Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Clearing up the copyright/trademark confusion
Changed line(s) 5,6 (click to see context) from:
*** Plots you can use in new works, but I'm guessing using copyrighted titles of other movies as your own would be illegal. It's the same reason They Might Be Giants had to call their song "AKA Driver" instead of "NyQuil Driver". Free speech applies to the content of a work, but the title of a work is trademark infringement.
*** You also can't copyright a title. You can trademark it, which is some extremely stupid legal distinction.
*** You also can't copyright a title. You can trademark it, which is some extremely stupid legal distinction.
to:
*** Plots you can use in new works, but I'm guessing using copyrighted trademarked titles of other movies as your own would be illegal. It's the same reason They Might Be Giants had to call their song "AKA Driver" instead of "NyQuil Driver". Free speech applies to the content of a work, but the title of a work is trademark infringement.
*** You also can't copyright a title. You can trademark it, which is some extremely stupid legal distinction.infringement.
*** You also can't copyright a title. You can trademark it, which is some extremely stupid legal distinction.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 13 (click to see context) from:
*** Exactly. Really, it's more or less an ExcusePlot for the "[[InsistentTerminology sweded]]" films.
to:
*** Exactly. Really, it's more or less an ExcusePlot for the "[[InsistentTerminology sweded]]" films.films.
*** Kind of a moot point as they showed why they couldn't do the sensible options: they couldn't find replacement tapes on short notice to begin with.
*** Kind of a moot point as they showed why they couldn't do the sensible options: they couldn't find replacement tapes on short notice to begin with.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:
*** Not really. In the case of Website/ThatGuyWithTheGlasses, they make money off of the advertising of their videos, which contain Fair-Use copyrighted material. Making money directly, through the sale or rental of the tapes, is illegal.
to:
*** Not really. In the case of Website/ThatGuyWithTheGlasses, Website/ChannelAwesome, they make money off of the advertising of their videos, which contain Fair-Use copyrighted material. Making money directly, through the sale or rental of the tapes, is illegal.
Changed line(s) 11 (click to see context) from:
* The ''premise'' just bugs me. When faced with such a problem, anyone with half a brain would have thought of far less ridiculous solutions.
to:
* The ''premise'' just bugs me. When faced with such a problem, anyone with half a brain would have thought of far less ridiculous solutions.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
*** Plots you can use in new works, but I'm guessing using copyrighted titles of other movies as your own would be illegal. It's the same reason They Might Be Giants had to call their song "AKA Driver" instead of "NyQuil Driver". Free speech applies to content of a work, but the title of a work is trademark infringement.
to:
*** Plots you can use in new works, but I'm guessing using copyrighted titles of other movies as your own would be illegal. It's the same reason They Might Be Giants had to call their song "AKA Driver" instead of "NyQuil Driver". Free speech applies to the content of a work, but the title of a work is trademark infringement.
Changed line(s) 10 (click to see context) from:
*** I thought there was a ruling, district Judge Richard Matsch, July 2006. Stating that the edited practices violated U.S. copyright law.
to:
*** I thought there was a ruling, district District Judge Richard Matsch, July 2006. Stating that the edited practices violated U.S. copyright law.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 10 (click to see context) from:
*** I thought there was a ruling, district Judge Richard Matsch, July 2006. stating that the edited practices violated U.S. copyright law.
to:
*** I thought there was a ruling, district Judge Richard Matsch, July 2006. stating Stating that the edited practices violated U.S. copyright law.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** I thought there was a ruling, district Judge Richard Matsch, July 2006. stating that the edited practices violated U.S. copyright law.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:
**** Not really. In the case of ThatGuyWithTheGlasses, they make money off of the advertising of their videos, which contain Fair-Use copyrighted material. Making money directly, through the sale or rental of the tapes, is illegal.
to:
**** Not really. In the case of ThatGuyWithTheGlasses, Website/ThatGuyWithTheGlasses, they make money off of the advertising of their videos, which contain Fair-Use copyrighted material. Making money directly, through the sale or rental of the tapes, is illegal.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 9 (click to see context) from:
** What they did may or may not have been legal. There was a similar lawsuit involving CleanFlicks, but it was settled out of court, so the issue was never decided. They aren't making unauthorized copies since they are recording their movies on tapes that were already licensed to have that movie. THey were repurposing an existing copy of a movie, not makign a copy. This is besides the parody issue.
