But on the contrary, you have adopted a very narrow view which seeks to limit the conversation to a discussion of whether or not the OP’s comic qualifies as parody… to the exclusion of discussing the specific question he has asked.
The comic is not a parody, but feel free to continue debating the question. Personally, I’m waiting for a response back from Google after a request for permission.
My original belief that incorporating small, unrelated pieces of stuff into a work was protected appears to be a myth. I presume that the case I linked to before had an element of parody that made it pass. (Though it does seem like I could argue de minimis – though I’d rather never get to the point of having to make the argument in court, so I’m ignoring that possibility.)
Actually, my first post was #11 and I mentioned topics other than parody, in later posts too. It was you and ascenray that are saying “parody does not apply, can not apply, so stop talking about parody”.
I say, yeah. let’s talk about other points if you have them, as the parody bit was worth the first mention, and a few "oh yeah, there is that to consider too"s. The meta discussion about appropriateness is not coming from me, it is coming from you folks.
Well, maybe to the artist, but not necessarily to the law. since you are asking in the legal realm, the answer would have to come from the legal realm.
Parody requires intent to parodize. Read the definition I posted. “The legal realm” isn’t going to go looking for parody when the author, as in this case, has given no indication that he or she intends to create a parody.
If one has an attorney that represents you that is not wiling to explore all possibilities, and is willing to leave out a possible defense to infringement simply because ascenray says so, then one probably needs a different attorney.
One can create a parody without intending to, just as one can infringe without intending too, say by copying elements of a song. See “My Sweet Lord/George Harrison” for an example of that.
Not_alice, you’re getting very personal here, and I don’t see any reason for it. My very first post said this:
After that point, what happens in these threads is that we discuss ideas and concepts, not give legal advice, either to the OP or to his lawyer.
So when someone brings up a topic like “fair use parody,” participants in the thread are free to analyze the possibility given the facts presented. From what information we have from the OP about his comic, there is no indication that it is a parody.
Does that mean that there is zero chance that it is actually a parody? No. But no one actually said that. And since we are not giving legal advice, it’s essentially irrelevant.
This comparison is nonsensical.
Right, and you just said again, for the how many’th time, that we should not address parody as an infringement defense, immediately after saying we are free to analyze.
It is not me that is being personal, I see it as you telling me to shut up. If you don’t like my answers, no one is making you read them or respond to them. Put me on ignore for all I care.
That’s your opinion and you are welcome to it. If you want it to be MY opinion, I fund your arguments uncompelling and unpersuasive, so you are going to just have to accept that. There is room for your opinions and mine both in this thread, IMHO.
To you, apparently. But then you SAY you want analysis, but then you offer none yourself other than rejection of other’s without any of your own. How is that supposed to be helpful to the OP or anyone?
You clearly have little understanding of what a parody even is or how the law treats it. In the sense that you may be misinforming readers about the state of the law or how the law works, maybe you should be a little bit more circumspect in the degree of aggressiveness with which you state your opinion.
A: “Maybe it’s a fair use parody.”
B: “It doesn’t look like a parody.”
A: “But it still could be a parody.”
B: “There’s no reason to believe given the facts that we have that the law would treat this as a parody.”
A: “But you don’t know that it’s impossible for it to be a parody. So stop telling the OP’s lawyer that it isn’t a parody.”
You’re the one who keeps bringing it up. I gave you the case that defines parody. Show us how anything the OP said could be a parody under that definition.
Did you read the definition of parody? Show me how it could possibly be unintentional.
To the extent that your understanding of the concept of parody and the law in general is fundamentally flawed, it is not really within the scope of this thread to give a complete lesson. On the other hand, the degree of aggressiveness with which you keep saying “But it still might be parody” carries with it the risk of actually increasing the ignorance of people reading this thread.
You know what? I specifically disclaim any interpretions of my posts by you, past or present. YOu insist on telling me I don’t knwo what IO am tlkig about, without ever explaining it.
You seem to have forgotten that the OP’s purpose in posting is to explore ways in which his work may be justified without paying a licensing fee. Collectively, we have done that, and individually and collectively, we have told him that the details matter - including that he is in Japan, not the US - and in the end, if it really matters to him, only an attorney who represents him can advise on the details or the likely result of any negotiations regarding licensing (Including any suits).
Unless you have any specific analysis to bring to your allegations that “I don’t know what I am talking about”, I don’t recommend anyone take you more seriously that I do, and that is not very seriously at all.
Once again, my advice to the OP is this:
*Given your description, in the legal realm all defenses remain open to you. Your budget may preclude pursuing some of them, but technically, they are open based on what you have said. Only an attorney representing you can give you and answer FOR you. We can only advise you on what the next level of issues might be, based on what you shared. Judge for yourself if you want to listen to those that would say avenues are precluded at the same time they say you haven’t provided sufficient details to understand the true nature of the work. I would also say consider carefully if you should be revealing the nature of the work in more detail here, especially if it is or ever could be considered commercial, or have any value of its own.
*
And with that, unless something interesting occurs here, I am out. Good luck with yoru comics!
OK, corssed timing, then I am out.
I have said many times that the mere fact that it is a comic leaves it open to the possibility in the legal realm that it is a parody. See above. I am not going to repeat myself if you can’t demonstrate you understand that much.
“Parody” is not black and white. It is shades of gray, that is why we have courts. Courts don’t rely on dictionaries or definitions, they depend on case law and interpretation base on the matter at hand. If you can’t think of a way that google maps can be used as the OP described, and the work comes out a parody, then why are you discussing this at all?
