Yeah, I think so too -- but I worry that a court wouldn't see it in such a way, though I could be wrong.
My IANAL understanding is that satire has a lesser degree of protection than parody, due to the fact that parody, by its definition, requires use of the original, whereas satire doesn't. An article arguing as much: http://grove.ufl.edu/~techlaw/vol9/issue1/collado.html And the court precedent in the states: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/9956f7fcc672f7cd88256e5a0071e93a?OpenDocument So no, satire doesn't seem as protected as parody. SF ~ ~ ~ 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 10:46 AM, Rob Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Fred Benenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > 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 think that it *had* to be the NYT. It's the paper of record for the > US. And it's the only one that would achieve this degree of > international media impact. > > Satire should have fair use/fair dealing protection. :-/ > > - 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