to:
** What they did may or may not have been legal. There was a similar lawsuit involving CleanFlicks, but it was settled out of court, so the issue was never decided. They aren't making unauthorized copies since they are recording their movies on tapes that were already licensed to have that movie. THey They were repurposing an existing copy of a movie, not makign making a copy. This is besides the parody issue.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Adding legal explanation
Added DiffLines:
** What they did may or may not have been legal. There was a similar lawsuit involving CleanFlicks, but it was settled out of court, so the issue was never decided. They aren't making unauthorized copies since they are recording their movies on tapes that were already licensed to have that movie. THey were repurposing an existing copy of a movie, not makign a copy. This is besides the parody issue.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
not just him.
Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:
**** Not really. In the case of guys like the NostalgiaCritic, they make money off of the advertising of their videos, which contain Fair-Use copyrighted material. Making money directly, through the sale or rental of the tapes, is illegal.
to:
**** Not really. In the case of guys like the NostalgiaCritic, ThatGuyWithTheGlasses, they make money off of the advertising of their videos, which contain Fair-Use copyrighted material. Making money directly, through the sale or rental of the tapes, is illegal.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** Not really. In the case of guys like the NostalgiaCritic, they make money off of the advertising of their videos, which contain Fair-Use copyrighted material. Making money directly, through the sale or rental of the tapes, is illegal.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 10 (click to see context) from:
*** Exactly. Really, it's more an ExcusePlot for the "[[InsistentTerminology sweded]]" films.
to:
*** Exactly. Really, it's more or less an ExcusePlot for the "[[InsistentTerminology sweded]]" films.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 9 (click to see context) from:
** It's a comedy, not meant to be taken seriously. On top of that, they were both presented as pretty much idiots to begin with, and one of them had just gotten his brain fried (the cause of the initial problem in the first place).
to:
** It's a comedy, not meant to be taken seriously. On top of that, they were both presented as pretty much idiots to begin with, and one of them had just gotten his brain fried (the cause of the initial problem in the first place).place).
*** Exactly. Really, it's more an ExcusePlot for the "[[InsistentTerminology sweded]]" films.
*** Exactly. Really, it's more an ExcusePlot for the "[[InsistentTerminology sweded]]" films.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
* The ''premise'' just bugs me. When faced with such a problem, anyone with half a brain would have thought of far less ridiculous solutions.
to:
* The ''premise'' just bugs me. When faced with such a problem, anyone with half a brain would have thought of far less ridiculous solutions.solutions.
** It's a comedy, not meant to be taken seriously. On top of that, they were both presented as pretty much idiots to begin with, and one of them had just gotten his brain fried (the cause of the initial problem in the first place).
** It's a comedy, not meant to be taken seriously. On top of that, they were both presented as pretty much idiots to begin with, and one of them had just gotten his brain fried (the cause of the initial problem in the first place).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
** It's more they were marketing and selling the tapes as if they were the real deal (with the original box-art and cast-listings including people who had nothing to do with making the parody).
to:
** It's more they were marketing and selling the tapes as if they were the real deal (with the original box-art and cast-listings including people who had nothing to do with making the parody).parody).
* The ''premise'' just bugs me. When faced with such a problem, anyone with half a brain would have thought of far less ridiculous solutions.
* The ''premise'' just bugs me. When faced with such a problem, anyone with half a brain would have thought of far less ridiculous solutions.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
** I thought they didn't get in trouble because of the content, rather because of the tapes themselves. Like, because it was illegal to tape over them and use them for money-making purposes.
to:
** I thought they didn't get in trouble because of the content, rather because of the tapes themselves. Like, because it was illegal to tape over them and use them for money-making purposes.purposes.
**It's more they were marketing and selling the tapes as if they were the real deal (with the original box-art and cast-listings including people who had nothing to do with making the parody).
**It's more they were marketing and selling the tapes as if they were the real deal (with the original box-art and cast-listings including people who had nothing to do with making the parody).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
**** You also can't copyright a title. You can trademark it, which is some extremely stupid legal distinction.
to:
**** You also can't copyright a title. You can trademark it, which is some extremely stupid legal distinction.distinction.
** I thought they didn't get in trouble because of the content, rather because of the tapes themselves. Like, because it was illegal to tape over them and use them for money-making purposes.
** I thought they didn't get in trouble because of the content, rather because of the tapes themselves. Like, because it was illegal to tape over them and use them for money-making purposes.
