the message on the TV itself. As we stated in our post on Friday, we already know that the big broadband providers have been the ones who have been deliberately slowing down access to Netflix, resulting in images like the following appearing on people's screens without net neutrality:
And, of course, once Netflix agreed to pay up, suddenly the big ISPs magically figured out how to plug in a few more connections and the speeds went back up:
Part of the point of the FCC's new rules is to prevent this sort of gaming by the big broadband players so that you won't have to see any delay messages at all when downloading a film. So, given all that, it's rather easy to conclude that Chip Bok has no idea how net neutrality works. And, given that, a fairly good way to parody Bok's ignorance is to post the following cartoon:
A Good Cartoon's response to the DMCA takedown is to note, "i'm astonished that chip bok believes people could confuse something he made with something that's actually funny and intelligent." Of course, being embarrassed about a parody does not make it infringing. It's still fair use. So, the most likely conclusion is that Chip Bok (and/or his syndicate) has no idea how fair use works.
Update: Over at his own site Bok is insisting this is not fair use and tossing out all sorts of nonsense about how he's older than everyone and thus understands these things better:
Really, you people should stop hacking my cartoons to make a point. It’s not “fair use”. It’s illegal. Think the FCC will help me out here? You’re destroying my intellectual property and inserting your own stupid message. Are you Chinese? Come up with something on your own.
This is especially funny since Bok's own site is called "Bokbluster" a clear play on the name of "Blockbuster." And, of course, that's a perfectly legitimate way to make use of something someone else created. But, Bok is so hypocritical that apparently he thinks that only he is allowed to build on another's work. Even worse, it appears he's racist, calling someone "Chinese" for criticizing him. That's incredible. And, on the copyright question, Bok is wrong. It is absolutely fair use, as described above. And his "intellectual property" is not being "destroyed" just because someone created a parody. That's not how it works. At all. His further comments show a complete lack of understanding about net neutrality as well. He mis-states the law in question, he mis-states what the FCC has done. Someone really ought to take him aside as suggest he just stop digging.
from the boring-but-not-necessarily-effective dept
China has been trying for some time to clamp down on the Internet, in an attempt to prevent it from being used in ways that threaten the authorities' control. Since the appointment of China's new leader, Xi Jinping, the situation has deteriorated -- China Digital Times speaks of the "new normal" of sharpened control. Here's yet another move to that end, as reported by Reuters:
China will ban from March 1 internet accounts that impersonate people or organizations, and enforce the requirement that people use real names when registering accounts online, its internet watchdog said on Wednesday.
The ban on parody accounts might seem strange, but is likely to have quite an impact on China's online culture:
The ban on impersonations includes accounts that purport to be government bodies, such as China's anti-corruption agency and news organizations like the People's Daily state newspaper, as well as accounts that impersonate foreign leaders, such as U.S. President Barack Obama and Russia's Vladimir Putin, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) said on its website.
Many users of social media create parody accounts of prominent figures and institutions to poke fun at them.
However, once users have registered their real names, they will be permitted to use nicknames, as the new regulation explains:
Internet information service providers shall, according to the principle of "real name backstage, voluntary choice front stage”, demand Internet information service users to register accounts after undergoing real identity information authentication.
Internet information service users shall, when registering accounts, conclude an agreement with the Internet information service provider, and commit to respect the seven baselines of laws and regulations, the Socialist system, the national interest, citizens' lawful rights and interest, the public order, social moral customs and the veracity of information.
The Internet user account name registered and used by any body or individual may not contain the following elements:
(1) content violating the provisions of the Constitution, laws or regulations;
(2) content violating national security, leaking State secrets, subverting the national regime, or destroying national unity;
(3) content harming the honour and interests of the State, or harming the public interest;
(4) content inciting ethnic hatred or ethnic discrimination, or destroying ethnic unity;
(5) content destroying State religious policies, propagating heresy or feudal superstition;
(6) content disseminating rumours, disrupting social order, or destroying social stability;
(7) content disseminating obscenity, sex, gambling, violence, murder, terror or instigating crime;
(8) content defaming or slandering others, or infringing others’ lawful rights and interests;
(9) other content prohibited by laws and administrative regulations.
