Anyone willing to make the opening description less... Japan-centric?: Lawyer Friendly Cameo

Actors are far easier to get away with, quick spelling differences, minor parallels, anagrams, quick and dirty accents yada its not limited to having the actual actor show up in the show which just ends up being a gueststar.

These are the actual characters they are not hidden what so ever and just different enough from the original to avoid Copyright Infringement yada, You Wanna Get Sued? style. (boy does that trope need some love.)

edited 16th Jan '12 6:59:22 PM by Raso

For example, the image is pretty accurate - the TMNT are in the picture in the Sonic panel, and it is definitely them. It helps that Archie publishes both.

Another example - Juggernaut passes by Harry, Ron and Hermione◊. I should really add that.

If they publish both then it is not an example that is just a minor crossover no licensing issues are present.

edited 17th Jan '12 6:38:00 AM by Raso

Okay, I'm confused here.

The trope title, quotes, and most of the examples listed, are about (thinly veiled) parody characters because they can't use the original. Fine, that makes sense.

The description however states that the trope is about other comics using the original "somehow".

So which is correct here? This strikes me as two very different tropes.

That's how they managed to have the crossover though, since technically they don't own both properties, just the publishing rights. The Juggernaut-meets-Potter is a clearer example.

Actually the examples need some trimming. The description is correct, it's the examples showing error. Entries like Disgaea are definitely wrong.

edited 17th Jan '12 12:44:49 PM by Ookamikun

So the trope is actually about lawyer-unfriendly cameos, then?

This strikes me as being different from No Celebrities Were Harmed mostly by being The Same But More, but specific to cameos. Do we really need it?

Well, the difference is being that this is meant for brief appearances, used as simple pop culture references, while NCWH is about actual parodies, for a work to riff on a celebrity or icon. With LFC, the work doesn't really make fun of the subjects. they're just there.

This post gets it.

In a way, it is friendly because it's a very brief appearance. Like a panel at most and a few seconds of screentime. James Bond appearing in the modern Pink Panther is another example.

Bump, still no change of description?

I still think my suggestion on post 21 was ok, although of course it could be helped by others adding to it.

I think go with it. It's straight to the point and neutral.

Also, shouldn't the Shary Bobbins character be under Captain Ersatz? I mean, she actually has a role in that episode. Not a cameo.

edited 19th Mar '12 12:03:16 AM by ThatHuman

The rewrite is still awfully Japan-centric, isn't it?

Sometimes fiction leans towards a rather lax interpretation of trademark issues. You may find characters who are not merely an imitation of a character from a popular show, film, or comic, but literally are that character. Somehow.

You can blur their face a bit or simply not name them. If the cameo character is famous enough, you're liable to get away with quite an overt reference.

Better? I don't any more info is that necessary.

It still is?

Well... it does specify manga and anime at one point in the description, even though it's a global trope.

How about this rewrite for the second paragraph:

"You can blur their face a bit or simply not name them. Still, this trope is known enough you can expect any work that featured these frequently will get modified a bit if the an adaptation's sponsors are worried about pissing anyone off. "

Yeah, that's better.