Bad Magic Photos

[Isabella]

Parody is an original work of art BASED on someone else's work - it's not just making fun of an original work.

So South Park can parody Les Miserables by writing a piece that sounds like a Les Miz song and singing it in a Les Miz style, but they can't play the original song and have their characters talk about how terrible it is (or even how great it is), unless they license the song and pay royalties.

Incidentally, in Canada, one does not have the right to parody; in the USA it's a little murky but generally legal. This gets particularly funky in parody music, because the songwriter, the lyrics writer, and the arranger all have a vested interest.

[Steven Ragatz]

Tom,

You're right, and I think it is unfortunate that you've had your website images ridiculed like that. I saw that link a few days ago from a different reference than p.net and was less than impressed with this particular magician's tact and professionalism. Yeah, I was still amused by the pictures, but we've all got weak points that are easy targets for ridicule. Cheap shots all around. If it bothers you enough, you may just need to get new photos done and move on ignoring those who need to put others down in order to feel better about themselves.

No, it is not a parody, it is just petty trash talk.

Unfortunately, this is one of those situations that I keep this around for:

http://www.stevenragatz.com/bh.htm

Steven Ragatz

[tacrowl]

Steven,

Liked the form!

What bothered me more was the use of my material without permission. I can take a cheap shot here and there. I've been getting them since I spoke up.

Tom

[RiffRaff]

My pics are no longer on the site. Guess Google didn't see it as a parody either.

Tom:
Just because Google took it down does not mean that they did not see it as parody.

Isabella:
Here's the definition of parody from Stanford University:
"A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to "conjure up" the original."
Here's the link:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html

[Daniel Mooncalf]

Google removes almost anything they get a complaint on... especially if they sound like a litigious motherfucker.

I also think that it wouldn't be considered a copywrite issue, unless you are using it to make money. I'm more than willing to accept being wrong on that point, though.

[tacrowl]

"A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way.

RiffRaff,
They didn't imitate it, they used the original. I recommend if you ever want an actual answer on the subject, you consult a copyright attorney.
Tom

[Evan Young]

My understanding of the law is that you are allowed to use the original as long as comment on it. So, they are in fact within their rights using your picture. You can air an entire movie on TV without paying royalties as long as you say something about it every 30 seconds.

side note: the site asked me if I wanted to advertise my photography services with them and I'm choosing not too because I don't like how it makes people feel... They claim they are trying to help the industry, but it's a little mean spirited.

[tacrowl]

Rather than discuss "understandings" of the law, I recommend consulting a copyright attorney before you attempt something along that line. This is a business guys. That means laws and taxes. You hire an accountant to do the books - but you are going to trust the legal aspects to your "understandings"? Just using a stock contract too?

My view point was based on my consultation with a lawyer regarding this subject several years ago. I'm apt to go with his view since I paid him and he had the legal degree.

Evan - I think you made a good call on connecting yourself with the blog.

Tom

[Evan Young]

This is an actual legitimate discussion Tom. Just because you hired a lawyer several years ago doesn't prove your point or add any meaning to the topic. We don't know what you hired that lawyer for or what he actually said. Calm down and explain your point of view, don't just say "because it is"; that's lame.

He posted your pictures to make comments on the pictures themselves, which seems like fair use (excuse the wiki link, I'm lazy).
If he had posted them in order to make fun of you then it might be a different story.
If he posted your picture in order to advertise his own entertainment company that you were not a part of then it would be a different story.
If he had posted your picture because he likes ducks it might be a different story.

But he posted your picture because the only way to make fun of it is to post it. They do the same thing every night on the Daily Show.

[Doctor Eric]

The point is moot anyway, Tom. You complained and the photo got pulled, but what remains is your lack of comprehension as to WHY you got ripped in the first place. I don't think the guy is very funny, and Evan is right, half of it is just mean spirited, without a punchline. But the guy tore your photo apart because it was.... duh-duh-duh-duh-DUH! ... a bad magic photo. If one guy thinks it, then other people do, too. Rather than whining about a blog that no one sees (I'm sure the fact that it got posted here doubled its hits for the month), why not take the time to see that maybe you should get some better shots done?

Legally, no, you don't have a leg to stand on. Then again, who cares? Neither one of you is profiting, or losing money from this situation.

[tacrowl]

Just because you hired a lawyer several years ago doesn't prove your point or add any meaning to the topic. "

Very true Evan. Just as the legal interpretations here do not prove a point or add meaning to the topic. Even your Wikipedia link states fair use is decided on a case by case basis.

I based my decision on legal advice provided in a past situation. If you want to discuss that, fine, but I won't do it on an open forum. In this situation, no matter if I was right or sounding like a "litigious motherfucker" as Daniel said, my pics were removed.

If one guy thinks it, then other people do, too. Rather than whining about a blog that no one sees (I'm sure the fact that it got posted here doubled its hits for the month), why not take the time to see that maybe you should get some better shots done?

Because a 22 year old kid from Canada thinks I'm lame? Because you do? Think what you want, I'm earning a living. Speaking of living - I guess I should stop wasting time with this. You are right - no money involved.

Tom

[Doctor Eric]

OR... You can get pissy.

You're right, why bother paying attention to public opinion? I mean, it's not like your job has anything to do with what the public thinks, right?

[RiffRaff]

RiffRaff,
They didn't imitate it, they used the original. I recommend if you ever want an actual answer on the subject, you consult a copyright attorney.
Tom

How the hell are you going to ridicule a picture if you don't use the original??!!!

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and I am not offering legal advice.

[Evan Young]

How the hell are you going to ridicule a picture if you don't use the original??!!!

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and I am not offering legal advice.

Love the fine print, made me laugh!

[Evan Young]

128 people clicked to the showoff show site because of the badmagicphotos compliments of our picture. Hopefully it's helping our youtube ratings as well as our google ratings.


that's my business model, invest a bunch of time and effort into quality material and promo. No lawyers needed for that!