ZONE and Fair Use, parody, and parody and Fair Use in adult media Options

[AverageGuy]

I posted what I thought was a relevant bit in the Brony bashing thread made by somebody with the handle of ZONE and the discussion turned away from the central topic, so I decided to make this thread for ZONE (NSFW- what I posted not so much because it was a joke) and the issues related to ZONE (porn and how individual companies use the "parody as fair use" rule to legally justify making pornographic parodies of popular media.
I'm going to start off by saying that I don't have much of an opinion, but that ZONE is probably at legal fault for the use of audio clips, that only the images would be protected by "fair use as parody" claims even if one were to apply it, and that although ZONE is at fault, he/she/it/they probably don't/doesn't face any serious legal risk because ZONE isn't financially hurting the individual companies responsible for the animations he/she parodies and doesn't make an outstanding profit from it.

Note: This topic isn't limited to ZONE -- we can also discuss "fair use as parody" in adult media (porn), "fair use as parody" in general, or even the legal definition of "fair use".

[Max-Vader]

To reiterate my earlier point in a somewhat different fashion, I do not consider ZONE's works to be "parody". I've looked up several different definitions of parody, and they all boil down to a parody being something that is either humorous or a commentary/satire of an original work. All ZONE does is take copyrighted characters and make pornography based on them. For example, take the screenshot I posted in the other thread. There is no humor, no satire, and no commentary on the original series (in this case Rozen Maiden). So what I'm basically saying is that it is, as far as parody is concerned, pretty much the more pornographic version of this:



EDIT: Hey, doesn't ZONE also claim copyright on his stuff, just like Chris-Chan does?

This post has been edited by Max-Vader: Apr 2 2012, 07:26 AM

[Agnitio Ex Machina]

It's porn. Sex sells. ZONE is being paid. It is not satire. It's all copyright infringement. At least until royalties are paid for. End of discussion.

[AverageGuy]

To reiterate my earlier point in a somewhat different fashion, I do not consider ZONE's works to be "parody". I've looked up several different definitions of parody, and they all boil down to a parody being something that is either humorous or a commentary/satire of an original work. All ZONE does is take copyrighted characters and make pornography based on them. For example, take the screenshot I posted in the other thread. There is no humor, no satire, and no commentary on the original series (in this case Rozen Maiden). So what I'm basically saying is that it is, as far as parody is concerned, pretty much the more pornographic version of this:



EDIT: Hey, doesn't ZONE also claim copyright on his stuff, just like Chris-Chan does?

I see. The way I was introduced to ZONE was that some kids in the college dorm lobby were looking at his/her work and explained to me that it was "hilarious". Apparently, watching your favorite childhood characters turn triple X is actually funny, rather than sexually appealing as you might expect porn to be, for some people. I think I mentioned in the other thread, but this isn't just limited to ZONE either. Ever seen those websites where they point out all of the pop culture fads which have been turned into pornography? Those also identify their selves as "parodies". (Flintstones XXX parody, (insert fad here) XXX parody)
And the MORE pornographic version of Chris-Chan? Isn't Chris-Chan already all into the china? (That is, if you don't buy into the obvious fact unbased hypothesis that he's probably a closet homosexual, not that there's anything wrong with that.) I got the impression that if he actually knew how to draw, he'd probably be more graphic than ZONE... well, assuming he even knew how sex worked.
And one more thing differentiating CWC from ZONE... ZONE can actually draw. Also, CWC is completely delusional and believes he has millions of fans where he does not. And CWC is racist and sexist and homophobic and an overall horrible person. By contrast, I know nothing about ZONE personally. For all I know, he/she has joined the KKK and attends frequent meetings.

Also, yup. I'm not denying that what ZONE does is probably copyright infringement.

This post has been edited by AverageGuy: Apr 2 2012, 07:54 AM

[Arc Baltic]

Whether it is really funny or not, the pony video especially could be considered satire. I am not about to delve through this thing's life work to determine if everything is, but, if it is mostly targeting creepy fandoms and their love of hentai then yeah, it could be argued as social satire. Provided most are in the vein of the pony thing.

[Max-Vader]

Provided most are in the vein of the pony thing.

Nope. That was just an April Fools "joke" and a display of ZONE's hypocrisy. I mean seriously, social satire?!

