On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Fred Benenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Yeah, I don't think there's any question there of fair use (and forgive me > for if it seemed like I was implying such a thing), but I guess I just have > an increasingly dim view of fair use in the mainstream media -- NYTimes > obviously takes these things well (and has in the past) and is good natured > about media criticism, so I wouldn't expect anything else. > > The more I think about it the more I wonder if it is parody and not satire > -- I don't want to get pedantic here, but I think its more about mocking the > state of America rather than the NYTimes itself. Arguably the NYTimes > declaring the war is over is the heart of the joke, but a substantial amount > of the other work is closer to satire. It is conceivable that you could pull > off this prank with any other newspaper brand, and maybe even with a purely > fictional newspaper itself. I was wondering the same, but in the end, I think it's a combination of both — the project would be intrinsically different if they had printed a bunch of "New York Global Herald" papers and distributed them. They were definitely parodying liberal mainstream media and NYT, being the paragon of the genre, was the natural choice to parody. > > > > F > > > > ~ ~ ~ > thoughts / http://fredbenenson.com/blog > work / http://creativecommons.org > sights / http://flickr.com/fcb > sounds / http://www.last.fm/user/mecredis > status / http://twitter.com/mecredis > > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Dean Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Isn't this pretty clearly protected as a parody? The Gawker post mentions >> is: >> http://gawker.com/5084164/fake-new-york-times-declares-iraq-war-over-heres-who-did-itand >> someone in the comments (somewhere between 50 and 60) says they took a >> bunch into the Times building and most ppl really liked it and it was >> declared (by Times staffers, no idea how high up) to be protected by fair >> use. >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Fred Benenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> Indeed. Forgot to include the NYTimes' reaction here: >>> >>> http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/pranksters-spoof-the-times/ >>> >>> What's great is that no one has brought up copyright infringement once. >>> Oops. >>> >>> >>> F >>> >>> >>> ~ ~ ~ >>> thoughts / http://fredbenenson.com/blog >>> work / http://creativecommons.org >>> sights / http://flickr.com/fcb >>> sounds / http://www.last.fm/user/mecredis >>> status / http://twitter.com/mecredis >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:19 AM, Rob Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:29 AM, Fred Benenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > I had some friends handing out papers and saw them in the hood. >>>> > The nytimes thinks the 1.6 million number is wrong -- they don't even >>>> have >>>> > that kind of distribution in the city. >>>> >>>> Whatever the numbers it's an impressive achievement. (Whether you >>>> agree with the politics of it or not.) I've seen spoof newspapers >>>> before (I still have one from the May Day protests in London years >>>> ago) but this really seems to have caught people's imagination and >>>> international media attention. >>>> >>>> - Rob. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Discuss mailing list >>>> Discuss@freeculture.org >>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> Discuss@freeculture.org >>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@freeculture.org >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@freeculture.org http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
