no. i don't really like zoo, so it's not about kudos (& they've used ones before, anyway)it's more about what i'd see as the right thing to do, and not wanting to be hypocritical, given my own attitude to sources
sadly, i'd like to put my work under a cc licence, but there's only about 3 of them that don't use anyone else's work, so i don't feel in a position to do so. better to leave the legal situation murky rather than be accused of licensing out other people's pictures
(sadly, i'd like to put my work under a cc licence, but there's only about 3 of them that don't use anyone else's work, so i don't feel in a position to do so. better to leave the legal situation murky rather than be accused of licensing out other people's pictures
plentyofants more ghee, vicar?,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 17:01,
archived)
If your workis considered parody of the original then it can be deemed as 'transformative' and no-one can claim breach of copyright. I read it and there is legal precedence.
Mattel vs Tom Forsyth regarding food chain barbie. (cf. the 2003 9th Circuit case Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions). ( apprently)
(Mattel vs Tom Forsyth regarding food chain barbie. (cf. the 2003 9th Circuit case Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions). ( apprently)
Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 17:06,
archived)