"This fan-made trailer for a fictitious “Marvel Ultimate Alliance” movie will have you wondering less about "Who would win in a fight between…," and more about, "Man, how cool would this team-up be?" The trailer, crafted by YouTube user and veteran fan-film creatorAlex [sic] Luthor, takes on the moniker of the video game series by the same name to present a supercut of Marvel characters in film throughout the years, edited to appear as though they are all sharing the screen for one ensemble super-hero movie to end them all."
Showing posts with label transformative work. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transformative work. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
FAN-MADE "MARVEL ULTIMATE ALLIANCE" TRAILER IS INHUMANLY EPIC; Comic Book Resources, 7/12/16
Brandon Staley, Comic Book Resources; FAN-MADE "MARVEL ULTIMATE ALLIANCE" TRAILER IS INHUMANLY EPIC:
Thursday, May 5, 2016
The X-Men: Apocalypse Trailer Cut With Animated Footage Is Perfect; Gizmodo, 5/5/16
Germain Lussier, Gizmodo; The X-Men: Apocalypse Trailer Cut With Animated Footage Is Perfect:
"YouTube user Philysteak took the audio and shots from the latest trailer (which we broke down here) and edited it with very, very similar footage from the ’90s TV show... The trailer is so good, in fact, it got tweeted out not only by Singer, but the film’s producer too. X-Men: Apocalypse opens May 27, but reviews will start rolling in next week."
Friday, April 10, 2015
John E. Walsh, Who Distilled the Bible, Dies at 87; New York Times, 4/8/15
Sam Roberts, New York Times; John E. Walsh, Who Distilled the Bible, Dies at 87:
"The abridged Reader’s Digest version, supervised by the Rev. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament language and literature at Princeton, did not skimp on any of the Ten Commandments and considered favorites like the 23rd Psalm and the Lord’s Prayer to be sacrosanct. But in the end, it boiled down the Old Testament by 50 percent and the New Testament by 25 percent. None of Jesus’ words were changed, but about 10 percent were deleted. Mr. Walsh said he was initially appalled by the notion of tinkering with Scripture, where the Book of Revelation warned against changing “the words of the book of this prophecy.” But Mr. Metzger concluded that the warning really amounted to “an ancient copyright notice.”"
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Google Books hasn't cost authors a dime, company says; ArsTechnica.com, 7/27/12
Cyrus Farivar, ArsTechnica.com; Google Books hasn't cost authors a dime, company says:
"On Friday, Google filed for summary judgment in the Google Books case against the Authors' Guild, renewing its argument that the entire project constitutes fair use. That company argues therefore that it does not need permission from authors in order to scan substantial portions of their work...
More substantially, Google argues that Google Books is a transformative work, and that the company "copied no more of the books than was necessary to create a searchable index, and displays no more of the works than is necessary to allow readers to determine whether the book might be of interest to them."
"On Friday, Google filed for summary judgment in the Google Books case against the Authors' Guild, renewing its argument that the entire project constitutes fair use. That company argues therefore that it does not need permission from authors in order to scan substantial portions of their work...
More substantially, Google argues that Google Books is a transformative work, and that the company "copied no more of the books than was necessary to create a searchable index, and displays no more of the works than is necessary to allow readers to determine whether the book might be of interest to them."
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
If Three Constitutes Company, Add Lawyers to Make It a Crowd; New York Times, 7/17/12
Patrick Healy, New York Times; If Three Constitutes Company, Add Lawyers to Make It a Crowd:
"Most playwrights have jitters on opening night, but David Adjmi was in a panic amid the festivities last month for “3C,” his darkly comic deconstruction of the 1970s sitcom “Three’s Company.” That same day he learned that the copyright owner of “Three’s Company” had sent a cease-and-desist letter to the play’s producers charging that Mr. Adjmi had infringed on the copyright by borrowing so many elements from the TV series, including its premise about a man who pretends to be gay to live with two female roommates.
The show went on — but the copyright fight remains far from resolved.
At issue is whether “3C” is enough of a parody of “Three’s Company” to be protected under First Amendment exceptions to copyright law — specifically, under the legal doctrine of fair use, which allows artists to use copyrighted work to lampoon or critique the material, as the international hit “Forbidden Broadway” has done for years with its sendups of famous musicals."
"Most playwrights have jitters on opening night, but David Adjmi was in a panic amid the festivities last month for “3C,” his darkly comic deconstruction of the 1970s sitcom “Three’s Company.” That same day he learned that the copyright owner of “Three’s Company” had sent a cease-and-desist letter to the play’s producers charging that Mr. Adjmi had infringed on the copyright by borrowing so many elements from the TV series, including its premise about a man who pretends to be gay to live with two female roommates.
The show went on — but the copyright fight remains far from resolved.
