I pretty sure that TSB concentrates on quantity more than quality.

Yes you ARE missing something.


OK. What?


He made no effort whatsoever to ask for permission to use parts of the other author's parodies


That's polite, but not required.


he even didn't bother to make some sort of acknowledgement/credit in his comment section


Are we even talking about the same piece? I'm looking at http://www.amiright.com/parody/misc/variousartists29.shtml and I see this:

>>
Medley of (original songs of parodies are in parentheses): "Live and Get High" by Max Power ("Live and Let Die" by Paul McCartney & Wings), "I Don't Wanna Get Beat Up By Kevin (Eddy's Song)" by Jonathan ("Inside Your Heaven" by Carrie Underwood), "Black and Green: Ode to The Matrix" by BPrulz ("Black and White" by Static-X), "Newbie" by Joel Martinez ("Dreamer" by Ozzy Osbourne), "Dooms Day" by Hak-med ("Bad Day" by Daniel Powter), "I'm Going Down" by Rufus Torchwood ("You're Beautiful" by James Blunt), "My Brains Running Out" by Kristie ("Movin' Out" by Billy Joel), "Barber Shop" by Dani ("Candy Shop" by 50 Cent), "Playing in the Game Of (Ode to boxers)" by Ned Riley ("Killing in the Name Of" by Rage Against the Machine), "A'Blazing" by the_conqueror_of_parodies ("Amazing" by George Michael), "You've Really Lost Me" by Lionel Mertens ("You Really Got Me" by The Kinks), and "Go to Jail, Jack (Abramoff)" by Tommy Turtle " (Hit the Road, Jack" by Ray Charles)
<<


Sorry if im sounding like Michael Pacholek on a good day.


I'm sorry you're not.

xoxox
Spaff

Spaff, it is very honorable for you to stick up for TSB.  I've already said my opinion, I think it's honorable and flattering to artists included.  I see not everyone agrees, but I wanted to commend you on sticking up for what you believe in.

Okay, since I'm involved, I'll chime in.  I wouldn't have known this existed if Red Ant hadn't PM'ed me.  More than anything, I was surprised because I don't think I've ever interacted with TSB before.

I would have been angry if he took my lyrics and without giving me credit, but he did give me credit.  I can see the tribute/"best of" angle, although it surprises me a bit to be included from someone I don't know.  I would have liked to have been contacted about it beforehand, but I've come across entire songs of mine posted on the web on other sites and messageboards (with appropriate credit given), so this wasn't really something shocking and new to me either.  It's not an original work, so maybe it doesn't have a place on amiright.

Honestly, I don't have a strong opinion about this.  I'm not angry or upset about it, just surprised and curious. It's not negative, maybe I should take it that I have another fan that I didn't know about.  Maybe it's because it's one of my more obscure songs...

Spaff, it is very honorable for you to stick up for TSB.  I've already said my opinion, I think it's honorable and flattering to artists included.  I see not everyone agrees, but I wanted to commend you on sticking up for what you believe in.


Thanks, Dave. I'm not necessarily supporting TSB's medleys or taking a gallant stand here, however. It's more just irritation. There are a couple of people who (under multiple pseudonyms) incessantly pick on certain other authors, and it's gotten really freaking old.

To the bashers: On a site for writers, plagiarism is about the worst thing you can accuse someone of, so if you don't even know WTF constitutes plagiarism, then don't level the charge. And instead of ranting about how terrible someone's work is, try improving your own. Seriously.

xoxox
Spaff

Thanks, Dave. I'm not necessarily supporting TSB's medleys or taking a gallant stand here, however. It's more just irritation. There are a couple of people who (under multiple pseudonyms) incessantly pick on certain other authors, and it's gotten really freaking old.

To the bashers: On a site for writers, plagiarism is about the worst thing you can accuse someone of, so if you don't even know WTF constitutes plagiarism, then don't level the charge. And instead of ranting about how terrible someone's work is, try improving your own. Seriously.

xoxox
Spaff


Spaff, though I think I know you better, I can't help but get the feeling that some of this comment is directed toward me. In this unlikely case that it is, I wanted to let you know that I have searched extensively for a concrete definition of plagiary, and much to my dismay, cannot seem to find one. Parodies seem to be an exception to everything, including copyright infringement, which is what many parodies I've called plagiaries in the past may have been.

Also, I have nothing against TSB, but I felt like the authors' works that were used in his parodies should know about it. I have nothing agaisnt Fitu Petaia either (see this thread), even though he has posted plagiaries before.

Indeed, plagiarism is a very serious accusation, probably the worst thing a writer can face. Believe me, I don't throw around the term lightly - perhaps incorrectly, but it seemed to fit when I read stuff like this (actual parody that was deleted):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Wake Me Up When September Ends" by Green Day
"Wake Me Up When October Ends" by Author XYZ

Summer has come and passed
The innocent can never last
wake me up when october ends

like my fathers come to pass
seven years has gone so fast
wake me up when october ends

here comes the rain again
falling from the stars
drenched in my pain again
becoming who we are

as my memory rests
but never forgets what I lost
wake me up when october ends

summer has come and passed
the innocent can never last
wake me up when october ends

ring out the bells again
like we did when spring began
wake me up when october ends

here comes the rain again
falling from the stars
drenched in my pain again
becoming who we are

as my memory rests
but never forgets what I lost
wake me up when october ends

Summer has come and passed
The innocent can never last
wake me up when october ends

like my father's come to pass
twenty years has gone so fast
wake me up when october ends
wake me up when october ends
wake me up when october ends

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No credit was given to Green Day for writing 99% of the song (simply listing "Green Day" as the performer isn't crediting IMO). Even if credit was given to avoid calls of plagiarism, I can't see how changing a single word makes this a parody.

