Brave New World

the brave new world of education on homosexuality:

Where I come from, you dumbshit, we mind our own business and don't waste time worrying about who's gay and who's straight.

Aaron Xpac3 Mvx3vm

"[email]" wrote:

Gays consider it very important who is, and who is not gay and who is straight; are you saying the interests of gays are unimportant?

"Walter Traprock" wrote in message news:[email]...

You seem to be the most interested in who's gay and who is not. So by your logic that makes you gay.

That's OK though. It's the 21st century.

I say that you are using the logical fallacy of the straw man to try to win arguments.

Aaron Xpac3 Mvx3vm

[email] wrote:

just in case you have not seen this yet..

"Charles Paisley (The Baby Crusher)" wrote in message news:[email]...

I also posted a link. The parody does unfortunately use some of the artwork from a real Chick tract, so there is a certain amount of copy infringement. Chick's lawyers try to make people take it down wherever they find it. I'm not convinced they could win in court (or even try) if someone said no, though. If the artist had just drawn it all himself (or herself), there would be no copyright issue whatsoever. Maybe a future project.

R Flowers wrote...

I'm pretty sure parody is protected under copyright law, the exception being that it needs to be fairly obvious it is a parody. I just read the fake tract linked to above and the scary thing is that looks just like any authentic Chick tract. The part about Cthulhu and the Necronomicon seems ludicrous, but I took a copy of Necronomicon to work for Halloween once and a xian co-worker completely flipped out over it, he actually believed that it had the power to summon demons from Hell. The parody does become obvious when the tract urges the reader to read Necronomicon, all real Chick tracts ecourage the reader to read only the bible, then only the official KJV that Jebus himself used.

"Seamore Tush" wrote in message news:kZpqf.40788$[email]...

Parody is indeed excluded from copyright law, but things get dicey when you just plain reproduce significant portions of a work, as was done with the artwork here. A few years ago, Margaret Mitchell's estate sued an author who wrote a book called "The Wind Done Gone." (Mitchell wrote "Gone with the Wind.") The book retold the story through the persepective of the slaves at Tara. One court ruled this to be infringement, even though nothing was literally copied. An appeals court reversed that decision, but before anything could be resolved, the parties settled.

You can read about it here: http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16230

(Now I will see if anyone thinks "freedomforum.org" is a bunch of right-wing whackos and extremists...)

R Flowers wrote:

A rather provocative comment, Mr Flowers.

"Sparky Spartacus" wrote in message news:0Nvqf.1388$[email]...

Sorry... it's all this egg nog. Well, nog period, as a matter of fact.

In article , "R Flowers" wrote:

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994).

There's nothing special, either for or against, regarding parody in copyright law. It's analyzed under fair-use, just like the case of pretty much any other unauthorized copying or making of derivative works.

"Tim Smith" wrote in message news:[email]...

Wouldn't be the first time :)

I was not trying to make the point that parody was not fair use.

If we're talking about the Chick tract parody, I'm not sure how a court case would come out. There is artwork in it that is copied directly from one of his tracts. Regarding the Campbell vs. Acuff case, it looks as though the material wasn't just copied directly, is that correct? As for direct sampling, things do seem to be a little more restrictive. (http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,64884,00.html - I admit, I couldn't find to many actual cases about such things, but I'm at work and should be doing other stuff :)

If we're talking about "Wind Done Gone," the case was ultimately settled between the 2 parties. It would have been interesting to see the ultimate ruling on it if it had gone on.

R Flowers wrote...

As for artwork, well it is very subjective whether two drawings look the same. I love the cartoon "Drawn Together" on Comedy Central and they always are throwing in well-known cartoon characters, like Elmer Fudd and that pink feline thing in the episode where Xandor comes out of the closet. Or they had Speedy Gonzalez in there a few weeks ago, all coked out and sniffling as he proclaims himself to be the fastest mouse in the world. Or the Strawberry Sweetcake whose people committed genocide against the Sockbats, or they did a whole episode based on "Schoolhouse Rock" complete with identical artwork plus new songs in the same exact style. And of course since this is cross- posted to the Simpsons group, there is South Park's episode "Simpsons Already Did It" which features Butters thinking of evil plots that have already been done in some Simpsons episode, and at the end the animation is done in Simpsons style.

So my point is that there is plenty of precedent for such parody, I don't think Chick stands a chance in Yog Sogoth of winning a lawsuit.

"Charles Paisley (The Baby Crusher)" wrote:

There's something sick about that comic.

More sick than Chick?

couldn't be..

Walter Traprock wrote:

Therefore, you are gay. QED

"Walter Traprock" wrote in message news:[email]...

This MUST be a joke........PLEASE say it is so !!

Tell me that people don't really take these comics SERIOUSLY ??

I thought xianity was tacky enuf when I saw that Robert Tilton ann Jim Bakker were both back on the air shilling for money from rich old widows, the ignorant and the theologically insane....

...but these Chick things are just PLAIN OUTRIGHT FUCKING RETARDED !!!

They remind me alot of vintage pics I saw of old Nazi-era German anti-Jewish posters from the 1930's that depicted Jews as rats and worse....

This guy Jack Chick was born 70 years too late! He would have made a great cartoonist for Goebbels and Goering.