At issue is whether “3C” is enough of a parody of “Three’s Company” to be protected under First Amendment exceptions to copyright law — specifically, under the legal doctrine of fair use, which allows artists to use copyrighted work to lampoon or critique the material, as the international hit “Forbidden Broadway” has done for years with its sendups of famous musicals."
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Obama Image Copyright Case Is Settled; New York Times, 1/12/11
David W. Dunlap, New York Times; Obama Image Copyright Case Is Settled:
"The Associated Press and the artist Shepard Fairey have settled their copyright battle over the unlicensed use by Mr. Fairey of an A.P. photograph of Barack Obama in the memorable 2008 “Hope” poster. The A.P. announced the settlement on Wednesday.
Under the agreement, The A.P. and Mr. Fairey are to share the rights to make posters and merchandise bearing the “Hope” image, which was based on a photo taken by Mannie Garcia in 2006, and collaborate on a project in which Mr. Fairey will create a series of images based on A.P. photographs. There was also an undisclosed financial settlement.
Perhaps most significantly, the two sides agreed to disagree on whether copyright law was infringed."
"The Associated Press and the artist Shepard Fairey have settled their copyright battle over the unlicensed use by Mr. Fairey of an A.P. photograph of Barack Obama in the memorable 2008 “Hope” poster. The A.P. announced the settlement on Wednesday.
Under the agreement, The A.P. and Mr. Fairey are to share the rights to make posters and merchandise bearing the “Hope” image, which was based on a photo taken by Mannie Garcia in 2006, and collaborate on a project in which Mr. Fairey will create a series of images based on A.P. photographs. There was also an undisclosed financial settlement.
Perhaps most significantly, the two sides agreed to disagree on whether copyright law was infringed."
Sunday, August 16, 2009
The Sincerest Form of Lawsuit Bait; New York Times, 8/16/09
Charles McGrath via New York Times; The Sincerest Form of Lawsuit Bait:
"But Mr. Colting’s book has nevertheless become a literary cause célèbre, with a number of legal experts, including one from The New York Times, seeking to overturn the judge’s decision. The argument is that the Colting text is “transformative”: that instead of being a mere rip-off, it adds something original and substantive to Mr. Salinger’s version. This is the same principle Alice Randall appealed to in 2001 when she fought the estate of Margaret Mitchell over her right to publish “The Wind Done Gone,” her parody of “Gone With the Wind,” told from the point of view of Scarlett’s half-sister, a slave. The case was eventually settled when Ms. Randall’s publisher agreed to make a donation to Morehouse College, in Ms. Mitchell’s hometown, Atlanta.
Something similar happened with “Lo’s Diary,” by Pia Pera, which retells Vladimir Nabokov’s “Lolita” from Lo’s point of view and argues, incidentally, that Humbert did not kill Quilty. Dmitri Nabokov, the author’s son and a zealous protector of his father’s legacy, initially objected but then came around for a percentage of the royalties, which he donated to PEN, the writers’ group...
Luckily, “Jane Eyre” was in the public domain, as was “Hamlet” when John Updike wrote “Gertrude and Claudius,” a prequel that re-imagines the “Hamlet story” from the point of view of the guilty couple and explains at last why Gertrude and Claudius got together in the first place: he was master of some sweaty sexual techniques apparently unknown to his brother.
Books that are still in copyright are a more complicated challenge for the would-be writer of prequels and sequels. This is partly because a lot of money is sometimes at stake. The Mitchell estate was so fussy about protecting “Gone With the Wind” because the franchise is a gold mine. Alexandra Ripley’s “Scarlett,” an authorized sequel, was a huge best seller in 1991, even though the critics sniffed at it. Living authors, moreover, are understandably attached to their characters and creations and may not want to think of them as demented, say, or having problems with bladder control. Where do you draw the line between critique or parody and outright exploitation?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/weekinreview/16mcgrath.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=jane%20austen&st=cse
"But Mr. Colting’s book has nevertheless become a literary cause célèbre, with a number of legal experts, including one from The New York Times, seeking to overturn the judge’s decision. The argument is that the Colting text is “transformative”: that instead of being a mere rip-off, it adds something original and substantive to Mr. Salinger’s version. This is the same principle Alice Randall appealed to in 2001 when she fought the estate of Margaret Mitchell over her right to publish “The Wind Done Gone,” her parody of “Gone With the Wind,” told from the point of view of Scarlett’s half-sister, a slave. The case was eventually settled when Ms. Randall’s publisher agreed to make a donation to Morehouse College, in Ms. Mitchell’s hometown, Atlanta.
Something similar happened with “Lo’s Diary,” by Pia Pera, which retells Vladimir Nabokov’s “Lolita” from Lo’s point of view and argues, incidentally, that Humbert did not kill Quilty. Dmitri Nabokov, the author’s son and a zealous protector of his father’s legacy, initially objected but then came around for a percentage of the royalties, which he donated to PEN, the writers’ group...
