Comments on: comics & copyright, but not comics-specific

By: ⌘f | reading list

⌘f | reading list — Thu, 20 May 2010 06:05:20 +0000

[...] Anne-Marie Deitering, in her info-fetishist blog, “comics & copyright, but not comics-specific“. [...]

By: Shaun Huston

Shaun Huston — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:28:43 +0000

Sara: That’s a good question. The similarities in the prose are arguably more striking (or damning) than the the ones between the images. However, the text is not quite identical, “hungry or sleepy” vs. “tired or happy”, but even if it were, the recontextualization of the words – page in a book vs. a standalone sticker – would seem to justify a fair use argument for Emily. More importantly, and this is something Anne-Marie and I talked out in thinking about your question, the similarities in the images reproduced above, and all over the internets right now, does not, by itself, make the case for Emily writ large as a copy of Rosamond. I think that Emily’s creators have discontinued the use of this image in response to the controversy, but their character has clearly grown beyond whatever inspiration is evidenced above.

By: Sara J

Sara J — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:41:09 +0000

But what about the identical text?

By: Anne-Marie

Anne-Marie — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:42:03 +0000

Barbara - that ASCAP story is nuts! And then I think, really, only a baby step further than trying to get documentarians to pay for background music they can't control.

By: caleb

caleb — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 05:38:37 +0000

thanks for this!

By: Barbara

Barbara — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:20:55 +0000

An indication of just how crazy out-of-control the concept of property has got, ASCAP is suing AT&T because when their customers' phones ring in public places and they bought a musical ring tone, they neglected to purchase performance rights that are necessary should the phone rings in a public place. Now, that's crazy. There's an interesting working paper from the Harvard Business School that argues copyright is not an incentive for creativity. Ironic to read the same day that a jury decides Jammie Thomas should pay nearly 2 million for downloading some songs. That's foaming-at-the-mouth righteous anger, there.

By: Shaun Huston

Shaun Huston — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:52:33 +0000

Thanks for the link. Did not know you had done this – and with pictures !