3 ms·

So if it was simply a video making of the phone or its likeness (a S7 by the way, not Nexus) by mocking its technical prowess and then showing an explosion as a

So if it was simply a video making of the phone or its likeness (a S7 by the way, not Nexus) by mocking its technical prowess and then showing an explosion as a "feature, not a bug" then sure it'd be parody. Self-referential. Using the S7 as a detonator? Much more like commentary, though it's toeing close to satire in that the notion of the reference (comedic/etc) is not targeted at the phone itself but in an alternate application. Like taking a tampon and shoving it up a person's nose as a way to stop bleeding from cocaine abuse and making an ad about it - that's not direct parody, and it's a lot closer to what's going on than some would like to acknowledge. I do know very well there's a lot of over-reach when it comes to Fair Use but picking bad examples, like the EFF loves to do and then jack up with all sorts of FUD end of the world rhetoric, doesn't help.

Retric 10y ago
It's not using the phone as a detonator it's using the phone as the bomb. Here, they put the video back up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GhODn4FRoE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GhODn4FRoE You are physically throwing these phones and they can then detonate like a bomb or on impact like a grenade. At one point they look down and several phones are on the ground, later on these phones blow up. It would be like SNL making a fake add about an updated Ford Pinto where they added 10 kg of C4 thus preventing it from catching fire. (warning cars now detonate.) Importantly, replacing the phone with an iPhone would not work as they are making fun of the defect. Thus, using the source material is directly required. AKA if you want to make fun of British people then using Sherlock homes is being lazy, but if you want to make fun of Sherlock homes you kind of need to reference him.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Saying "this phone sometimes explodes so it's a bomb now" isn't a parodic statement, can you follow? It's not following the protocol to be self-referential to make a point. It's just simply a "what if" manipulation of the existence of the item and a characteristic. Oh the S7 is a grenade now! That's satire, not parody. Not protected by Fair Use in the big picture. Let me break it down more simplistically: If the GTA mod included the S7, and it could be used as a phone as intended, but the phone would blow up and kill your character at random, then that's a self-referencing S7 parody implementation. It's a really tedious differentiation, I know, I get it, but it's important because of how often the parody / satire / commentary terms sort of overlap in everyday chats but genuinely have distinct parameters, especially in Fair Use cases.
  - Retric 10y ago
    These phones can't literally be used as a grenade. Parody "an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect." "produce a humorously exaggerated imitation of." On the other hand "satire uses the work to criticize something else" So, simply having the phone fail in the same way as a real phone might not be Parody. Randomly cutting to a nuclear detonation would be. Again: These phones can't literally be used as a grenade. PS: Also, the line has nothing to do with how good a parody is. Bad art is still protected.

Retric 10y ago

It's not using the phone as a detonator it's using the phone as the bomb. Here, they put the video back up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GhODn4FRoE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GhODn4FRoE You are physically throwing these phones and they can then detonate like a bomb or on impact like a grenade. At one point they look down and several phones are on the ground, later on these phones blow up. It would be like SNL making a fake add about an updated Ford Pinto where they added 10 kg of C4 thus preventing it from catching fire. (warning cars now detonate.) Importantly, replacing the phone with an iPhone would not work as they are making fun of the defect. Thus, using the source material is directly required. AKA if you want to make fun of British people then using Sherlock homes is being lazy, but if you want to make fun of Sherlock homes you kind of need to reference him.

6stringmerc 10y ago
Saying "this phone sometimes explodes so it's a bomb now" isn't a parodic statement, can you follow? It's not following the protocol to be self-referential to make a point. It's just simply a "what if" manipulation of the existence of the item and a characteristic. Oh the S7 is a grenade now! That's satire, not parody. Not protected by Fair Use in the big picture. Let me break it down more simplistically: If the GTA mod included the S7, and it could be used as a phone as intended, but the phone would blow up and kill your character at random, then that's a self-referencing S7 parody implementation. It's a really tedious differentiation, I know, I get it, but it's important because of how often the parody / satire / commentary terms sort of overlap in everyday chats but genuinely have distinct parameters, especially in Fair Use cases.
- Retric 10y ago
  These phones can't literally be used as a grenade. Parody "an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect." "produce a humorously exaggerated imitation of." On the other hand "satire uses the work to criticize something else" So, simply having the phone fail in the same way as a real phone might not be Parody. Randomly cutting to a nuclear detonation would be. Again: These phones can't literally be used as a grenade. PS: Also, the line has nothing to do with how good a parody is. Bad art is still protected.