Luckily, “Jane Eyre” was in the public domain, as was “Hamlet” when John Updike wrote “Gertrude and Claudius,” a prequel that re-imagines the “Hamlet story” from the point of view of the guilty couple and explains at last why Gertrude and Claudius got together in the first place: he was master of some sweaty sexual techniques apparently unknown to his brother.
Books that are still in copyright are a more complicated challenge for the would-be writer of prequels and sequels. This is partly because a lot of money is sometimes at stake. The Mitchell estate was so fussy about protecting “Gone With the Wind” because the franchise is a gold mine. Alexandra Ripley’s “Scarlett,” an authorized sequel, was a huge best seller in 1991, even though the critics sniffed at it. Living authors, moreover, are understandably attached to their characters and creations and may not want to think of them as demented, say, or having problems with bladder control. Where do you draw the line between critique or parody and outright exploitation?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/weekinreview/16mcgrath.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=jane%20austen&st=cse
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Copyright Cops Go After Town For Creating Little Mermaid Statue; Tech Dirt, 7/31/09
Mike Masnick via Tech Dirt; Copyright Cops Go After Town For Creating Little Mermaid Statue:
"Dan sends in yet another story about copyright gone wrong. Apparently the small town of Greenville Michigan has a strong Danish heritage, and wanted to show that off with some artifact representing Denmark. It chose the iconic Little Mermaid statue, based on Hans Christian Andersen's story, and a similar iconic statue in Denmark. Apparently, however, the family of the artist who created the statue in Denmark is trying to clamp down and is demanding a lump sum payment or that the statue be taken down. The actual artist died in 1959... but thanks to recent extensions in copyright (yippee), copyright now lasts life plus seventy years.
Of course, I'm wondering if the statue even violates the copyright at all. While the town says it was inspired by the one in Denmark, the actual statue is different:
At about 30 inches high, it's half the size of the original and has a different face and other distinct features, including larger breasts. "We've gotten a lot of heat about that too," he says.
Considering that so much of the statue is different, is it even a copyright violation at all?"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0337175728.shtml
"Dan sends in yet another story about copyright gone wrong. Apparently the small town of Greenville Michigan has a strong Danish heritage, and wanted to show that off with some artifact representing Denmark. It chose the iconic Little Mermaid statue, based on Hans Christian Andersen's story, and a similar iconic statue in Denmark. Apparently, however, the family of the artist who created the statue in Denmark is trying to clamp down and is demanding a lump sum payment or that the statue be taken down. The actual artist died in 1959... but thanks to recent extensions in copyright (yippee), copyright now lasts life plus seventy years.
Of course, I'm wondering if the statue even violates the copyright at all. While the town says it was inspired by the one in Denmark, the actual statue is different:
At about 30 inches high, it's half the size of the original and has a different face and other distinct features, including larger breasts. "We've gotten a lot of heat about that too," he says.
Considering that so much of the statue is different, is it even a copyright violation at all?"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0337175728.shtml
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Holden Caulfield, a Ripe 76, Heads to Court Again; New York Times, 6/17/09
A.G. Sulzberger via New York Times; Holden Caulfield, a Ripe 76, Heads to Court Again:
"The case is one of several in recent years exploring how much license the public has to draw on a classic work. In 2001 the estate of Margaret Mitchell, author of “Gone With the Wind,” sued unsuccessfully to prevent the release of “The Wind Done Gone,” which told the same story from the perspective of a slave. Last year J. K. Rowling, the author of the best-selling Harry Potter books, won a lawsuit over a guidebook to the series called The Harry Potter Lexicon.
“This case is really interesting because it really is where copyright runs into First Amendment rights, and it shows the jagged line between them,” said Jennifer Jenkins, director of the Center for the Study of the Public Domain at Duke Law School, who also was part of the legal team that defended the publisher in “The Wind Done Gone” lawsuit.
In examining questions of fair use of copyrighted work, courts have looked at whether a new work transforms the original in a significant way, Ms. Jenkins said, citing a Supreme Court ruling that a legitimate work must add “something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/books/17salinger.html?ref=arts
"The case is one of several in recent years exploring how much license the public has to draw on a classic work. In 2001 the estate of Margaret Mitchell, author of “Gone With the Wind,” sued unsuccessfully to prevent the release of “The Wind Done Gone,” which told the same story from the perspective of a slave. Last year J. K. Rowling, the author of the best-selling Harry Potter books, won a lawsuit over a guidebook to the series called The Harry Potter Lexicon.
“This case is really interesting because it really is where copyright runs into First Amendment rights, and it shows the jagged line between them,” said Jennifer Jenkins, director of the Center for the Study of the Public Domain at Duke Law School, who also was part of the legal team that defended the publisher in “The Wind Done Gone” lawsuit.
In examining questions of fair use of copyrighted work, courts have looked at whether a new work transforms the original in a significant way, Ms. Jenkins said, citing a Supreme Court ruling that a legitimate work must add “something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/books/17salinger.html?ref=arts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)