Graphic Artist Copies Wayne Reynolds art for Rush Limbaugh newsletter

[El Mahdi]

I would have thought that part of parody or satire would be the expectation that your audience would get the reference.

I think that would be an immense, and likely unreachable, requirement to meet.

 

[prosfilaes]

I think that would be an immense, and likely unreachable, requirement to meet.

I don't understand your objection. It's an expectation which may or may not be accurate, and by audience I didn't mean every single last person. But certainly when Dragon did its American Gothic parody for the cover of issue 204, I think they expected a good portion of its audience to recognize it as an American Gothic parody and most of their audience to recognize it as something floating around the zeitgeist. If they had thought that much of their audience would have gone "why did they have an old guy in a TSR t-shirt holding a pitchfork and an old women holding some dice on the cover of Dragon magazine", they wouldn't have run the cover. (Personally, at the time I was young enough to miss the specific reference, but I knew it as a meme.)

 

[El Mahdi]

I don't understand your objection. It's an expectation which may or may not be accurate, and by audience I didn't mean every single last person. But certainly when Dragon did its American Gothic parody for the cover of issue 204, I think they expected a good portion of its audience to recognize it as an American Gothic parody and most of their audience to recognize it as something floating around the zeitgeist. If they had thought that much of their audience would have gone "why did they have an old guy in a TSR t-shirt holding a pitchfork and an old women holding some dice on the cover of Dragon magazine", they wouldn't have run the cover. (Personally, at the time I was young enough to miss the specific reference, but I knew it as a meme.)

Because the Law doesn't work so ambiguously (or it isn't supposed too...).

For instance, you say you don't mean it has the expectation of being funny to every single last person...okay. Then what is the threshold? 90% of people...75% of people...50% of people...does it require a comprehensive poll as evidence in order to survive a challenge...or does it just need the ability to be funny to a judge or jury...and what if your judge has no sense of humor...what if your jury doesn't like your look or appreciate your sense of humor...

Also, "Funny" is a majorly subjective thing.

I think the Dragon Magazine parody of American Gothic (though I haven't seen it, only read about it here) is okay because it's parodying the subject specifically (i.e.: American Gothic). However, the manner in which the Rush Limbaugh Newsletter is using that photo isn't parodying D&D, that monster, or anything associated with RPG's. Instead, it's using the picture to show Rush Limbaugh as a lone warrior bravely facing off against a representation of Barack Obama's administration and/or election campaign...in other words parodying Barack Obama as a gigantic monster, and has nothing to do with D&D, the specific monster, or RPG's in general.

That's not a legitimate use of parody.

 

[Umbran]

Because the Law doesn't work so ambiguously (or it isn't supposed too...).

When we are talking about Fair Use, actually, it is supposed to be ambiguous. The law is written the way it is specifically so it requires a human judgement.

 

[prosfilaes]

Because the Law doesn't work so ambiguously (or it isn't supposed too...).

The law is frequently ambiguous and frequently comes down to subtle human questions. But I think this case is pretty clear; there's no evidence that they expected their audience to recognize it, and there's no reasonable expectation that their audience would recognize it. I don't know how many of us here would have recognized it; I wouldn't have.

you say you don't mean it has the expectation of being funny to every single last person

I didn't say funny; I said recognized.

 

[SkidAce]

When we are talking about Fair Use, actually, it is supposed to be ambiguous. The law is written the way it is specifically so it requires a human judgement.

+1 for truth...if I didn't have to spread around etc.

 

[El Mahdi]

I didn't say funny; I said recognized.

That's true. I went back and read your post, and I have no idea where I got the "funny" part. Maybe it was on my mind from another post...

However, I still think it's an unrealistic way to evaluate it. Whether the attribute one is judging it on is funniness or just recognition, where do you set the threshold...?

Nobody has seemed to try and answer that yet...

 

[olshanski]

So if WoTC doesn't defend it, does that mean I can start ripping off other D&D art for my own projects? As long as I do a minimal amount of photoshopping as this graphic artist did.

 

[billd91]

So if WoTC doesn't defend it, does that mean I can start ripping off other D&D art for my own projects? As long as I do a minimal amount of photoshopping as this graphic artist did.

No, it does not.

 

[Umbran]

So if WoTC doesn't defend it, does that mean I can start ripping off other D&D art for my own projects? As long as I do a minimal amount of photoshopping as this graphic artist did.

Can you? Sure! Just as long as you are willing to accept the risk of a Cease and Desist order, and possible lawsuits, possibly having to destroy the physical copies of the product you've printed...

Should you? Probably not.