[Arc Baltic]

Nope. That was just an April Fools "joke" and a display of ZONE's hypocrisy. I mean seriously, social satire?!

It isn't much far above Naylin Paylin. That aside it could count as satire. I imagine that is a big reason why the big suits don't just crush things like Zone.

[Bitch_Please]

It isn't much far above Naylin Paylin. That aside it could count as satire. I imagine that is a big reason why the big suits don't just crush things like Zone.

Oh God,*Puts on the old tinfoil hat* what if they don't pursue Zone because Zone is backed by them? Nah, just kidding, they probably don't call Zone on it because it's not that important to them.

[AverageGuy]

Whether it is really funny or not, the pony video especially could be considered satire. I am not about to delve through this thing's life work to determine if everything is, but, if it is mostly targeting creepy fandoms and their love of hentai then yeah, it could be argued as social satire. Provided most are in the vein of the pony thing.

Yeah, I don't see how there could be a thinly veiled social commentary in that video outside of "I'm not filling this particular sick fetish," which isn't a social commentary at all. "Parody" has a greater holding in court than "satire" anyway (though as I understand it, a satire is usually a parody to begin with). You might be able to get away with claiming it's parody because it made somebody somewhere giggle a little bit, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't exempt ZONE.

And the big suits really don't care about ZONE. Regardless of how much money he/she makes, it's not huge. They've got bigger fish to fry than policing the Internet for suspected minor copyright infringement, though Turner could have easily pursued something with ZONE if they saw much of a cause for it. But he just got the same "cease and desist" given to other online parodies (Teamfourstar, Yu-Gi-Oh! Abridged). (<Note: I'm not putting those in the same vein, but instead stating that they also use a "fair use as parody" defense and have also been called on it.)

And something to consider: Teamfourstar and Littlekuriboh also profit from abridged series through merchandising. What's your perspective on that? (You meaning anybody in the thread, not that I'm directly targeting one specific person in any way, shape, or form.)

[Arc Baltic]

Oh God,*Puts on the old tinfoil hat* what if they don't pursue Zone because Zone is backed by them? Nah, just kidding, they probably don't call Zone on it because it's not that important to them.

Hang on lemme spell this out for you. A major litigation is a pain in the ass. If they go to bore and someone uses the "Its satire" defense it has to be proven not to be satire. That is a stupidly long battle regardless of satire or no satire. Then it gets up to the decision of a judge which may or may not rule in favor of them. End result for peanuts isn't worth the hassle. Though I imagine the major problem is Free Use in these cases.

I am not arguing it is satire. I am arguing satire can be used for a defense reasonably and cause a litigation cluster fuck.

[Agnitio Ex Machina]

Hang on lemme spell this out for you. A major litigation is a pain in the ass. If they go to bore and someone uses the "Its satire" defense it has to be proven not to be satire. That is a stupidly long battle regardless of satire or no satire. Then it gets up to the decision of a judge which may or may not rule in favor of them. End result for peanuts isn't worth the hassle. Though I imagine the major problem is Free Use in these cases.

I am not arguing it is satire. I am arguing satire can be used for a defense reasonably and cause a litigation cluster fuck.

I guess the laws are too ambiguous to define pay-to-view pornography as not satire? After all, Zone's done more than just Hasbro products, apparently.

This post has been edited by Agnitio Ex Machina: Apr 3 2012, 09:24 AM

[Max-Vader]

I found a very interesting article by a buddy of Brad Jones that deals with this very subject - namely the concept of the porn parody. This pretty much fits my point that what ZONE is doing isn't parody at all. I don't think there can be any even far-fetched case made for it being a "parody" and the only reason he is still doing what he is doing is simply that the legal owners couldn't give a shit.
I kinda wish they did though, just to see him legally crash and burn.

[Arc Baltic]

I kinda wish they did though, just to see him legally crash and burn.

The problem is it is a gamble for them. It doesn't do their bottom line any justice. Odds are only angry internet people and those who want to see things like MLP porn are going to find it. The cost to have a bunch of angry lawyers fight in a court room against a dipshit is expensive. Not to mention if the dipshit can provide a defense. Plus, who knows if the porn industry itself wouldn't back him just to keep the precedent down. All and all its a numbers game.

