Re: Lame "dilution" assertion by United Feature Syndicate, Inc.

On Wed, Apr 21, 1999, Vance R. Koven <vrkoven[_at_]world.std.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/20/99, Adrienne Meddock <ameddock[_at_]bambi.acc.nccu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Judge Posner wrote an influential article claiming that target
> > parody, as it is becoming known, is fair use, but mere borrowings
> > that do not make fun of the source upon which the parody version
> > is based are really derivative works and must seek permission and
> > pay the original author.
>
> The Tenth Circuit took on this argument in the Cardtoons case
> (Cardtoons, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Assn.) and did a
> pretty good job of refuting it in the case of social satire that is
> not a plausible substitute for the original. Unfortunately for the
> law, this discussion was probably dictum because the parody baseball
> cards in that case were pretty clearly "target parody." Also, of
> course, the issue in that case was not copyright, or even (in that
> part of the case) trademark, but right of publicity. I must say that
> the panel in the Tenth Circuit went out of its way to take swipes at
> the Seuss and Velvis cases; the case is worth reading just for fun.
>
> The cases on parody and satire strike me as another good reason to
> insist on arts education for everyone at the earliest possible entry
> point. Even the judges are completely lacking in understanding on
> how art and literature require the ability to use previously created
> work in fashioning new work.
>
> Stravinsky said, "A great artist does not borrow; he steals."

It is good to know that so many members of the legal community are concerned with the abuse of copyright and trademark law to suppress free speech.

Let me also apologize for some sloppy posting: I generally get very annoyed by the number of typos in newsgroup messages, but I have learned that I am very often guilty myself. A corrrection to my last posting:

   "...the author finds Dilbert cartoons and its ilk to be PROFOUNDLY    BANAL. I think that's a valid statement. But I could easily    imagine some judges missing that point."

Michael R. Juhre
AIG Law Dept.
70 Pine Street, 28/70
New York, NY 10270
tel (212) 770-3446
fax (212) 480-6310
<michael.juhre[_at_]aig.com> Received on Thu Apr 22 1999 - 14:20:28 GMT