If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NY Daily News)   NY Daily News threatens to sue over "GOD TO FORD: DROP DEAD" parody   (chickenhead.com) divider line 44
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

12492 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Dec 2006 at 1:57 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



44 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2006-12-29 01:33:43 PM
Fighting that pesky first amendment is something every fine newspapers should do.
 
2006-12-29 01:44:59 PM
The response was pretty well-written.
 
2006-12-29 02:00:37 PM
God to Chevy: BITE MY ASS.

/Ford boy? Pshnaw...Mitsubishi all the way...
//DRTFA becuase it's FARKED.
 
2006-12-29 02:02:03 PM
That shiat's funny!
 
2006-12-29 02:03:01 PM
Heheh. Well that attempt to stop anyone seeing it didn't work out too well now did it?

How many billions is that so far heheh?
 
2006-12-29 02:03:12 PM
can't RTFA; all you farkers are flooding the website
 
2006-12-29 02:03:19 PM
I don't get it.
 
2006-12-29 02:03:34 PM
ChairmanKaga:

Fighting that pesky first amendment is something every fine newspapers should do.

what the hell does the first amendment have to do with a dispute between two private parties?
 
2006-12-29 02:04:11 PM
"God to Ford: Drop Dead" looks like it should be a palindrome or anagram.
 
2006-12-29 02:06:32 PM
Was the fair use/parody ruling based on first amendment rights? If so that would explain CK's comment.

I'm too lazy/don't care enough to find out.

That response was damn funny though.

/slashies
 
2006-12-29 02:07:19 PM
nerfball
what the hell does the first amendment have to do with a dispute between two private parties?

Looks like, and according to the rebuttal letter, more a cast of fair use than anything First Amendment related. Daily News is more concerned with - at least, legally - the use of their copyrighted header over text they don't agree with. However, they may have a problem, considering while it is parody, it's using the Daily News name and logo and all of that for their parody, which to the stupider members of our species be interpreted as a genuine Daily News headline.

So, we'll see how this goes, but I don't think it has anything to do with the First Amendment, yeah.
 
2006-12-29 02:07:50 PM
page farked in 3..2..
 
2006-12-29 02:09:32 PM
Saddam Hussein's got more life in him than that link ...

Maybe Castro too.
 
2006-12-29 02:13:06 PM
FalloutX:

So, we'll see how this goes, but I don't think it has anything to do with the First Amendment, yeah.

the constitutoin outlines the relationship between the government and the governed. it does not regulate activity between private parties. the actual wording of the first amendment starts "Congress shall make no law..."

how someone thinks a civil action between two parties involves congress passing a certain law, i have no idea.
 
2006-12-29 02:14:13 PM
FARK TO WEBSITE WITH LITTLE BANDWIDTH: DROP DEAD
 
2006-12-29 02:14:57 PM
FalloutX: However, they may have a problem, considering while it is parody, it's using the Daily News name and logo and all of that for their parody, which to the stupider members of our species be interpreted as a genuine Daily News headline.

Actually, the use of the name and logo are trademark issues, not copyright. However, the fair use and parody copyright claims would most likely preempt any trademark claims. (putting trademark before copyright extends copyright protection further than the 8-billion years copyright holders already get, etc., etc...)

That was pretty damn funny...and would probably succeed as a fair use.

/liked the Squeaky quote.
 
2006-12-29 02:18:33 PM
nerfball: the constitutoin outlines the relationship between the government and the governed. it does not regulate activity between private parties. the actual wording of the first amendment starts "Congress shall make no law..."

how someone thinks a civil action between two parties involves congress passing a certain law, i have no idea.


When one party uses federal law (copyright, in this case) to silence another, then matters do start to fall into the realm of the first amendment.

That said, I think fair use remains a much stronger claim as was referred to in the response letter.
 
2006-12-29 02:19:39 PM
Idiot Daily News. Flattery is the best form of publicity. They can use all the publicity they can get since the NY Post has taken the market share of mouth breathing retards as their "readers", if one can even call their lip-moving quasi-literate (mostly used to read the comics and the sports pages) clientelle as able to actually read anything from cover to cover, espeically if it's more advanced than lyrics by Diddy.

/wipes spit off mouth
//we are infected with teh stupid here in NYC
///ignores own run ons and grammatical errors above
 
2006-12-29 02:21:39 PM
Yes, fair use is a First Amendment issue. If not for fair use, the argument goes, copyright law would be an example of Congress making a law which abridges freedom of expression. The issue was raised as far back as the drafting of the Bill of Rights itself, when the First Amendment was seen by some as a response to Congress' ability to "regulate" the press by means of granting copyrights. I have the reference in an article I wrote a long time ago, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

I trust this also answers the question of how First Amendment issues can be raised in a private dispute between non-governmental parties.
 
2006-12-29 02:26:42 PM
img158.imageshack.us
 
2006-12-29 02:27:43 PM
BMulligan: Yes, fair use is a First Amendment issue.

Actually, you're sort of conflating a few concepts there. "Fair Use" is a specific doctrine that came about in the US in the 1840's. The original copyright was pretty limited; the current copyright law grants far more rights to the copyright owner. Giving a fair use of the material keeps things from being an absolute monopoly. First amendment claims are closer to misuse; keeping someone else from saying something based on the copyrights that you own.

/off the top of my head.
 
2006-12-29 02:29:49 PM
Hooray! Civics lessons can be fun!
 
2006-12-29 02:34:11 PM
Why does the all caps remind me of the HeadOn ad now?