I don't really wish to make problems with you, Spaff, but I also don't understand your viewpoint on this matter. I've a feeling that if I reposted something like "Shakespearian Pie" under my name, verbatim, even with all proper crediting to you, that you would be the only one who wouldn't slam me for being a thieving, worthless douchebag.

The TSB medley was just brought to my attention. I haven't gone through this whole thread, but my two cents are:

A reviewer may quote "passages" (not the entire work or a very substantial portion of it) from a book, movie, play, etc., with proper credit, without infringing. It would be pretty hard to review anything otherwise lol.

I personally would be generous and consider TSB's "medley" a review, so to speak, of some works submitted in that month that he considered worth quoting. He stated openly at the top that it was such a compilation, then specifically credited the original parody and the author at the bottom.  This may or may not meet the artistic standards of this site in not being a "parody" per se, but that is a content judgment for the Webmaster to make. I don't believe it constitutes willful copyright infringement.

TSB did not obtain my permission, but so long as he did not use a "substantial' portion of my work, and gave me credit, I do not feel infringed. I am much more concerned about the indication that my parody,  "Brokenback Mountain" was recorded and played on a radio station, presumably a commercial one. Haven't had time to run it down yet.

I take a position similar to my brief-glance reading of Spaff's opinion: Someone who reads TSB's thing might be intrigued enough by my snippet to go read my parody, and that's a good thing. As a vaguely distant relative of mine, P. T. Barnum (of Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey Circus) once said, "I don't care what they say about me, just make sure they spell my name right!"

I can't help but get the feeling that some of this comment is directed toward me.


It's not. In fact, I see that you posted a topic today chastising the Fitu bashers. Amen to that. If Fitu or anyone else posts someone else's work as their own, then they should be criticized for it and the plagiary should be deleted. If, on the other hand, they post a parody you simply don't like, then say you don't like it and leave it at that. Or, better yet, just ignore it.


I have searched extensively for a concrete definition of plagiary, and much to my dismay, cannot seem to find one.


Here's a concise one from Answers.com:
"Plagiarism:
Using ideas, plots, text and other intellectual property developed by someone else while claiming it is your original work."


"Wake Me Up When September Ends" by Green Day
"Wake Me Up When October Ends" by Author XYZ

Summer has come and passed
The innocent can never last
wake me up when october ends

like my fathers come to pass
seven years has gone so fast
wake me up when octoberends

here comes the rain again
falling from the stars
drenched in my pain again
becoming who we are

as my memory rests
but never forgets what I lost
wake me up when october ends

summer has come and passed
the innocent can never last
wake me up when october ends

ring out the bells again
like we did when spring began
wake me up when october ends

here comes the rain again
falling from the stars
drenched in my pain again
becoming who we are

as my memory rests
but never forgets what I lost
wake me up when october ends

Summer has come and passed
The innocent can never last
wake me up when october ends

like my father's come to pass
twenty years has gone so fast
wake me up when october ends
wake me up when october ends
wake me up when october ends


That's plagiarism. I know it gets tricky with parody, because parody by definition incorporates elements of the original work, but any reasonable person would agree with you: changing a couple of words of an original work is not the same as parodying it. If author XYZ is claiming to have written these lyrics, that's plagiarism, because they were actually written by Billie Joe Armstrong.


I also don't understand your viewpoint on this matter.


Please let me know what else I can clarify.


I've a feeling that if I reposted something like "Shakespearian Pie" under my name, verbatim, even with all proper crediting to you, that you would be the only one who wouldn't slam me for being a thieving, worthless douchebag.


Like Jeff and many others, I've had my stuff reposted elsewhere. If you credit me, I'm OK with it. If, on the other hand, you're claiming the work as your own, then it's plagiarism and you're a thieving, worthless douchebag.

xoxox
Spaff

The TSB medley was just brought to my attention. I haven't gone through this whole thread, but my two cents are:

A reviewer may quote "passages" (not the entire work or a very substantial portion of it) from a book, movie, play, etc., with proper credit, without infringing. It would be pretty hard to review anything otherwise lol.

I personally would be generous and consider TSB's "medley" a review, so to speak, of some works submitted in that month that he considered worth quoting. He stated openly at the top that it was such a compilation, then specifically credited the original parody and the author at the bottom.  This may or may not meet the artistic standards of this site in not being a "parody" per se, but that is a content judgment for the Webmaster to make. I don't believe it constitutes willful copyright infringement.

TSB did not obtain my permission, but so long as he did not use a "substantial' portion of my work, and gave me credit, I do not feel infringed. I am much more concerned about the indication that my parody,  "Brokenback Mountain" was recorded and played on a radio station, presumably a commercial one. Haven't had time to run it down yet.

I take a position similar to my brief-glance reading of Spaff's opinion: Someone who reads TSB's thing might be intrigued enough by my snippet to go read my parody, and that's a good thing. As a vaguely distant relative of mine, P. T. Barnum (of Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey Circus) once said, "I don't care what they say about me, just make sure they spell my name right!"


I agree 100%. In fact, I think I'll post this comment as my own.

xoxox
Spaff

Holy Moly.  I, like Jeff, got a PM alerting me to this whole thing...and it's taken me two different log-in sessions just to get through the conversation.  Now I'm tired.  Dammit.

Anyway, I, like Jeff, don't really have a strong opinion about this at all...which kind of surprises and saddens me, because I came over ready to be fiesty as all hell.  :)  Anyway...I really feel like everything has been said by one person or another, but my two cents is this: 

Had the "parody" been listed as TSB's original work, I probably would have thrown a tantrum.  A massive, profanity filled to the point of being worthy of thread removal, tantrum.  But, since it wasn't...and since he chose me, fabulous me, as one of the many authors to showcase in his little deal...I'm holding back my tantrums for other, yet to be determined, fights.

In short...it's not something I would have done...and maybe it doesn't belong on the site as a "parody," but really...it doesn't bother me at all.

