Comments on: Copyright and Parody

By: Murray

Murray — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 04:45:53 +0000

Screw em.

Humourless bitches.

We own their asses lock stock etc.

By: lyndon

lyndon — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 02:36:48 +0000

To summarise Graeme on PA (hopefully accurately): The Bill of Rights applies here. But a credit is not unreasonable. (If, in this case, obvious.)

By: Fatal Paradox

Fatal Paradox — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 01:54:47 +0000

This lack of tolerance on the part of governmental and quasi-governmental organizations towards parody and satire is rather depressing – as I recall during last year’s election campaign the Workers Party also got a lawyer’s letter from the Smokefree Coalition complaining about their posters riffing on the well-known “Smoking: it just isn’t cool” campaign…

By: Put it away

Put it away — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 01:11:37 +0000

Uhhh, WTF ? Who paid for this orange man’s creation again ? Oh yeah, it was us , the taxpayers.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 01:01:45 +0000

Hey Orange Man, tell Nanny to “Foxtrot Oscar”

By: Inventory2

Inventory2 — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:34:57 +0000

The Electoral Commission needs to lighten up a little

http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2009/07/todays-referendum-1472009.html

By: lyndon

lyndon — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:07:20 +0000

I understood there was going to be a discussion document on a satire and parody exemption for the minister to approve shortly after the election. (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0809/S00481.htm)

I’m assuming it wasn’t approved?

Incidentally, most of the arguments for satire or parody (that I can think of) also apply to collages/mashups. So there could be a slippery slope (I’m in favour BTW), but while I rate it very slippery it would be fairly short.

Also, it would make the no-satire rule for Parliament TV footage a bit hypocritical, no?

And finally, since the election types (I’m told) only require a credit in their general copyright terms anyway, why didn’t they just ask for one?

By: aardvark

aardvark — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:05:34 +0000

Since this copyright is owned by the crown and the crown holds such copyright in trust for the people of NZ, it stands to reason therefore that the copyright is the property of all Kiwis and can be used as such, without license, payment or threat of prosecution.

For the state to claim otherwise would be a blatant abuse of power and a rort — since it’s *our* tax money that paid for the creation of the intellectual property in question.

By: s.russell

s.russell — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:47:02 +0000

This reminds me of election night 1993 when TV3 had a great parody of the pathetic MMP referendum education adverts. In it person A explained that under MMP there would either be more Maori seats, the same number of Maori seats or fewer Maori seats. Person B then explain that on the other hand under FPP there would either be more Maori seats, the same number of Maori seats or fewer Maori seats. Both then cursed their total confusion. The advert was a great parody of the way the official campaign bent over so far backwards to be absolutely precisely accurate and impartial that it ended up telling people nothing and leaving them confused.

By: petal

petal — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:38:58 +0000

“in return for explicit reference of the crown copyright, I understand the Electoral Commission has withdrawn its objections”

Wow. More of this common sense and I may have to give up some of my cynicism!

By: Graeme Edgeler

Graeme Edgeler — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:38:07 +0000

Electoral Enrolment Centre.

By: MT_Tinman

MT_Tinman — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:16:26 +0000

“But most people can work out that a question such as “Should gingas be exterminated by 2011″ is not a real referendum.”

Shocked is not the word for it.

I’m devastated!

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:15:06 +0000

There’s always someone who wants to stop people having fun.

By: Danyl Mclauchlan

Danyl Mclauchlan — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:00:13 +0000

should gingas be exterminated by 2011

I have long suspected that DPF is secretly a self-loathing ginga.

By: Ryan Sproull

Ryan Sproull — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:57:10 +0000

I was surprised to learn there are no exemptions for satire and parody.

I bet the creator of that site is a sterling fellow.