I will do it. For chapo. Then he will understand my true emotional pain.
When is a parody legal?
“A parody is defined as a simple form of entertainment conveyed by juxtaposing the irreverent representation of the trademark with the idealized image created by the mark’s owner.”
That simply means a parody is a comedic imitation of well-known work (or sometimes a trademark). A parody is actually a written exception to the statutory laws that prohibit trademark infringement and some forms of false advertising. While a person may own the rights to a song, poem, or another written work, those rights are balanced with our Constitutional right to free speech and freedom of expression. Usually, the law allows extensive use of the original, well-known work is allowed to “conjure up” the original. For example, in the Dual Spires episode, the “Psych” theme song is sung by Julee Cruise (of “Peaks” fame) and is almost a shot-for shot recreation of the “Twin Peaks” theme. That’s okay in the law, because it does not “dilute” the value of Twin Peaks itself.
When is parody illegal?
“A parody must convey a simultaneous and contradictory message that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody; to the extent that an alleged parody conveys only the first message, it is not only a poor parody but also vulnerable under trademark law, since the customer will be confused. While a parody necessarily must engender some initial confusion, an effective parody will diminish the risk of consumer confusion by conveying only just enough of the original design to allow the consumer to appreciate the point of parody.”
That just means the public, i.e., the customer, has to know the parody is simply that: a parody. If a customer is confused that the parody is the actually real deal, then not only is the parody is an epic fail, but it’s also potentially illegal!
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
What jim is doing here does not constitute parody. It constitutes e-personation.
Since then, three leading jurisdictions, California, New York, and Texas have enacted legislation to specifically criminalize online impersonation (also known as “e-personation”) via electronic com- munication. Others including Hawaii, New Jersey, Arizona, and Missouri have either proposed entirely new legislation or enacted amendments to existing harassment or identity theft laws to in- clude such conduct.46 State online impersonation statutes across
2014] WE ARE NOT WHO WE PRETEND TO BE 333
various jurisdictions largely incorporate similar key elements: (1) impersonation without the victim’s consent, (2) via an electronic communication channel such as social networking sites, email, text message, among others, and (3) the perpetrator must act with the intent to harm, intimidate, threaten or defraud.
I don't see 'the perpetrator' trying to harm, intimidate, threaten or defraud you with these posts mocking you as a form of parody.
He's also not American yet you keep posting laws that apply to the US. You're also going this hard over a 'misdemeanor'.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
5/9/2021 7:50:48 PM
Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements:
1. the plaintiff must prove that the information was publishedIf your Facebook or blog offers the images for sale or offers them for further distribution, it is publication. If the images are merely displayed, probably not. So, just include language offering them for sale or for further distribution together with some link or email where the sale can be arranged and you will have published.
Details:
The 1976 Copyright Act defines publication as follows:
“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords
of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership,
or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute
copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes
of further distribution, public performance, or public
display constitutes publication. A public performance or
display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.2. the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified,
3. the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation,
Satire v. Defamation: What Is The Difference?
Defamation is a believable false statement of fact that causes material harm.
Satire is “the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.”
In other words: defamation is a malicious lie passed off as truth; satire is a humorous skewering of a cultural or political event – regardless of whether or not you agree with the viewpoint.
What Is The Difference Between Parody And Satire?
Parody involves the manipulation of extant works, usually for comedic effect. Similarly (but not exactly), satire is an exaggerated commentary on an irritating or hypocritical issue.
Is Satire Legal In The United States?
In a word, Yes.
What Should I Do If Someone Deems My Satirical Work Defamatory?
If your work is truly satirical, keep calm and carry on. At the very least, consult a defamation attorney to ensure your work doesn’t cross legal lines. Cases exist where an artist considered his or her work transformative and satirical, but a judge thought otherwise.
Is There A Line That Satirists Can’t Cross In A Satire v. Defamation Scenario?
The worst thing a satirist can do is not make their work outrageous enough. If a “reasonable person” could realistically construe a work as truthful, legal trouble could follow.4. the published information is false,
5. and that the defendant is at fault.
Sorry Med, but as per clause #3 I don't think your gauging of this parody constitutes you as a "reasonable person" considering everyone else can immediately tell, and it's not technically a publication.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
5/9/2021 7:44:48 PM
I love rocketreach because it allows me to e-mail anyone whom I can find on Linkedin. Jim I am asking you to cease and desist.
Other points of note:
o Saying Jim is Medopause is conjecture; While we can presume it to be the case we do not have proof and it could just as easily be Cavalier or something.
o Do you really expect him to face legal ramifications over this when he's expressly done worse and gotten away with it?
o You kept giving the money to the fake Chapo even after this was made abundantly clear to not really be him more than once. At best you might be able to turn the argument over how you're not a "reasonable person" into a plea for insanity, and that you need your finances watched like a hawk by someone else from being too out of control to be trusted with such a privilege.
> Money which could be argued to be related to Chapo's time spent prostituting, also illegal with the room for you to get him in trouble.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
5/9/2021 7:57:39 PM
I don't see 'the perpetrator' trying to harm, intimidate, threaten or defraud you with these posts mocking you as a form of parody.
He's also not American yet you keep posting laws that apply to the US. You're also going this hard over a 'misdemeanor'.
In some cases felony.
Regardless, Jim I am asking you to cease and desist.
I don't see 'the perpetrator' trying to harm, intimidate, threaten or defraud you with these posts mocking you as a form of parody.
He's also not American yet you keep posting laws that apply to the US. You're also going this hard over a 'misdemeanor'.In some cases felony.
Which cases?
Regardless, Jim I am asking you to cease and desist.
Considering how he's likely to not get in any trouble over this, this is more likely to invite more of it.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