Ford: Apply directly casket

/aisle seat
 
2006-12-29 02:34:16 PM
Now THAT would have been a BRILLIANT Fark Headline....
 
2006-12-29 02:35:28 PM
That bit about the kilo of Paxil is great.

/knows someone who once snorted a line of Wellbutrin
 
2006-12-29 02:38:19 PM
Anyone who says this is a First Amendment issue is dead wrong. The power to protect the copyrghts is a task explicitly given to Congress in the Constitution, and courts have universally upheld that the First Amendment does not invalidate copyright or trademark protection. This issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

This is an issue of fair use. Now, courts have upheld that parody is considered fair use and not a violation of copyright.

HOWEVER,

There is also the issue of trademark. I'm not so sure about trademark law; I'd be inclined to guess that parody is NOT NECESSARILY "fair use" of a trademark. (But IANAL; I don't know. A lot of parodies seem to take great care not to use trademarks.)
 
2006-12-29 02:42:05 PM
Why does the all caps remind me of the HeadOn ad now?

Saw an ad for that on TV for the first time over the holidays while visiting family. I actually stood there with my jaw open, unable to believe that was a real ad.

I thought it was some web ad that Farkers had taken to their usual extremes. I think my exact words were "holy crap, that thing is real???"
 
2006-12-29 02:51:21 PM
ls_slacker:

Actually, you're sort of conflating a few concepts there.

Your fair use primer is accurate - you obviously know a bit about this subject - but I'm not the one doing the conflating here. The courts have been doing it for years. Consider, e.g., Triangle Publications, Inc., v. Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc., 626 F.2d 1171, 1174 (5th Cir. 1980): "The fair use doctrine frequently serves to eliminate potential conflicts between copyright and free speech."
 
2006-12-29 02:51:58 PM
ls_slacker

When one party uses federal law (copyright, in this case) to silence another, then matters do start to fall into the realm of the first amendment.

There is enough precedent in copyright and trademark law that I doubt the First Amendment comes directly into play--the courts have already established its place in this whole mess. It's very unlikely that a court would set a new precedent in copyright law using the First Amendment as the law in effect.
 
2006-12-29 02:54:51 PM
BMulligan: Your fair use primer is accurate - you obviously know a bit about this subject - but I'm not the one doing the conflating here.

Just because the courts conflate the two issues (and I'll agree; they do) doesn't mean that you aren't doing some conflating of your own, also.
 
2006-12-29 02:56:01 PM
Oh, now I get it. I remember seeing the "NYT to Infocom: Drop Dead" headline used when they were forced to change the name of The New Zork Times, but I never knew there was a reference there.

Sometimes things only make sense after an entirely too long time.
 
2006-12-29 02:59:00 PM
aerojockey: There is enough precedent in copyright and trademark law that I doubt the First Amendment comes directly into play--the courts have already established its place in this whole mess.

In other words, although you've partially quoted what I typed, you agree with the part that you conveniently didn't quote. That is, that this would be a "fair use" case (17 USC 107, for those keeping score), and first amendment wouldn't really come into play.
 
2006-12-29 03:07:08 PM
I work at a newspaper (no really).
I don't see the legal issues here. The fair use/trademark argument could be launched for the use of the Daily News' flag, which I assume is copyrighted.
But that's about all I see causing said panties to bunch.
If he would have changed the font, or typeface he could laugh all the way to the bank.

/No representation is made that the quasi-educated legal opinions expressed here are any better than those provided by other farkers.
 
2006-12-29 03:23:30 PM
ls_slacker:

Just because the courts conflate the two issues (and I'll agree; they do) doesn't mean that you aren't doing some conflating of your own, also.

Fair enough - I'm just reliving the "Copyright and the First Amendment" class that I enjoyed so much, and getting a bit overenthusiastic about it. However, in recognition of the season and in honor of the recently deceased Pres. Gerald R. Ford, I hereby resolve to "Whip Conflation Now."
 
2006-12-29 03:33:21 PM
BMulligan: However, in recognition of the season and in honor of the recently deceased Pres. Gerald R. Ford, I hereby resolve to "Whip Conflation Now."

Heh! That's funny.

/No worries.
 
2006-12-29 04:15:46 PM
That Betty Ford makes my pants get conflated.

img399.imageshack.us

i'd hit it.
 
2006-12-29 04:18:24 PM
The only issue is the verbatim usage of "Daily news" and it exact banner/trademark. Any subdtantive change would have resolved it.

/still weak but real
 
2006-12-29 04:21:34 PM
I had seen the parody on Chickenhead's excellent whitehouse.org site when it came out. I thought it was pretty funny.

Too bad the Daily News has to be such arseholes about it... if it makes it to court, they will lose painfully.
 
2006-12-29 08:53:02 PM
BMulligan FTW!
 
2006-12-29 09:53:15 PM
Technically I can see their point. Unauthorized use of their masthead, URL, etc. But they didn't have to be jerks about it.
 
2006-12-29 11:00:40 PM
www.usgraphicdesigns.com
 
2006-12-29 11:17:45 PM
The mainstream media thinking they're above the law?

I refuse to believe it!
 
2006-12-30 01:01:27 AM
Wow. I bet the owner of that site got a boner when he saw he was getting sued. He probably had all his responses already made and everything. Its what every site that has an opinion dreams of. Thats when you know you've "made it."
 
2006-12-30 02:59:03 AM
Ford was an asshole anyway. He's surely along with Saddam in hell. They are probably farking together with Satan right now and they wait for Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report