:)

psst, TSB, next time you want some stuff to include in your medleys, please have a look through these

Please let me know what else I can clarify.


Okay, I suppose I am caught up by the word "claim". IMO, an author putting his/her name to a work is claiming its contents to some extent. TSB cannot really claim those medleys as his since he didn't write them, regardless of citations, permissions, etc. He is not the author of those works.

There is another component of plagiarism: theft. It's like this: if you ask if you can borrow my paint gun to paint your car, I'll be happy to lend it to you. If you take it from my garage without permission, the result is theft, and it is mostly irrelavant if I am impressed with how awesome your custom paint job looks.

That analogy may not have any legs to stand on in the parody world, but I think it's a fair comparison to what was done by TSB.

I suppose since TSB did something good with all the works that he borrowed (with proper notation) that is the reason no one seems to be too concerned about it.

As a vaguely distant relative of mine, P. T. Barnacle (of RockLing Bros. Barnacle & Whaley Circus)........etc, etc.



sorry for the corrections TT - but I couldn't just stand by and see you waste opportunities like that

While we are on the subject of TSB here, i wonder why he submits so many parodies, yet they very rarely get voted or commented on. I always wonder how long TSB spends writing parodies.

I agree 100%. In fact, I think I'll post this comment as my own.

xoxox
Spaff


Then you are a thieving, worthless douchebag!  :D


There is another component of plagiarism: theft. It's like this: if you ask if you can borrow my paint gun to paint your car, I'll be happy to lend it to you. If you take it from my garage without permission, the result is theft, and it is mostly irrelavant if I am impressed with how awesome your custom paint job looks.

That analogy may not have any legs to stand on in the parody world, but I think it's a fair comparison to what was done by TSB.


IMHO, it's not a good analogy for plagiarism at all. First, the def of plagiarism (and let's all learn to spell it lol): "Plagiarism is the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship, or incorporating material from someone else's written or creative work in whole or in part, into ones own, without adequate acknowledgment. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism. (Note that since Wikipedia was quoted directly, they were given credit for the quote. They license their work under GNU - General Non-Commercial Use -- but I still wouldn't quote them directly and claim it was my own writing.)

"without adequate acknowledgment. " TSB complied excellently.
If TSB puts up photos of your car and says, "Look what awesome paint jobs Red Ant does", how does that hurt you?
If he puts up photos of your car and says, "Look what great paint jobs I do", attempting to claim your work (your paint job) as his own, then he is attempting to enhance his reputation (and possible profits) at the expense of your own.

There is a personal angle here, as a certain Turtle has almost a niche of doing "tribute" parodies (never "attack parodies", of course  ;). For example, "Pat Adagio's Cream. There are numerous references to her own works, with some being close quotes, e.g. "Though she smashes antiques, falls down stairs, and trips over a cord", a direct reference and near-quote from
"Fall Down (Accident Prone)". BUT: She is credited by hyperlink to each of her parodies that was referenced or quoted, so those phrases are not plagiarism -- they are not claimed as my own.

No author who has been TTribuTTed in this fashion has ever objected. Most seem quite happy at having their works cited and quoted. I know I would be  :)

The other issue, though, is that those brief passages of hers were augmented with considerable original writing of mine, to make a new parody (tribute). TSB didn't add any original content, so although he didn't plagiarize others' works by claiming that their words were his own, he did little more than say, "Here's a sample of the best parodies of this month." That suits me quite well, to be included in this recognition -- as Stuart said, people can give my work all the recognition they care to -- but if the Webmaster decides that such reviews/samples/medleys/whatever do not meet the criteria for his site, then that is his absolute discretion as the site owner. But it isn't plagiarism, it isn't copyright infringement, and I'm happy to have my work receive publicity, so long as it's acknowledged to be my work and so long as no one is making money off it without coughing up my share of the seaweed. (That last term was for you, Stu!  ;D)

If TSB puts up photos of your car and says, "Look what awesome paint jobs Red Ant does", how does that hurt you?
If he puts up photos of your car and says, "Look what great paint jobs I do", attempting to claim your work (your paint job) as his own, then he is attempting to enhance his reputation (and possible profits) at the expense of your own.


No offense TT, but that isn't quite accurate. If I post photos (that I took myself) of my car on the 'net, they are mine. What TSB basically did was take those photos, repost them, and then say "Look what awesome paint jobs Red Ant does". As has been established, he isn't claiming to have snapped the pictures himself, and provided sources for said photos, but nevertheless permission was not obtained before reposting them.

I believe that all of the parodies used in the medleys had, by default, copyright protection as soon as they were posted on AmiRight. Now, if TSB had made a parody of those parodies, there would be no issue. However, he did not do so - they are simply reposted verbatim. Parodies are not fair use - the source material is, even with a copyright. If a parody is the source material (such as a WAY song), then a parody has to be made of that. Simply reposting a subtantial amount of lyrics that someone else (or elses as the case is here) wrote, whether belonging to an OS or a parody, is not a parody, and is not allowed by the site guidelines either:

"Only submit songs YOU PERSONALLY HAVE WRITTEN.
I don't want to copy songs from people without their knowledge. People seem to be a little unclear on this concept, since I end up removing about two or three parodies every week. IF YOU DIDN'T WRITE THE SONG YOURSELF, DON'T SUBMIT IT."

There's also this at the bottom of the latest comments:

"Disclaimer: Unless stated otherwise, all comments express the viewpoint of the original author. Opinions are not necessarily those of amIright or it's related websites. Please obtain permission from the original author before printing or reposting."

My guess is that disclaimer exists, oh, I dunno, maybe for a legitimate legal reason?

