Dude, nobody cares about your obsessive comparisons to criticisms of other candidates or past politicians.
I mean, if you really want to, go for it: do some sort of data mining study, count up all the words on Techdirt discussing each of these people, rank them on a scale of how critical they are, crunch the numbers and give us a report on precisely how hard we've been on every politician. We'll gladly look at it and say "hm, interesting" - then we'll get back to doing what we do, which is comment on important policy issues as they come up.
Other than that, get over it! Trump is gonna be president, and so we're going to spend a lot of time analyzing and criticizing him. That sort of comes with the territory. We're not going to add a footnote to every post saying "Clinton and Obama also suck" just to keep reminding you.
Re: Playboy, Kotaku Misreport On Nintendo Firing Employee
That writer says "citation needed" after the assertion that gamergate is a harassment campaign under the guise of being about ethics in games journalism - so he's either a naive fool, or a lying part of gamergate himself. Either way, not much credibility.
Oh please. That's trash and you know it. Of course it's different.
One is a single comment that has been blown massively out of proportion, and even if you do want to obsess over the comment itself, he's never repeated it or attempted to stand behind it, and there is an at-least-reasonable argument that it made sense in context (one accepted by the people in the best possible position to refute it).
The other is an individual on a years-long campaign of repeatedly making the same false claim thousands of times, using the law to attempt to force people to acknowledge it, and constantly attempting to extract financial rewards on top of all that. And the claim is actively, loudly refuted by the best possible people in a position to do so (including many of the same people).
If you honestly think one is "no better" than the other... Look again.
Weird Al always seeks permission from the artist, usually after having recorded the songs. In cases where he does not get it, he often releases the songs for free online anyway, and simply foregoes "commercial" release on his albums - and seems to base this on a personal decision about whether or not he wants to respect the artist's wishes and reasons. But I'm sure legal might enters into it: he's stated that he doesn't want to anger anyone, but also that he's not interested in testing any legal grey areas (and fair use is one big grey area).
What he doesn't do, to my knowledge, is seek or obtain a license from the artist, because he likely doesn't need one as someone making parodies. In fact though the term permission is frequently used, given the fact that he's made free releases after being denied it and many of these agreements appear to be somewhat informal, I think it would be more accurate to say he seeks the "blessing" of the artists.
That might sound fine in isolation. But you also have to consider the body of court rulings and successful threat letters and the like, and the impossible constraints they have placed on any sort of appropriation art or parody. Here you consider the combination of style and composition copying, even with different subject matter, to be over the line - but consider this:
And that's just a few examples from the visual arts. If we include literature, you've got books being banned for not even using the same content at all, just building on the same subject matter. If you head to music, you have an entirely new legal landscape shaped by different rulings (and believe it or not it's even more restrictive).
Then add to all this the fact that the uncertainty itself further weakens fair use and stifles creativity, because it makes creators think twice about pursuing any idea that involves any form of appropriation or copying.
Well, in this case the creator argues that their work is a sort of two-directional commentary highlighting the dissonance between the two styles - and as such is a commentary on both Seuss and Star Trek.
That said, I think you're right: it's very hard to distinguish this from Seuss v. Penguin. But that underlines how absurd the limitations of fair use and the obsession with "parody" is, and just how completely subjective that determination is. Besides, even setting aside the parody question, both this and "The Cat NOT In The Hat" should, under any reasonable interpretation of fair use, have been protected anyway - they are highly transformative, there's no reason to believe they'd have *any* impact on the market for the original, and there's hardly a "substantial" portion copied since almost nothing has been directly copied at all - just a style. Add to this that it's about as clear as mud just how far copyright coverage of a "style" goes (and extremely debatable whether such coverage should exist at all).
Sadly, that is not the attitude of many courts. Those courts are incorrect, and are putting copyright into direct conflict with freedom of speech by not broadly interpreting fair use as they should be.
*The purpose of this case isn't to determine whether the copyright on the films is valid*
Um, what? Who ever claimed that was the purpose of this case? I spend quite some time at the beginning of the post pointing out that the copyright status of the film is not in dispute.
It's odd that you think this is such an inevitable, inarguable ruling, or that you think a different ruling would someone drag the entire Wizard Of Oz movie into the public domain... Neither of those things are true.
I know. This sounds crazy. I struggle to understand how the result could be so absurd myself. To clarify even further:
The court said that what matters is not that the added lined is itself somehow infringing - what matters is that the added line "associates" the public domain image with the film. And somehow, that means the shirt is no longer simply using a public domain image, it's infringing on the film.
The line of text could be "Guy from that story about Oz, you know the one" and that would be infringing too according to this ruling.
Oh I know, but the copyright on a song does not cover people simply using the name of the song - that's absurd. But actually that's not even the issue...
Here's the REALLY crazy part: check out what the ruling says. It doesn't say the fact that the line came from the film is what matters - in fact, it explicitly says that even using a line from the original book makes this shirt infringing.
Yup, amazingly, the court said the opposite of what you're saying. And I quote:
“[products] that each juxtapose an image extracted from an item of publicity material with another image extracted from elsewhere in the publicity materials, or with a printed phrase from the book underlying the subject film, to create a new composite work” are infringing
Okay but... 21 states don't have such laws. Many more states it is unclear. Is such voter intimidation rampant in those places? And moreover, does shaming people who proudly post their ballots on twitter accomplish anything related to that problem?
Besides - I didn't call for an end to all forms of ballot secrecy, and I certainly don't think anyone should be able to find out who you voted for if you don't want them to...
Surely if such a law is on the frontlines of preventing vote buying, then we'd see much more evidence of vote buying in the 21 states where ballot selfies are legal, no? Besides, clearly the best way to provide evidence of your vote in an illegal vote-buying scheme would be to send the photo *privately* to the person paying you - so enforcing the "no photography in the polling place" law at the level of people who are posting selfies on Twitter seems entirely pointless. As for whether people should be searched for cameras before they vote -- well, I think we'd require evidence that vote buying is a huge problem before that came anywhere close to an acceptable violation of civil liberties OR a reasonable administrative delay to add to the voting process.