[Bitch_Please]

I just love how we started a thread devoted solely to the legality of porn under the catagory of "parody"

[Arc Baltic]

I just love how we started a thread devoted solely to the legality of porn under the catagory of "parody"

Post_Count ++;

I hate to say this, because I definitely have at least a foot in the bandwagon now, but... You really gotta stop doing things that maintain that new kid smell.

[Agnitio Ex Machina]

The problem is it is a gamble for them. It doesn't do their bottom line any justice. Odds are only angry internet people and those who want to see things like MLP porn are going to find it. The cost to have a bunch of angry lawyers fight in a court room against a dipshit is expensive. Not to mention if the dipshit can provide a defense. Plus, who knows if the porn industry itself wouldn't back him just to keep the precedent down. All and all its a numbers game.

True, it is a waste of money to try and shut-down a really minor guy but the problem is that if one person can infringe on copyright using his method, anyone can. There's something wrong with the law system when it's too expensive for even corporations to protect their property.

Post_Count ++;

I hate to say this, because I definitely have at least a foot in the bandwagon now, but... You really gotta stop doing things that maintain that new kid smell.

Just ignore him and he'll eventually figure it out.

This post has been edited by Agnitio Ex Machina: Apr 3 2012, 07:50 PM

[Arc Baltic]

True, it is a waste of money to try and shut-down a really minor guy but the problem is that if one person can infringe on copyright using his method, anyone can. There's something wrong with the law system when it's too expensive for even corporations to protect their property.

You are a SOPA supporter aren't ya?

[T_K_17]

True, it is a waste of money to try and shut-down a really minor guy but the problem is that if one person can infringe on copyright using his method, anyone can.

Oh no, we've uncovered the deadly loophole in copyright! Why buy video games or movies when we can watch porn of it for free?!

[Agnitio Ex Machina]

You are a SOPA supporter aren't ya?

Hardly, my problem with this is that ZONE is being paid to plagiarize cartoons. I don't care about those who pirate because they're actively taking a risk, gambling not getting locked-up in a cell somewhere. In certain situations, I actually believe that pirating is ethical, such as was the case in the Spore game fiasco when all the legitimate copies of the game had SecuROM added to them, which made the product not actually belong to the customers. Pirating was the only way to get an actual copy owned by the customer. The pirating was also a form of punishment to the corporation for having bad business ethics. I do not like hackers that try and just get free stuff from even ethical corporations and small businesses but I still don't care since they are risking their own freedom just to save what is in essence, an amount of money only a greedy people would care about keeping to justify stealing.

Oh no, we've uncovered the deadly loophole in copyright! Why buy video games or movies when we can watch porn of it for free?!

My problem is that ZONE's being paid to do it, not that it's making the material.

Anyways, I don't like buisnesses ripping off other buisnesses but I'm fine with people doing it. You get what I'm saying?

This post has been edited by Agnitio Ex Machina: Apr 3 2012, 08:12 PM

[Arc Baltic]

Hardly, my problem with this is that ZONE is being paid to plagiarize cartoons. I don't care about those who pirate because they're actively taking a risk, gambling not getting locked-up in a cell somewhere. In certain situations, I actually believe that pirating is ethical, such as was the case in the Spore game fiasco when all the legitimate copies of the game had SecuROM added to them, which made the product not actually belong to the customers. Pirating was the only way to get an actual copy owned by the customer. The pirating was also a form of punishment to the corporation for having bad business ethics. I do not like hackers that try and just get free stuff from even ethical corporations and small businesses but I still don't care since they are risking their own freedom just to save what is in essence, an amount of money only a greedy people would care about keeping to justify stealing.

Pirating is never ethical. It isn't moral. It is ripping off intellectual property. Yes, you can make a stand and good for you for doing that. You had all the makings of a boycott without actually giving up anything. At the end of the day though, you stole. If you don't like a product or the TOS that comes with a product, don't buy it. If you want to circumvent it, that's fine, but never claim the moral high ground or give it to someone to rip off a company. While I personally have been known to play the, "Fuck you I will unlock the data myself card", it isn't really a moral argument so much as that one is a "You can't stop me from modifying me from accessing content on disc. Thanks a lot Hot Coffee Scandal for setting a precedent!"

Anyways, I don't like buisnesses ripping off other buisnesses but I'm fine with people doing it. You get what I'm saying?

Not at all.