The 11/04 episode blatantly plagarised characters, designs, music, and concepts from the TV series "Star Trek". Since Viacom has proven that they are not above clobbering fans over Star Trek related web sites, their next target may be Braniff, over this episode, for the reasons stated above.
In article , [email] wrote:
(I could take a sarcastic bent, but that wouldn't get us anywhere)
I wouldn't bet on it. Let's see - Viacom jointly owns Comedy Central, and SouthPark is written by Braniff for Comedy Central. Now that would be interesting, legally speaking.
Then I guess they can also sue Saturday Night Live, In Living Color, The Tonight Show, and countless other sitcoms and magazines that have parodied Star Trek.
Try again.
Richard Gardineer wrote in message ... |The 11/04 episode blatantly plagarised characters, designs, music, and |concepts from the TV series "Star Trek". Since Viacom has proven that |they are not above clobbering fans over Star Trek related web sites, |their next target may be Braniff, over this episode, for the reasons |stated above. |
|
There's a difference between Plagiarizing (directly stealing) and spoofing (making fun of)
Jeff
yup.
Parady != plagorism.
To set the record straight: ** Braniff Airlines went out of business in 1982. ** Trey and Matt bought the rights to the Braniff logo. ** You can't get sued for doing a parody.
Matthew Coyle
[email] wrote:
In article , [email] says...
I don't know what planet your from, but here on my planet you can't sue or otherwise collect royalties/damages for a comedy show doing a parody. There is a huge diference between a paradoy on a TV show and a "fan site" that contains actual copyrighted material (pictures, sound and movie files, trademarked names etc), and no the little triangle swoosh thing is not protected. It may resemble the Star Trek emblems, but it not the actual emblem.
I believe if you spoof or use another product/idea in satire, you don't need any sort of legal permission...
Sean Walsh aka slw67 wrote:
I was not writing about Trey and Matt satarizing Star Trek; the characters, logos, sets, storyline, "mind meld", and music are recogniziably from Star Trek. I'd say that Trey and Matt plagarized instead of satarized. If they had satarized, they would have created variations/exaggerations on above, to lampoon said elements. Instead, they explicitly ripped off Star Trek.
In article , [email] wrote:
It's what you call social satire. Now, as you are a blatant troll, you are going into my killfile. Plonk.
In article you write:
Sean Walsh aka slw67 wrote:
-I was not writing about Trey and Matt satarizing Star Trek; the characters, -logos, sets, storyline, "mind meld", and music are recogniziably from Star -Trek. I'd say that Trey and Matt plagarized instead of satarized. If they -had satarized, they would have created variations/exaggerations on above, to -lampoon said elements. Instead, they explicitly ripped off Star Trek.
Um, excuse me Mr Cochran,
Using hypnotic Kenny Loggins riffs and laser shows to hypnotise students into loving plane ariums would not be considered a variation/lampoon/exaggeration of the Star Trek plotline? A school counselor (irony!) having the ability to reach child's minds (we've already seen some of his mind expansion take place, mmkay?) Without anyone to talk the doctor through the lameness of the plane arium machine isnt' an exaggeration on the climax of the star trek ep? Are you missing perhaps the fact that maybe another thing they are trying to say is that Dagger of the Mind is an utter crap episode, which imho it is? Should Weird Al have been dragged through legal coals because the costuming & sets to his Fat video were identical to Bad? Should Sam Donaldson get rid of his wig just so Ted Koppel will have the worst hair on ABC?
Ryan G
Not that this is relevant to the South Park/Star Trek parodies, but Weird Al and Michael Jackson were (are?) pretty good friends and Michael specifically _gave_ Weird Al the sets and costumes so that Al could make a really good parody.
As far as South Park/Star Trek goes, it's pretty obvious it was a parody, not a ripoff, and anyone who thinks otherwise lacks a sense of humour.
This entire string is a perfect example of why people with an IQ over that of a cucumber actually go to law school and learn about such complex matters as the protection of intellectual property.
For those of you who even care to be educated as to the actual position of the american legal system on the issue of PARODY, read 15 USC 100 et seq. (for those who do not understand the citation, it is chapter 15 of the United States Code, sections 100 and on ....106, for those without patience, contains the recognized exceptions to the copyright owners exclusive rights, including definition of parody works)
There is also an entire collection of case law discussing the issue of parody use and creative license.
No doubt the intellecutally devoid amongst this group will respond negatively to this posting of information.....insecurity and feelings of inadequacy will do this.
The intelligent will read the section, and be that much more informed.
<<The 11/04 episode blatantly plagarised characters, designs, music, and concepts from the TV series "Star Trek". Since Viacom has proven that they are not above clobbering fans over Star Trek related web sites, their next target may be Braniff, over this episode, for the reasons stated above.
It wasn't a new episode. It had already been shown (first airing, 9/2/1998, the day I started school this year :-(...) and Viacom didn't get pissed off.
In article , Richard Gardineer writes:
Viacom? Why would they care about Paramount's stuff?
On 15 Nov 1998 15:28:25 GMT, [email] (BRaines000) wrote:
They're the same company. Viacom owns Paramount, MTV, VH1, Nick at Nite, and Blockbuster Video (actually, now that I think about it, I think they sold Blockbuster. But they still own the others.)
skull
Viacom also half-owns Comedy Central There would be no lawsuit, even if it was plagiarism, which it **ISN'T!** (Now please drop the damn subject!)
Matthew Coyle