I'd like you to take a look at this article:

http://www.publaw.com/parody.html


but if the Webmaster decides that such reviews/samples/medleys/whatever do not meet the criteria for his site, then that is his absolute discretion as the site owner. But it isn't plagiarism, it isn't copyright infringement, and I'm happy to have my work receive publicity, so long as it's acknowledged to be my work and so long as no one is making money off it without coughing up my share of the seaweed. (That last term was for you, Stu!  ;D)


It's interesting you mention the money aspect. Since most (perhaps all) of us aren't making any money from these parodies, that's why we let this slide?

Suppose for a moment that TSB's medley became a hit tomorrow and earned him a million bucks. Would that change your view on the issue?

Or say he prefaced his medley by saying "These are the worst parodies that were submitted to the site in January 200X". Would everyone be so neutral on the issue then? After all, he did properly credit everyone, and that's all that matters, yes?

I'm willing to admit that I may be completely off base and that you are correct. Assuming for a moment that is the case, are you telling me that Adagio has no ground to stand on for asking that TSB's medley, that included her work, be removed?

It's been fun and informative discussing this, so please don't take anything I've typed as a jab at you.

Jack

I think I'm going to remove the medley "parodies".

The best excuse I can see for leaving them, is they are like "a best of the month" collection or something.  That however isn't what the parody section of the site is for.  It's for original parodies people have compiled.  While it may be an interesting use of what's in place, I think it's a distraction. 

It's also clear some people don't appreciate part of their work being used without permission. 

If TSB wants to do something like this, he should be doing it on the messageboard, and only once he's gotten permission from everyone whose work he wants to use.

Thanks ChuckyG.

While we are on the subject of TSB here, i wonder why he submits so many parodies, yet they very rarely get voted or commented on. I always wonder how long TSB spends writing parodies.


He doesn't vote on other's parodies(as far as I know), so he usually gets very few votes.

Thanks Chucky!

No offense TT, but that isn't quite accurate. If I post photos (that I took myself) of my car on the 'net, they are mine. What TSB basically did was take those photos, repost them, and then say "Look what awesome paint jobs Red Ant does". As has been established, he isn't claiming to have snapped the pictures himself, and provided sources for said photos, but nevertheless permission was not obtained before reposting them.

I realized after posting that my analogy should have been clarified. Also, that three separate issues are being discussed here, and sometimes overlapping (being confused):
1) Plagiarism
2) Copyright infringement
3) Site guidelines and the wishes of the site owner.

To clarify my analogy: I was referring to pics that TSB took, not to your own pics (which are copyrighted like anything else you create). If someone breaks into your garage to take the pics, then they are a burglarizing, worthless douchebag. However, if you enter your car in the Custom Paint Job Auto Show in the Sonic Drive-In Parking Lot, then anyone can take a pic of it, because you have voluntarily chosen to place it on public display. They can't, however, claim that they did the paint job.

When you publish ("make public") your works on the Internet, you have voluntarily chosen to display them to everyone in the world, who is then free to comment as she wishes, and to quote "small portions" (as per your article) in their comments, reviews, etc. Of course, they can't claim that they wrote the words that you wrote.

Having posted, you cannot legally stop anyone from saying, writing, or posting (at their own site or a site which permits them to),

"Hey! Red Ant wrote a great parody of "Tomorrow", about the Valkyries conquering China and making a new nation called 'Va-China'. TMGLTM, but my faves were:

'Let's go further in!
Va-China!
To the Steffi Grafenberg'

"You can find his parody at http://www.amiright.com/parody/misc/anniesoundtrack2.shtml".
****
Of course, if you could stop them, why on earth would you want to?
On the other hand, you can't stop them from saying,

"Red Ant, of www.amiright.com, wrote an insulting, inane, indecent parody of "Tomorrow" called "Va-China". An example of his inane indecency is:

'Let's go further in!
Va-China!
To the Steffi Grafenberg'

"I think his parody is a terrible insult to the original."
*******
Or say he prefaced his medley by saying "These are the worst parodies that were submitted to the site in January 200X". Would everyone be so neutral on the issue then? After all, he did properly credit everyone, and that's all that matters, yes?
Yes.

If these possibilities are not acceptable to you, then you should not post your works in public for people to appreciate or censure. (This does not negate the right of the admin to deem a comment inappropriate. More on that later.)

In either case, the reviewer has used small portions of your work and given proper attribution (credit or blame, as the case may be). No plagiarism here: the reviewer did not claim that your words were his creation.
I haven't read all of the original parodies quoted by TSB ("original parodies" -- is that an oxymoron? ;) ), but it appears that he did not use "substantial portions" of any one of them. He definitely did not claim that he wrote the words quoted. No plagiarism here.


I believe that all of the parodies used in the medleys had, by default, copyright protection as soon as they were posted on AmiRight.

Everything that anyone ever creates has automatic copyright protection as soon as they set it on paper (or Web or whatever).


It's interesting you mention the money aspect. Since most (perhaps all) of us aren't making any money from these parodies, that's why we let this slide?
It has a lot to do with it. The article you cited included among the criteria for copyright infringement whether the new use was commercial or non-commercial, such as educational, etc. TSB's presumably non-commercial use helped inform the public of other parodies in which they might be interested but might not have found on their own.
Suppose for a moment that TSB's medley became a hit tomorrow and earned him a million bucks. Would that change your view on the issue?
You'd better believe it. Now, he is making "commercial use", while adding little/no original material, and each of us who "contributed" to his profits is entitled to a share.
However, if you publish "Red Ant's Critique of Parody", which contains detailed and exhaustive analysis and criticism of my works, quoting reasonable sections of them to illustrate your criticism, you can make a million and not owe me a penny. You're selling your opinions, not my work. If this sounds far out, look how many books are written analyzing Shakespeare's work. OK, Shake is in the public domain now, but books about any modern author, composer, musician, etc. would be allowed the same way.

