Content deleted Content added
HagermanBot (talk | contribs) m Dauno didn't sign: "→Wikiality.com, part two: " |
|||
Line 185:
::Really? I'm surprised to hear that would qualify as parody. I've heard that exceptions in copyright law for parody are rather liberal, but I would have presumed that since the original image file is clearly used in its entirety, the use would be unacceptable -- the only 'modification' they've really done is superimposing another photo over it. But I don't really know much about that area of the law -- regardless, thanks for checking it out. <span style="font-family:monospace"> -- (Lee)[[User:Lee_Bailey|Bailey]]<sup><font color="black">[[User talk:Lee_Bailey|(talk)]]</font></sup></span> 21:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
:::The site is a parody of Wikipedia. Thus, it has certain privileges to lampoon Wikipedia-related materials. I'm not saying it legally qualifies as fair-use parody, I'm just suggesting that it's a possibility. --[[User:Davidstrauss|Davidstrauss]] 21:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
:::: As the owner, administrator and whatever other title may be bestowed upon me, I've talked mutliple times with Jimmy as well as the CEO and various other company members about the site. All of them are excited about it. As the previous poster said, it definitely should be safe under parody.
| |||