As I have said repeatedly, maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, and there is nothing speicifc about google maps that prevent them form being parodied, or being part of a parody.
If you know otherwise, that google maps are parody-proof, to coin a phrase, then by all means share with us.
Ah the logic of a seven year old!
That is your opinion. You are the one that seems to be saying that google maps is parody-proof, which strikes me as more than a little bizarre, and to paraphrase your terms, more than a little short of the mark of understanding the nature of parody.
OK, ciao for now!
not_alice said:
No it does not. Not all parodies are comics. Not all comics are parodies. The mere fact that it is a comic says nothing about whether or not it is a parody. Only the means that the google images would be used would determine the use is parody or not.
The OP has said he intends to use the pictures so he can create backgrounds of real places, say in Tokyo. Basically, he wants the backgrounds to look like the real streets. He originally said nothing about the content of the comics, so parody was a minor possibility but unlikelihood given what was stated. His intent said nothing about Google maps and only that he wanted a realistic background and google was a shortcut to having photos of the actual street locations.
Pointing out that a lawyer might wish to examine how parody fits is probably okay. Continuing to argue that the work could very well be parody even when the OP states the use is not intended to parody Google maps is a waste of time.
It is conceivable that the OP could use google images to make backgrounds as a parody. The fact that the OP has stated that is not his intent does make the point moot.
No one has stated that google is parody proof. People have only stated that nothing in the OP’s description sounds like parody, and merely using the street view images in the backgrounds does not make the comic a parody.
This was precisely the point I made when I first mentioned parodies. Is your post a parody? 
And the OP indicated that he plans to make a comic, or series of them. Hence they might be parodied under the law, or they might not be.
You are jokng right? You just said, correctly, what the OP said he intended in part for the content of the comics, and then in the very next sentence denied that the OP said anything about the content of the comics.
I live in a remote area of California - maybe I haven’t gotten the news of a cognitive disorder that is affecting people widely? You are not the first on this here thread to do that!
We simply don’t know enough about his situation, nor even the rules about parodies in Japan, nor how any google licensing would work cross country, or more likely IMHO the copyright to the Tokyo images might held by a Japanese subsidiary, and other legal issues, etc.
I only intended to alert him to the issue, not to argue that his work is a parody. I have not so argued, in fact I argued that he was on shaky ground based on what he said as for any “Fair Use” claim.
“His intent said nothing about Google maps and only that he wanted a realistic background and google was a shortcut to having photos of the actual street locations.”
There! You did it again, but in reverse! This time you say he said nothing about the topic, then in the next clause you correctly quote him as saying precisely what you just said he didn’t say!
It is more than OK, it is the only answer if he is truly concerned about the situation.
Not really. He may not intend for it to be a parody, but that does not mean it won’t qualify legally, or that the argument won’t be sufficiently strong so as to induce the other party to negotiate. The law is funny like that. We simply don’t have enough info about the project or the law to know for sure. But an attorney who represents him most certainly would have all that, and I think someone might have said that upthread. Whoever might that have been?
Nope, sorry, I disagree. We will have to agree to disagree on that. I don’t think that the OP (nor you not I) is well versed in the appropriate case law to decide whether the OP’s “intent” is sufficient or not. That is an argument for an attorney who represents the OP to make, and I suggest, if this matters to him or her, that s/he hire such an attorney to advise.
remember, the goal is to be able to use the images without, or with acceptable (to the OP) licensing fees, not to engage in an academic exercise. Anything that evaluates and advances a strategy with that outcome in mind is helpful at this point.
Well, it seems that way, since people keep saying it cant’ possibly be parody, seemingly because and only because it is google maps. But then again, no one has actually made a clear case on why not, other than leaving that hanging. I urge the OP to consider that no one has made a clear case as to why not, since they keep saying repeatedly (and rightfully so) they don’t know the true nature of the proposed use. But somehow they seem certain to know the legal ins and outs without knowing the details, how odd!
And that is their opinion, but without knowing the details of the proposed use and the relevant laws, they are giving poor advice to the OP if they are suggesting s/he preclude any possible defense to infringement at this point.
Of course not. No one has said that it does, only that comics and parodies intersect more than 0% and less than 100%. Does anyone dispute that?
This thread is beyond ridiculous, but I feel I must respond to a couple points.
not_alice said:
That cognitive disorder is the ability to follow non-time linear descriptions. I’ll try to rephrase since you apparently don’t have that cognitive disorder.
At first he did not provide any description of the intent for use, so it was plausible that parody might fit. Then he did post about his intent, stating he intended to use the google images so he could provide real backgrounds for the story. He wanted to use someone else’s hard work to create backdrops for him so he didn’t have to create them himself. No description of wanting to make it look like Google streetmaps for the purposes of commentary on google or people using maps or the internet, just that he wanted backgrounds that looked like the real streets so he could use real settings. Ergo, no parody.
Perhaps I was unclear. What I intended was that he said nothing about Google maps, only Google street views. Not exactly the same thing, though i suppose one could argue that the street views are a subset of the maps or a tiered feature or otherwise encompassed by the descriptor, “Google maps”. The OPs intent was not to provide maps from Google, but to provide backdrops to his story.
Well, then, you are doing a lousy job expressing yourself, because it sounds like you are saying “Hey, your work may be a parody simply by virtue of being a comic.”
[moderating]
Thread closed at OP’s request.
[/moderating]