Look at your own "One Weak Chord (And They Sued Ya!)", and the discussion of the lawsuit against George Harrison. Regardless of whether one agrees with the Court's findings, the Court found that:

1) Harrison "substantially copied" the melody of "He's So Fine", written by Ronald Mack and performed by the Chiffons, but claimed the music as his own (plagiarism), and
2) Harrison published and sold the result without the permission of the copyright owner (copyright infringement, even if he had acknowledged the ownership of the OM - Original Melody).

Harrison was ordered to pay a huge portion of MSL's royalties to the copyright owner of HSF.

To avoid this, Harrison would have had to have made prior arrangement with Bright Tunes Music Corp., owner of "HSF". Such arrangement would normally involve sharing the royalties, and "MSL" records and CDs would look like this:

Performed by George Harrison
Lyrics by George Harrison
Music by Ronald Mack, c 1963. Used by permission of Bright Tunes Music Corp.

Please obtain permission from the original author before printing or reposting."

My guess is that disclaimer exists, oh, I dunno, maybe for a legitimate legal reason?
Very much so. But the legal reason refers to someone printing or reposting the original parody, or a "substantial portion" thereof, outside of the "fair use" excerpts allowed (and yes, just how much of the original can be quoted is unclear and a very thorny issue for the Courts, as your cited article notes). My original parody that TSB excerpted had two full verses, some partial verses/lines, an outtro, and one chorus (back in the n00b days when I didn't vary the choruses). TSB quoted only the chorus, which doesn't seem a very "substantial" portion of the parody.

is not allowed by the site guidelines either:

Now we get to Issue #3, and that's a completely different kettle of fish from plagiarism or copyright protection. In fact, the site owner has spoken (above) and his word is final and indisputable.  It's his site, and if he decides that the medleys do not meet his criteria, he can reject or delete them without even explaining his reasons, although IMHO his reasons are very reasonable.

Before someone raises "free speech" issues, of which I am an absolute advocate: You have a right of free speech, but not the right to force someone else to publish your free speech at their expense. Go pay the money and do the work to host your own website, and then you can say anything you wish (that doesn't plagiarize, infringe, libel, etc.)

It isn't always easy to separate these three issues, nor to separate the issues from our personal feelings towards the individual involved. Surely we have a right to grant permissions and favors to those we like, and to deny them to those we dislike. But the medley in question, IMHO,

Doesn't violate (1) or (2) - plagiarism or infringement
Has been found to violate (3) - the standards of the owner of the publication site, and so it is justly removed.

I've enjoyed this discussion as well, and the principles are important to us. Never taken personally, so long as the critiques are of the ideas and writings and not of the person - a fallacy known to logicians as the "ad hominem" attack: attacking the person instead of his ideas, writings, etc. IMHO, TSB deserves the same courtesy, as do we all. His writings (not he himself) were found inconsistent with the site's guidelines,  and so they go.

Tommy

What Tommy Turtle said.

Thank you, Tommy. You said everything I was thinking. Plus more. Plus better. Plus you actually said it.

xoxox
Spaff

I realized after posting that my analogy should have been clarified. Also, that three separate issues are being discussed here, and sometimes overlapping (being confused):
1) Plagiarism
2) Copyright infringement
3) Site guidelines and the wishes of the site owner.



Indeed, this has gotten quite messy with the different topics being discussed. I think by now it has been established the works in question are not plagiarisms. Copyright infringement is still questionable to me. ChuckyG has spoken, which takes care of #3.



To clarify my analogy: I was referring to pics that TSB took, not to your own pics (which are copyrighted like anything else you create). If someone breaks into your garage to take the pics, then they are a burglarizing, worthless douchebag. However, if you enter your car in the Custom Paint Job Auto Show in the Sonic Drive-In Parking Lot, then anyone can take a pic of it, because you have voluntarily chosen to place it on public display. They can't, however, claim that they did the paint job.



Yes, you are correct that anyone can take a picture of a car I enter into show or competition XYZ. However, I feel my analogy is not being understood here. If I take the pictures of my car, which you have acknowledged as copyrighted, and another reposts those pictures without permission, that person has violated my copyright of said pictures. TSB did not take pictures of the car at the hypothetical auto show, he reposted pictures that were already the property of others.



When you publish ("make public") your works on the Internet, you have voluntarily chosen to display them to everyone in the world, who is then free to comment as she wishes, and to quote "small portions" (as per your article) in their comments, reviews, etc. Of course, they can't claim that they wrote the words that you wrote.

Having posted, you cannot legally stop anyone from saying, writing, or posting (at their own site or a site which permits them to),

"Hey! Red Ant wrote a great parody of "Tomorrow", about the Valkyries conquering China and making a new nation called 'Va-China'. TMGLTM, but my faves were:

'Let's go further in!
Va-China!
To the Steffi Grafenberg'

"You can find his parody at http://www.amiright.com/parody/misc/anniesoundtrack2.shtml".
****
Of course, if you could stop them, why on earth would you want to?



I see your point here, TT. No, I wouldn't stop them, nor would I want to, because they are crediting me, and not using too much of the parody. Furthermore, and most importantly, they aren't putting their name on lyrics I wrote. Even if a commentor quoted back my entire parody as their "favorite lines", it still isn't under his name.

However, using a third of my lyrics under you author name is not what I would call a "small portion" of my work. Ideas, titles and thoughts have no copyright protection. But I'd say using a 1/3 of another author's work qualifies as a "substantial portion".

TSB's "January medleys" were under his name. To me, that implies some authorship was involved in writing the lyrics, when in fact it wasn't.



On the other hand, you can't stop them from saying,

"Red Ant, of www.amiright.com, wrote an insulting, inane, indecent parody of "Tomorrow" called "Va-China". An example of his inane indecency is:

'Let's go further in!
Va-China!
To the Steffi Grafenberg'

"I think his parody is a terrible insult to the original."

If these possibilities are not acceptable to you, then you should not post your works in public for people to appreciate or censure. (This does not negate the right of the admin to deem a comment inappropriate. More on that later.)




