Slashdot Mirror
Winnie-the-Pooh Parodied In Wookie-the-Chew
pickens writes "Erik Hayden writes in the Atlantic that children will see endearing portraits of Chewbacca rendered in the style of "Winnie-the-Pooh" in the book of drawings "Wookie the Chew," a tribute to the combined genius of George Lucas, A.A.Milne and E.H.Sheppard, by artist James Hance released on September 1st. Samples from the book are available at Hance's web site. Hance bases his right to parody Winnie-the-Pooh on Fair Use as parody under which certain uses of copyrighted works, which would otherwise be considered infringing, are permissible. Interestingly enough, the rights to the original Winnie-the-Pooh were the subject of an 18-year feud in which Walt Disney corporation fought off a challenge to its ownership of the rights ending in 2009 when a judge in Los Angeles struck out a claim against Disney lodged by the family of Stephen Slesinger, a comic book pioneer who bought the copyright to Pooh in 1930 from the bear's British creator, A.A. Milne. Stories of Pooh's adventures were originally created by Milne in the 1920s, based on a toy bear owned by the author's son, Christopher Robin."
A bit of cheerful innocence peaking through all the troubles these days.
...that although Fair Use may protect the author from LOSING a law suit, it probably won't protect him from BEING sued.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
What happened in the Court case was (from Wikipedia but my friend was the actual lawyer representing the Slesinger family in this case) On 19 February 2007 Disney lost a court case in Los Angeles which ruled their "misguided claims" to dispute the licensing agreements with Slesinger, Inc. were unjustified,[20] but a federal ruling of 28 September 2009, again from Judge Florence-Marie Cooper, determined that the Slesinger family had granted all trademark and copyright rights to Disney, although Disney must pay royalties for all future use of the characters. Both parties have expressed satisfaction with the outcome.
I for one think that yes, the courts would eventually uphold the law and the precedents surrounding the validity of such use. Long after the author was bankrupt and dead of course, but such is the uselessness of our court system.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Shouldn't the copyright on something published in 1920 have expired by now?
"As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first."
120 fucking years?!? How exactly does having copyright extend much longer for works for hire (i.e. owned by a corporation) then for works copyrighted by the author himself encourage the creation of new art?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The funny thing about the blurb is it is entirely wrong.
Disney does not own the copyright to Winnie The Pooh, but rather they have a royalty agreement with the actual copyright holder.
The court battle and disagreement stemmed from a disagreement on royalties regarding merchandise with mixed characters. (ie, Pooh and Mickey backpacks would not be counted towards revenue generated under the Pooh brand).
That is like crazy wrong.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra