"It would have been quite easy to transform it sufficiently. The simplest concept that occurred to me.."
there's something in that; I was thinking the same. but what if the subverter is not a cartoonish/artist and could not do this sufficiently well as to be acceptable?
the graphical transformation of the images is not the work. the ability and will to transform the originals in the context of the debate is what is being done. the originals were presented as a "wtf?" and the lampooning images appeared pretty much alongside; that's the work/transformation.
US Copyright Law, Section 107 would seem to disagree with your assessment of fair use.
besides, the context of this redirection of his work is in the larger scope of the whole debate. the work done is not the graphical/textual overdub but is the background research (something Mr Bok quite clearly failed in) and the expression of intelligence behind the clean and simple subversion of the original meaning.
not using the original image would defeat the point. the source of the parody was perhaps not a cartoonist. should that have stopped them from being able to skewer the aggressive misunderstanding of the original in an intelligent, topical and biting fashion?
there is no denying Mr Bk's profile has no doubt been raised by all this. he's now a more famous twit than he was before. he should be happy.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by monkoii.
Re: Transformation? Not. Parody? Insufficient.
"It would have been quite easy to transform it sufficiently. The simplest concept that occurred to me.."
there's something in that; I was thinking the same. but what if the subverter is not a cartoonish/artist and could not do this sufficiently well as to be acceptable?
the graphical transformation of the images is not the work. the ability and will to transform the originals in the context of the debate is what is being done. the originals were presented as a "wtf?" and the lampooning images appeared pretty much alongside; that's the work/transformation.
Re: Chip Bok
US Copyright Law, Section 107 would seem to disagree with your assessment of fair use.
besides, the context of this redirection of his work is in the larger scope of the whole debate. the work done is not the graphical/textual overdub but is the background research (something Mr Bok quite clearly failed in) and the expression of intelligence behind the clean and simple subversion of the original meaning.
not using the original image would defeat the point. the source of the parody was perhaps not a cartoonist. should that have stopped them from being able to skewer the aggressive misunderstanding of the original in an intelligent, topical and biting fashion?
there is no denying Mr Bk's profile has no doubt been raised by all this. he's now a more famous twit than he was before. he should be happy.