No, I can't, nor would I want to. Honest comments are all that I have ever asked for, and that includes feedback from the people who will invariably hate my parodies. Criticism comes with the territory of writing and posting on an open forum, and I can handle anything negative that comes my way.

As I am part of the "admin" you mention, I need to say I have never deleted a comment that was not inappropriate. I have consulted ChuckyG quite a bit on this matter to ensure I'm following what he wishes for his site. If someone leaves a comment, under one of my parodies, like "This parody is offensive and in extremely poor taste. 111" it stays, because though I probably don't agree with the poster, it is not inappropriate. Now, if someone says (to anyone) "You suck ass, you f***ing retard. Please go kill yourself." I've every right to delete it for being profane.


In either case, the reviewer has used small portions of your work and given proper attribution (credit or blame, as the case may be). No plagiarism here: the reviewer did not claim that your words were his creation.
I haven't read all of the original parodies quoted by TSB ("original parodies" -- is that an oxymoron? ;) ), but it appears that he did not use "substantial portions" of any one of them. He definitely did not claim that he wrote the words quoted. No plagiarism here.

Everything that anyone ever creates has automatic copyright protection as soon as they set it on paper (or Web or whatever).
It has a lot to do with it. The article you cited included among the criteria for copyright infringement whether the new use was commercial or non-commercial, such as educational, etc. TSB's presumably non-commercial use helped inform the public of other parodies in which they might be interested but might not have found on their own.You'd better believe it. Now, he is making "commercial use", while adding little/no original material, and each of us who "contributed" to his profits is entitled to a share.
However, if you publish "Red Ant's Critique of Parody", which contains detailed and exhaustive analysis and criticism of my works, quoting reasonable sections of them to illustrate your criticism, you can make a million and not owe me a penny. You're selling your opinions, not my work. If this sounds far out, look how many books are written analyzing Shakespeare's work. OK, Shake is in the public domain now, but books about any modern author, composer, musician, etc. would be allowed the same way.



Yes, you are correct that if I were to parody your works you would have no recourse (other than perhaps a 111 vote or 290;)) But, the key word here is "parody". I maintain that the medleys in question are not parodies, and thus are afforded no protections whatsoever.


Look at your own "One Weak Chord (And They Sued Ya!)", and the discussion of the lawsuit against George Harrison. Regardless of whether one agrees with the Court's findings, the Court found that:

1) Harrison "substantially copied" the melody of "He's So Fine", written by Ronald Mack and performed by the Chiffons, but claimed the music as his own (plagiarism), and
2) Harrison published and sold the result without the permission of the copyright owner (copyright infringement, even if he had acknowledged the ownership of the OM - Original Melody).

Harrison was ordered to pay a huge portion of MSL's royalties to the copyright owner of HSF.

To avoid this, Harrison would have had to have made prior arrangement with Bright Tunes Music Corp., owner of "HSF". Such arrangement would normally involve sharing the royalties, and "MSL" records and CDs would look like this:

Performed by George Harrison
Lyrics by George Harrison
Music by Ronald Mack, c 1963. Used by permission of Bright Tunes Music Corp.



Yes, I reread that parody, including my own comment:

"There are a few cases where a previous song is directly sampled for a new one; in those cases the artist(s) doing the sampling knows very well that what they are creating is not wholly theirs; that said, a small, one-time payment to the original artist and crediting is all that should be allowed."

I can't say I completely agree with the view I had some 11 months ago, and I certainly do not expect TSB to pay anyone for works he used in creating his medleys.

But I need to say that your comment of:

"2) Harrison published and sold the result without the permission of the copyright owner (copyright infringement, even if he had acknowledged the ownership of the OM - Original Melody)."

Reinforces my views in this case. Again, TSB isn't a plagiarist, but how is his using verses and choruses of  parodies not his not copyright infringement? I suppose it boils down to legal mumbo-jumbo or personal views as to what is considered "substantial".



Very much so. But the legal reason refers to someone printing or reposting the original parody, or a "substantial portion" thereof, outside of the "fair use" excerpts allowed (and yes, just how much of the original can be quoted is unclear and a very thorny issue for the Courts, as your cited article notes). My original parody that TSB excerpted had two full verses, some partial verses/lines, an outtro, and one chorus (back in the n00b days when I didn't vary the choruses). TSB quoted only the chorus, which doesn't seem a very "substantial" portion of the parody.



Yes, yours wasn't borrowed from much, but Max Power's parody had an entire verse lifted from it. Considering that parody has just 2 verses and a short chorus, wouldn't 33+% of a parody qualify as "substantial"?



Now we get to Issue #3, and that's a completely different kettle of fish from plagiarism or copyright protection. In fact, the site owner has spoken (above) and his word is final and indisputable.  It's his site, and if he decides that the medleys do not meet his criteria, he can reject or delete them without even explaining his reasons, although IMHO his reasons are very reasonable.



I stand by ChuckyG's decisions, regardless of if they are inline with my owns views. I have to ask you again though, does Adagio have a leg to stand on in asking that TSB's medley, which included her work, be removed from the site?



Before someone raises "free speech" issues, of which I am an absolute advocate: You have a right of free speech, but not the right to force someone else to publish your free speech at their expense. Go pay the money and do the work to host your own website, and then you can say anything you wish (that doesn't plagiarize, infringe, libel, etc.)


No one here is going to raise free speech issues with you, TT. As an editor, I have to reject things more often than I like due to them not conforming in the least to site guidelines. Editorial control is a different animal than censorship. There are a ton of things which I do not allow (spam being the major one), but I never suppress an opinion with which I don't agree. I'm getting off topic here...


I've enjoyed this discussion as well, and the principles are important to us. Never taken personally, so long as the critiques are of the ideas and writings and not of the person - a fallacy known to logicians as the "ad hominem" attack: attacking the person instead of his ideas, writings, etc. IMHO, TSB deserves the same courtesy, as do we all. His writings (not he himself) were found inconsistent with the site's guidelines,  and so they go.