That's obviously a pretty comprehensive list, and might suggest that the Chinese Internet is doomed to become totally boring -- and completely censored. That may be the authorities' intention, but it's worth bearing in mind that this is not the first time that the Chinese government has attempted to impose real-name registration online.
A fascinating series of five articles on the Fei Chang Dao site details how similar campaigns to tame the online world have been introduced many times since 2003, evidently without much success. Although the current crackdown on Internet freedom certainly appears more serious than earlier ones, it remains to be seen whether the Chinese authorities manage to impose real-name registration on all services, or whether this will turn out to be just the latest in a long string of failures.
There's been plenty of propaganda concerning the net neutrality fight, but with FCC boss Tom Wheeler finally making it official that the FCC is going to move to reclassify broadband, it's kicked into high gear of ridiculousness. An astroturfing front group that's anti-net neutrality is trying to make a "viral" anti-net neutrality video, and it did so in the most bizarre way, by making an attempted parody porno video, based on the classic "cable guy" porno trope. The video is sorta SFW, since the "joke" is that "the government" stops the homeowner from getting naked with the cable guy, but people at work might still question what the hell you're watching:
The video makes no sense at all. You get the sense that some not particularly internet savvy (or, really, clever at all) telco wonks got together and said "how do we make a viral video -- I know, let's pretend it's a porn film!" And then tried to shoehorn in some sort of message. But the "message" appears to be that whoever put together the video doesn't know anything about what net neutrality is.
Next up, we've got a not quite as bad, but still cringe-worthy attempt by CTIA, the lobbying arm of the mobile operators, which has been arguing that mobile broadband shouldn't be covered by the new net neutrality rules (a fight it appears it has lost), posting a ridiculously poorly acted "shill in the street interview" video, in which really bad actors pretend to be average people answering questions about their mobile service. It's clearly scripted, given the overexaggerated reactions and stilted dialog. The funniest bit comes in the first "interview" where this bad actor (who looks like a DC lobbyist) in a DC lobbyist video claims, "Well, Washington isn't actually known for its next-gen thinking, now is it?" No, "real person," it's not.
There's also the second interview, with the woman who shows up pre-shocked, and proceeds to "complain" about the totally fake "new taxes" that are not actually going to show up because of Title II reclassification. And then there's the third guy, who, when prompted to take off his earbuds when the "interviewer" sits next to him and asks what he's listening to, says: "Pandora.... it's free." Because, yes, that's how every "real person" describes what they're listening to. By the price of it. And then, again, unprompted, he explains how great it is that his mobile operator doesn't make him pay for data when listening to Pandora (leaving out the fact that this is because his operator has set in place artificially low data caps). The video concludes with the "regular guy" interviewer saying, "There you have it, the vast majority of Americans are against stagnation, against higher fees and against fewer choices."
Of course, the video doesn't show that at all. And of course, putting wireless under Title II doesn't mean any of those things. In fact, it could mean more choices and lower fees. But who needs details when you have "real" shills in the street?
Finally, we've got an infographic from another front group, called "Mobile Future," whose staffers just happen to include former CTIA and US Telecom Association employees (coincidence, I'm sure). The infographic pretends to show how startups will be hindered by Title II, because now companies can (they claim) take your startup to the FCC to have your service declared unlawful, and you'll have to hire telecom lawyers, and no VC will fund you. Here's a snippet:
This is, of course, complete hogwash. Why not take it from a real venture capitalist, like Fred Wilson (early money into Twitter, Tumblr, Soundcloud, Kickstarter, Etsy and many more). He pointed out the real story of what would happen in a world without these net neutrality rules, where it would make life nearly impossible for startups, because they wouldn't be able to afford to pay the big ISPs to get equal treatment to the major players. Who do you trust? A bunch of DC insiders who have never worked in the startup or venture investing world (their staff appears to include entirely DC-based folks who have either worked in the government or lobbying organizations) or one of the most famous venture capitalists around?
