I’ll grant you that parody could qualify as fair use, but nothing the OP described could remotely be considered a parody.
Other than it being a you know, a “comic”.
Comics and parodies are not synonymous of course, but there is more than a but of overlap there. I wouldn’t rule out that he is considering a parody at all simply because he is making a comic. That certainly leaves the door open at this point.
As Anson said, nothing in the OP’s description makes it sound like his webcomic could be a parody of Google maps. That means the door’s not open, unless there are more details forthcoming about this comic.
Maybe I am the only one here who knows this?
- Many parodies are comics
- many comics are parodies
therefore
- anything labeled a comic might be a parody
We have no reason to rule it either in or out right now, and so the door is still open due to this.
You understand that in order for a derivative use of google maps to be parody fair use, the comic must be a parody of Google maps? I should think that duch a concept would have been so basic to the question that the OP would have at least alluded to it. Anything is possible of course but barring any forthcoming details about this comic, it’s the better part of discretion to withhold the benefit of the doubt.
Not sure you really understand what parody is, but I don’t want to keep getting sidetracked.
I’m not quite sure why you are making this argument so forcefully. Could the OP’s comic be a parody? Yes. Has the OP said anything to suggest that it is? No.
Let’s move on.
Citation for this please?
Uh yeah I do. The OP could be using Google Maps to make a parody of the US flag or of Andy Warhol’s Soup Can or to place events as captured in historic photos (“I have a Dream” e.g. in various locations, or perhaps he is going to photoshop old subway graffiti onto small towns across America to highlight their decay or something, or a million other things. Who knows.
And maybe it is a parody of Google Maps for all we know. If that is his idea, it may very well be a good one, and it would behoove him not to publish it at this stage lest someone else get there first. Entrepreneurs (and artists alike) are often wise not to reveal what they are working on lest they destroy any market they are looking at by enabling someone else to get there first.
I am making it with the same force as was made the suggestion that the the cartoons are absolutely NOT parody. Rhetorically speaking, when you take an absolute position like that, all it takes is one possible counter example to be shown wrong.
The OP was, would this be Fair Use? Likely not, but the possibility that the work is a parody has to be held open as part of the answer of the question.
Anytime a question like this comes up, the possibility of parody, as well as the possibility of all other Fair Use exemptions must be held open until explicitly shut. Otherwise is it really a full and thoughtful answer to the question?
Under U.S. copyright jurisprudence, the concept of “parody” is defined as using Work A to create Work B in a manner that might otherwise be infringing in order to make some kind of comment on Work A. If you’re just using Work A to comment on something entirely different, then that is satire rather than parody, and satire is much less likely to be considered fair use. The case that held parody as being potentially legitimate fair use was Campbell a/k/a Luke Skyywalker v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994):
IANAL, I have not examined relevant case law, blah blah, but:
If this weren’t the case, you could copy anything you wanted to by simply creating an unrelated third story and claiming that your copyright-infringing work is a parody of that totally unrelated thing. What’d be the point?
Clearly this is the case
We don’t know currently, but I say it is possible, or at least conceivable. The alternative is that you are saying it is impossible to parody Google Street View.
Based on the description so far, I don’t see this applying. One doesn’t have to be a great IP lawyer to argue that the features of the images, such as the mundane ubiquity and the limited eye level views DO have critical bearing on the style and substance of the derivative work.
The OP may not be expressing it as well as s/he could, but that was my understanding. Maybe s/he will create images such as Elvis being captured mowing the lawn at Graceland (and everywhere!) the instant the google vehicle drove by. That seems to qualify.
Of course, one need not be a brilliant lawyer to argue the other side either. Google’s argument may well be that users license the works by accepting the Terms, and as such, there is an enforceable contract, and in a contract we can voluntarily exchange rights we would otherwise be entitled to, blah blah blah.
So there is a dispute here, and that is why we have courts to decide. As noted, the OP should consult an attorney with experience in these matters, and I hope I have raised some good questions for him or her to raise with said attorney rather than precluding any discussion of the merits at all.
No, that is not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that there is nothing in the OP that gives us any reason at all to believe that the OP’s comic intends to parody Google maps. I have asked for more detail, but it has not been forthcoming. Unless and until the OP offers information that gives us some basis to believe that his comic is anything like this, this is barking up an empty tree.
then yo are wrong on that, please consider the possiblity.
He described a series of comics that incorporate photos.
Maybe you are not clear on what comics are? I mentioned upthread about how comics and parody overlap.
If you think the thread is settled, then by all means stop reading, your mind is made up. You go ahead and tell the OP that he has not provided anything worthy of discussion. For myself, I feel otherwise and encourage discussion.