Tommy


As have I.  :)

FTR, I take no pleasure in seeing TSB's medleys removed from the site.

Okay, I suppose I am caught up by the word "claim". IMO, an author putting his/her name to a work is claiming its contents to some extent. TSB cannot really claim those medleys as his since he didn't write them, regardless of citations, permissions, etc. He is not the author of those works.

There is another component of plagiarism: theft. It's like this: if you ask if you can borrow my paint gun to paint your car, I'll be happy to lend it to you. If you take it from my garage without permission, the result is theft, and it is mostly irrelavant if I am impressed with how awesome your custom paint job looks.

That analogy may not have any legs to stand on in the parody world, but I think it's a fair comparison to what was done by TSB.

I suppose since TSB did something good with all the works that he borrowed (with proper notation) that is the reason no one seems to be too concerned about it.

Red,  Can I have your paint gun?  I'd ask if I could borrow it, but I've really no intention of ever giving it back...so that would be dishonest. 

Sorry, I couldn't help myself...I, like the esteemed & beloved and highly chased-after-only-to-be-dumped by Arwen have no particularly opinion or axe to grind here.  The aforementioned TSB didn't see fit to use (or "steal", depending on your take of the subject) any parts from my junk...er...I meant, "incredibly hilarious" works.  But I love reading all the deeply philosophical and trenchant comments, remarks and opinions of all of the wonderful writers this topic has managed to envelop.

As you can probably tell, I just got a new dictionary and decided to take it out for a little spin tonight...

P Robinson

Holy Moly.  I, like Jeff, got a PM alerting me to this whole thing...and it's taken me two different log-in sessions just to get through the conversation.  Now I'm tired.  Dammit.

Anyway, I, like Jeff, don't really have a strong opinion about this at all...which kind of surprises and saddens me, because I came over ready to be fiesty as all hell.   :)  Anyway...I really feel like everything has been said by one person or another, but my two cents is this: 

Had the "parody" been listed as TSB's original work, I probably would have thrown a tantrum.  A massive, profanity filled to the point of being worthy of thread removal, tantrum.  But, since it wasn't...and since he chose me, fabulous me, as one of the many authors to showcase in his little deal...I'm holding back my tantrums for other, yet to be determined, fights.

In short...it's not something I would have done...and maybe it doesn't belong on the site as a "parody," but really...it doesn't bother me at all.

:)

Hey, Arwen - long time, no flirt...lol...

I mentioned yah in my comment a few minutes ago...feelin' spunky tonight - guess three straight 60-hour + work weeks can do that somehow.

Think I'm killing what's left of this thread by going so far off-topic, and so I apologize to anyone who wanted to keep it rolling ad infinitum...I thought it was pretty interesting for the most part, but I think it's been pretty well aired-out at this point.  Seriously, if only for a brief moment, I can't think of anyone who would like to be wholly ripped-off in an uncredited manner...but after that I don't think you are going to see any firm position or stance that everyone subscribes to - for me it would depend on the "how" my stuff was used and how I was mentioned or credited. 

Hey, holy sh*t!  I DID have some sort of opinion on this, after all...

So sue me...


;)

P Robinson

everything Tommy Turtle said

- Tommy



wow - back with a vengeance, TT! :o

a thoroughly enjoyable debate that was.  I can understand all Jack's points, and although I don't disagree with you Jack, I must say I'm firmly with TT on this one

and now TT, would you mind paddling back out to sea for a bit? >:(

because one of the 2 "Big 7 Parodies" that I haven't yet done is "The Wreck Of The Edmund Fitzgerald" (the other being Blinded BTL) and I finally got inspired last year with the title "Phenomenon called Tommy Turtle" after your brief whirlwind visit to our sleepy hollow

but now that you're back, all my best lines are gone!! :\'(

(good to see you back mate ;))






 

I agree with the 'paint gun' theory from Red Ant

If someone asked to borrow a CD of mine to audition it so they can buy their own copy, I normally wouldn't have a problem with that.

However if someone broke into my house and took the CD without asking, that is stealing. It doesn't matter if the thief says 'how brilliant the CD is'

Here this is exactly what TSB is doing, stealing without asking.

Here this is exactly what TSB is doing, stealing without asking.


The point a couple of us have been trying to make here, Jason, is that legally, what TSB did is considered Fair Use, not stealing. I highly recommend going back through this thread and reading Tommy Turtle's excellent posts on the subject.

xoxox
Spaff

Here's another example to think about, which has happened in the past.

Let's say you wake up tomorrow morning, and find that someone made a recording of one of your songs, and posted it on the front page.  They give you full credit for writing the song, but did not ask your permission to do it.  Are you angry that someone "stole" your song, or happy/honored that you get to hear someone else's version of it?  This has happened here at least twice...once someone posted a very good recording of a Claude Prez song, posted as sung by "Claude Prez Fan" or something similar.  The second was a medley of many authors 

Personally, as long as the quality was at a certain level, I'd be happy/honored.  And if I was recording someone else's song, I'd get their permission beforehand, or at least play it for them before submitting it anywhere (unless I knew that person very well), but that's just me.

Some people like more control over how their songs are used, and that's fine.

Jeff. I think it depends entirely on the circumstances, whether it's a parody you favor or the person singing it, etc.,just whether you feel 'took' or not.

The point a couple of us have been trying to make here, Jason, is that legally, what TSB did is considered Fair Use, not stealing. I highly recommend going back through this thread and reading Tommy Turtle's excellent posts on the subject.

xoxox
Spaff



I have to disagree with you Spaff.com,

With reference to my other comment regarding "borrowing the CD", if a thief broke in, stole the CD, then gave it back and repaired the smashed lock on my front door, would that be regarded as 'fair use'? No i don't think so. If no permission is sought, then its regarded as theft in my book.

