Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
That is NOT what happened in our conversation. Damn gideongallery. Are you even existing in the real world? Go back and READ what I said about REAL comedians having an art and a craft and that they would find downfall funny but would not in their professional opinions consider it to be true parody. And then I gave you the examples of professional parodies and pointed out that even though downfall is funny...it only required a person to have a funny idea, nothing more. Nothing new was created and it required no skills.
And then I pointed out that you don't have the skill set to do a REAL parody.
Look gideongallery...you could sample a guitar playing and call it "creating" music and the courts would agree with you. As a REAL musician I would say you didn't "create" anything.
Get it? Or are you just pretending to be this damn stupid for my entertainment?
Putting words over film footage that somebody else CREATED doesn't take any talent or require the effort needed to acquire the skill set necessary to shoot the footage in the first place.
And yet you praise that to high heaven and ignore the examples I gave of REAL creative parody such as SNL skits, Weird Al, and the Hustler parody series.
You truly are at the lowest levels aren't you?
|
i didn't ignore the example i just said your take waynes world product placement and do it in porn was closer to the creativity of downfall parody
it not worthy of being considered true creativity like doing an snl skit.
copying an idea exactly and just changing the setting is no more creative then layering text on the bottom of someone elses video (it actually less)
creativity comes about when you create something brand new
that however does not change the fact that parody does not have to be creative to be REAL.
that what the court have to decide
your definition consider a person who holds a camera recording a bunch of no talent actors recreating a movie word for word as creative because that movie was shot from scratch.
mine says that copy catting bullshit
your definition says that changing a parody video into a DMCA takedown trap is not creative because they used someone elses content (it could have been a takedown trap if they didn't use someone elses content)
mine says that the radical change it it context, it use in a completely new way was creative.
but difference in our personal oppions on what is CREATIVE justifies the claim that parody is not REAL.
and since this arguement started because you claimed i didn't deserve the fair use protection of parody if i were to take your porn scene, layer in the parody song saggy and old (to the score of snows tender and fine) to protest the stupidity of 2257 documentation requirements for people who are clearly over the age of 18 (by quite a few years)
that the only issue i care about.