3 ms·

Satire is the loophole of Copyright. If you satire ANYTHING you can use their copyrights in the satire. One could safely and legally drive an entire nation's tr

Satire is the loophole of Copyright. If you satire ANYTHING you can use their copyrights in the satire. One could safely and legally drive an entire nation's transportation industry thru that loophole.

junon 5y ago
No, fair use does NOT allow you to retain the original copyright. That would be passing off a derived work as the original copyright holder's work, which could be very damaging. This is a violation of fair use, if it could even be considered that to begin with.
- azernik 5y ago
  That's more of a trademark issue, and would require a reasonable consumer to be likely to be deceived. Which they're not.
  - junon 5y ago
    No, it's not a trademark issue. They copied the work verbatim (including code, which is not covered by trademark law, but by copyright law), modified it, and then put the original copyright notice in the legalese. This is copyright infringement. And consumers are clearly deceived - hence why my original comment asking about it was written and has several upvotes.
    - azernik 5y ago
      The direct copyright is covered by the satire exceptions. If you want to argue that copying the legalese is different, it's going to be on those confusion grounds, which IIUC aren't a copyright concern.
- bsenftner 5y ago
  Fair use in the case of satire is not retaining the original copyright, it is referencing the copyright. It is a legal split hair, but it stands in court.
  - junon 5y ago
    I think you misunderstand. The website in question has "Copyright (c) Amazon, Inc" in the bottom, when in fact the derived work (the site) is not created by Amazon, but by a third party. IANAL but my understanding is that this copyright notice being retained without any clarification of the owner of the derived work can be seen as endorsement, which is an infringement of copyright unless Amazon has expressly permitted such use (which is usually indicated as such, anyway). It is also clearly not satire. That would not hold up in court, and there are many instances where they have tried that angle and failed.

junon 5y ago

No, fair use does NOT allow you to retain the original copyright. That would be passing off a derived work as the original copyright holder's work, which could be very damaging. This is a violation of fair use, if it could even be considered that to begin with.

azernik 5y ago
That's more of a trademark issue, and would require a reasonable consumer to be likely to be deceived. Which they're not.
- junon 5y ago
  No, it's not a trademark issue. They copied the work verbatim (including code, which is not covered by trademark law, but by copyright law), modified it, and then put the original copyright notice in the legalese. This is copyright infringement. And consumers are clearly deceived - hence why my original comment asking about it was written and has several upvotes.
  - azernik 5y ago
    The direct copyright is covered by the satire exceptions. If you want to argue that copying the legalese is different, it's going to be on those confusion grounds, which IIUC aren't a copyright concern.
bsenftner 5y ago
Fair use in the case of satire is not retaining the original copyright, it is referencing the copyright. It is a legal split hair, but it stands in court.
- junon 5y ago
  I think you misunderstand. The website in question has "Copyright (c) Amazon, Inc" in the bottom, when in fact the derived work (the site) is not created by Amazon, but by a third party. IANAL but my understanding is that this copyright notice being retained without any clarification of the owner of the derived work can be seen as endorsement, which is an infringement of copyright unless Amazon has expressly permitted such use (which is usually indicated as such, anyway). It is also clearly not satire. That would not hold up in court, and there are many instances where they have tried that angle and failed.