Is Tommy Wiseu a meme now?

It seems that, ever since The Nostalgia Critic reviewed The Room, Tommy Wiseu has become a walking meme. Look at these videos and tell me this isn't in the process of becoming the next big meme.

edited 31st Aug '10 3:56:32 PM by IYellalot

I'm seeing that too. "YOU'RE TEARING ME APART, [x]!" shows up really often.

He is nat a meem, it's nat true, it's bullshit! He is nat a meem! He is NAAAAAHT. Oh hi IYellalot.

edited 31st Aug '10 4:47:41 PM by GabrielGloom

I disagree. He was a meme before the Nostalgia Critic.

Really? I'd never even heard of him before that.

Well then, that's your problem isn't it?

Well if a heavy internet user like myself hadn't come across it once before, could it really be called a meme?

Oh, Hi Everybody, I'm Tommy Wiseu.

Can we at least agree that the NC popularized the meme?

No, he forced it by being a great big bloody crybaby who couldn't let the subject go.

Yeah, internet character, etc, etc, but it didn't work on any level. It was just a badly disguised whine.

Note, that the review had been requested by a lot of people, many of who didn't get to see it in the few hours it was up.

And lets not forget it was still really funny.

I got the results of the test back. Tommy Wiseau is definitely a meme.

I'm not sure...

It's up on Know Your Meme, but it was put up 4 months ago, with no real changes over the past 2 months. I'm thinking it's not actually a meme....

Just that a small, vocal, group of people trying to make it one (and failing).

I'm on abou his butthurt reaction to taking the film down.

i just miss the seahorses.

THE SEAHORSES!

Wiseau's copyright claim was unlawful. The Critic had every right to be annoyed about it.

How was it unlawful, exactly?

The whole review falls under "fair use," I believe. If Doug Walker were to take the whole deal to court, he would win.

The problem is, he would need a good lawyer, and that would be too expensive, so he's better of just leaving the review off the site.

edited 1st Sep '10 10:46:58 AM by IYellalot

"I believe". Sure.

But, eh. Channel Awesome has legions of fanbois to call upon in threads like this. I'll duck out before the inevitable swarm.

Dude, no one is getting angry at you about this.

This isn't you Vs the legion of idiotic drooling fanboys. This is people responding to your points with facts.

edited 1st Sep '10 10:55:44 AM by Myrmidon

From the US Coppyright Office's Website

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

• The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
• The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
• The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work. [emphasis mine]
• The nature of the copyrighted work .

The Page further elaborates:

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.” [Emphais still mine]

Clearly, the review falls under fair use.

edited 1st Sep '10 11:46:12 AM by Taelor

The movie is an Old Shame to Wiseau, and he's trying to cuill mentions to it, and whiile the legal basis for it is iffy, copyright claims against Doug's and Lupa's reviews are the easiest way to get any video host back up. None of them want to deal with the MPAA.

Doug was also driven out from youtube on copyright drama. He doesn't want the same situation to repeat, especially over a small independant production that is mostly known for its So Bad, It's Good qualities, and can thank ironic purchases forr about three quarters of its profits.

But Wiseau actively promotes the movie on its narm factor. And it's still distributed and promoted. That's the strange part about it. I would understand it if he wanted to purge the movie from existence like Lucas with the Star Wars Holiday Special. Anyway, how is your sex life?