I mean cripes, this is the SD fer crissakes! I might get pages of opining if I ask at what temperature water boils. Why are you so willing to stifle discussion here of the alternatives? Are they not beneficial for the OP or other readers to consider?
Alright, and we’ve agreed with that. But the OP’s question didn’t ask whether parody constituted fair use. We’ve noted that parody could create a fair use exception (as well as criticism, reporting, etc.), but the OP has not said this is a work of parody nor has he said a single thing that suggests it might be. Nothing that he has told us so far constitutes a fair use exception, but that doesn’t mean that new information might change that. Continuing to argue about whether or not comics might be parody is hijacking the thread and ignoring the question the OP is actually asking.
What he asked in his first post was whether what he described would constitute a derivative work, and whether or not google’s “scattershot” images were entitled to copyright protection. He amplifies the latter in his followup post, when he asserts that google only has a copyright for their maps, not the “useless” images in google street view. He brings up the issue of google using thumbnails in their search results as evidence, I suppose, of the lack of copyright protection in derrivative works.
In a third and fourth post, the OP again raises the issue of derivative works:
,
and then…
So again, the OP is raising the issue of derivative works, and he gets more specific by asking whether this might be considered a transformative work.
Does taking an image from google street view out of that context and putting into another work constitute the same sort of transformative work as cutting pages out of a book and pasting them on canvas? The answer is no, because while you own the book, you don’t own the online images.
S/he was asking on what grounds could they justify the use without paying for it more or less. Fair Use is going to be the basis for that, and Parody is one section of that. What is so hard to understand? Why don’t you want the OP to have that part of the answer?
To you maybe. We re not lawyers, but in my experience regarding IP law as a non-lawyer (with similar types of questions), this is an element worth exploring.
If the OP does not know how to phrase the question, because s/he is not familiar with the subject areas, then it is up to the experts (or us :)) to guide the discussion through the fine points. Otherwise we would only have one word answers.
I am not the one arguing if comics are or are not parody - many times they are, many times they are not. The OP most certainly did ask about “comics”, therefore it is fair to hold out the possibility that, by virtue of it being a comic, it is also a parody.
It is others who are arguing that despite the OP being about a comic, it could not possibly be a parody.
Sure, but he is clearly grasping at trying to make sense of a broader topic of which he does not have experience or insight to grasp the whole picture. I’d rather we provide the broader picture.
Not unlike how this community provided the broader picture for Stoid despite her unwillingness to see it. At least it was there for other readers to learn from.
Call me crazy if you think he is arguing from a position of knowledge or experience, or taking a stab in the dark at the first thing that comes to mind (after perhaps an initial query into what the issues are) and the question is part of the process of understanding how he will be able to make these comics without assuming legal unmanageable risk.
If you think he is asking something else, well, all I can say, since this is GQ, not GD, is put yourself inside his head and try to understand why such a question would arise in the first place.
We’ve given that part of the answer. It seems like you want it to be the only part of the answer.
Agreed. And respectfully, your discussion of parody is veering the discussion away from what the OP is asking about.
Really?
The first sentence of the OP is:
How is explaining Parody as Fair Use not germane, but telling me that a comic is not parody, and so a parody defense is not possibly a solution to the OP’s concern proper? With equal respect of course!
I don’t see where anyone ever said that a comic could not be parody. Several of us acknowledged that it could be.
It’s germane to the broader discussion of Fair Use to point out that a comic doesn’t automatically qualify as parody. It could… and again, let me acknowledge that for the record… but nothing that the OP has told us demonstrates that his particular comic does.
I feel like we’re arguing in circles here. When I say that the OP’s comic might not qualify as parody, you respond by saying that it might. So can we just agree that it might and it might not?
nevermind, will be back after edit window expires
But you said in post #8
Aside from the fallacy that because something fall under “Fair Use” it is not a derivative work (but rather a non-infringing derivative work), you are pretty clear that this is NOT allowed under (IYHO) Fair Use, and Parody clearly falls under Fair Use (IMHO).
and in post #21 you said, having reconsidered:
So I ask you to reconsider again that I have described ways in which the OP’s work hints at parody as a defense worth considering by the virtue of the work being described a a comic.
Once again, the first sentence of the OP:
I see a broad question here, one where the OP wants to explore ways in which he might argue his use is allowed without paying exorbitant licensing fees or risking legal issues.
You and Ascenray apparently want to take a very narrow view of what is really on OP’s mind, and want to take me to task for taking the broader view, and that strikes me as both bizarre and pedantic.