I have to disagree with you Spaff.com,

With reference to my other comment regarding "borrowing the CD", if a thief broke in, stole the CD, then gave it back and repaired the smashed lock on my front door, would that be regarded as 'fair use'? No i don't think so. If no permission is sought, then its regarded as theft in my book.


But in this case, the CD was never missing from the house, none of us ever lost use of our parodies for any period of time.  No smashed locks either.  It's more like someone found the CD in a public place and made a copy of it.

Now the karaoke CD on Ebay with Johnny D, Malcolm and Stu's song and others, with no reference to the original authors...where the person will actually make money selling the CD:  that's theft.

What Tommy Turtle said.
Thank you, Tommy. You said everything I was thinking. Plus more. Plus better. Plus you actually said it.
xoxox
Spaff

Always glad to be of service!


because one of the 2 "Big 7 Parodies" that I haven't yet done is "The Wreck Of The Edmund Fitzgerald" (the other being Blinded BTL) and I finally got inspired last year with the title "Phenomenon called Tommy Turtle" after your brief whirlwind visit to our sleepy hollow

but now that you're back, all my best lines are gone!! :\'(

(good to see you back mate ;))

Stuart, you've been missed badly as well. I was really hoping for your comments specifically on a couple of the songs I've posted in the past month, as I thought they might be on our common (strange) wavelength. Can pm you the specific titles if you like.

Go ahead with the Fitz -- we'll pretend I'm not here, and work has gotten so busy with the holidays over that I seem not to be posting or reading again. Lots of ideas (including a tribute to yourself that faded 'cuz you disappeared), but no time to execute them. Please, pm me if/when you post E. Fitzgerald! -- I get pm notices by email, even if I'm not on AIR or 00s.


With reference to my other comment regarding "borrowing the CD", if a thief broke in, stole the CD, then gave it back and repaired the smashed lock on my front door, would that be regarded as 'fair use'?
TSB didn't break into your house and steal your paper with your song on it, and he didn't hack into your computer and steal your soft copy. You posted it on the very public Internet, so that analogy doesn't hold.

If no permission is sought, then its regarded as theft in my book.

Jason, I understand how you feel, but unfortunately, it isn't your book that counts, it's the books of the US Congress and the Berne Convention (on international copyright law) that count, and the law provides certain exceptions called "Fair Use", even if the author (yourself) doesn't approve of the law or the use.

Everybody: Whether I like or agree with what TSB did does not affect whether he had the legal right to do it.


TSB did not take pictures of the car at the hypothetical auto show, he reposted pictures that were already the property of others.
To continue that analogy, if he re-posted a "small portion" of a pic that you posted, and said, "Here is part of a great pic that Red Ant took. You can see the rest here", that might be ok, depending on what portion of it he posted and whether he was just giving you free publicity or was making commercial use of it himself.


TSB's "January medleys" were under his name. To me, that implies some authorship was involved in writing the lyrics, when in fact it wasn't.

In order to review, analyze, and discuss TSB's work, I am about to reprint a small excerpt of
"January Medley 2006" Parody by Tokusou Sentai Blessranger . Am I infringing his copyright by so doing?

"Medley of songs that are submitted to AmIRight on January 2006.


Your most recent favorites are coming back to you
The world may never know, here is something new
And now it's time to totally get through the next January Medley


If you think things get too young to be classics
The world doesn't end, so don't ever panic
Thanks for enjoying this very tragic January Medley


It's a Janu... ary... Medley! (January... Medley... January Medley!) Yay! "

I believe that these excerpted lyrics are his own. If true, than there was indeed "some authorship".

I maintain that the medleys in question are not parodies, and thus are afforded no protections whatsoever.

It isn't only parodies that are entitled to "Fair Use" exemptions from copyright laws. Many other uses can be eligible. For example, I believe my excerpt of TSB's medley was Fair Use, even though I didn't parody his lyrics. We were having a critical discussion of them. Reviews and many other uses can be "Fair Use". As per my first comment on this thread,

"I personally would be generous and consider TSB's "medley" a review, so to speak, of some works submitted in that month that he considered worth quoting."

I suppose it boils down to legal mumbo-jumbo or personal views as to what is considered "substantial".

Actually, it boils down to the Court's view. There is no way to know in advance how much will be considered a fair portion. In some cases, courts have found large portions to be fair use, and in others, relatively small ones have been found to infringe. It's decided case-by-case within all the circumstances, which is admittedly tough on everyone.

wouldn't 33+% of a parody qualify as "substantial"?
I don't know. Maybe. Again, as in the excellent law article you cited, the courts look at all the circumstances, what use was made, commercial/not, etc. etc. etc. As mentioned, I haven't read all of the original parodies that TSB excerpted, and so don't know what % of each was taken. At some point, it definitely becomes excessive.

I have to ask you again though, does Adagio have a leg to stand on in asking that TSB's medley, which included her work, be removed from the site?
Of course she does, for the reason you gave: Editorial control is a different animal than censorship. Any business owner wants to please as many people as possible, and if some of them object to what others are doing, the owner certainly can take action, just as a bar owner could evict a patron who was annoying other patrons, even if the annoying person weren't breaking any laws.

Again, we need to differentiate between the US Congress and ChuckyG. As the warning at the beginning of all your DVDs tells you, copyright infringement is not only a civil but also a criminal offense, investigated by the FBI etc., so we need to be very careful in accusing someone of committing crimes.  ChuckyG, however, may run his site as he sees best, which might include honoring such requests by Adagio simply because she has been offended, even if she has not been the victim of a crime. Are you with me here?

FTR, I take no pleasure in seeing TSB's medleys removed from the site.
Nor do I, but I absolutely respect the feelings both of those who were offended and of ChuckyG's decision to act accordingly.