The simple fact is that net neutrality rules help startups. Startups aren't going to have to hire a lawyer to go to the FCC because these are rules for broadband providers, not the services built on top of the broadband. The infographic is pure FUD from an astroturf group acting like sore losers.
I imagine we'll continue to see more of this kind of propaganda, but the laughably bad quality of it all just goes to show how incredibly desperate they've become.
The last time we wrote about Tiger Woods, it was way back in the day when he was best known for putting golf balls in small holes instead of [Ed.: Tim, did you really think we were going to allow this to stay in the post?]. Even back then, however, Woods demonstrated his lack of knowledge concerning the Streisand effect, trying to stifle a story and spotlighting it instead. It seems the lesson has yet to be learned. This go around, Woods has decided to respond to a barely note-worthy piece of obvious satire in Golf Digest by issuing a formal rebuttal to it in The Players' Tribune because... well, I don't know why really. The satire itself is both clearly marked and decidedly vanilla.
If you hadn't seen it—and nobody had, because it wasn't yet online—Woods is apoplectic about a fake Q&A by sportswriting legend Dan Jenkins. It is labeled as "fake" on the cover, and in the headline, and in the table of contents, so no one, not even America's dads, could possibly have believed that it was actually Tiger Woods declaring that he fired caddy swing coach Butch Harmon because "Butchie was making me tip too many people."
There's no exaggeration here when it comes to how clearly this piece is noting its own satire. The damned title of the piece is: My (Fake) Interview With Tiger*: *Or how it plays out in my mind. The fake Q&A includes such scathing satire as:
Q:TV still loves you.
Tiger: The print press still loves you. The average fans still love you. Of course the average fans still love the Kardashians, too, but I feel sure America will find a cure for this someday. I just do what Steiny says.
Yawn. Anyway, the guy that used to be good at golf decided to issue his own formal and very real rebuttal to the fake Tiger that Dan Jenkins created in his head, leading to the very first ever war of words between a real and fictional version of the same professional sports star.
Did you read Dan Jenkins' interview with me in the latest Golf Digest? I hope not. Because it wasn't me. It was some jerk he created to pretend he was talking to me. That's right, Jenkins faked an interview, which fails as parody, and is really more like a grudge-fueled piece of character assassination. Journalistically and ethically, can you sink any lower?
I like to think I have a good sense of humor, and that I'm more than willing to laugh at myself.
Mmm, no on both counts, I think. In the meantime, Woods' going to battle over this has, you guessed it, put a big old spotlight on the now published article. It's, frankly, all the free advertising the author could ever want. And for what? For satire that's barely funny and would have otherwise gone completely unnoticed? That's called landing in the rough, Tiger.
Under a new exception to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1998, which comes into force on Wednesday, people will be allowed to re-use copyright material "for the purposes of parody, caricature or pastiche" without having to ask permission of the original author first.
There is an important caveat. If a parodist is taken to court, it will be up to a judge to decide whether the disputed parody is sufficiently funny.
In broad terms, parody imitates a work for humorous or satirical effect, commenting on the original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target.
Leaving aside the fact that judges tend to be somewhat advanced in years, and are therefore likely to have a very different idea from young creative artists of what "funny" means, there is also the point that this narrow definition excludes a huge class of mashups that aren't even intended to be funny, just creative. As Mike pointed out recently in his article on Kutiman, it's all too easy for this brilliant use of elements taken from elsewhere to be seen as "infringing." The fact that the UK's exceptions do not permit such kinds of originality shows how much its new copyright is still stuck in the past.