Winnie-the-Pooh Parodied In Wookie-the-Chew 58
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."
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the obvious "First Pooh" joke.
That just sorta made my week (Score:2, Insightful)
A bit of cheerful innocence peaking through all the troubles these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Funnily enough is closer to the original than the horrid Disney interpretation. It is probably matter of taste, but I like Pooh as drawn in the original Milne books, not the cute-n-cuddly Disney version.
It's just too bad... (Score:4, Interesting)
...that although Fair Use may protect the author from LOSING a law suit, it probably won't protect him from BEING sued.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
This is true, but it also is likely not to protect him from losing.
In Copyright Law, one type of fair use is parody. Parody has a specific definition where the parody is specifically critiquing or commenting about the source material. Post-suit rationalizations also won't fly.
In this case, the artist is just combining two different and copyrighted works (a mash-up). Mash-ups are currently in a legal gray area.
Finally, if this were to come down to a lawsuit, there's a four factor test for fair use (regard
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
1. the purpose and character of your use
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market.
3 and 4 are (IMO) pretty clearly on this guy's side. He's only taking a minor character and I don't think the book competes with anything Lucas is trying to sell.
Re: (Score:1)
Correct Title (Score:1, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either that or that was someone with said access trying to make it look like user error.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The articles and titles often get edited when they are posted with typos or errors. Users’ posts do not, so even if the headline gets fixed, we will still get to look at your spelling error.
Poetic license? BAH! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they're trying to make it sound like Yoda narrated the book.
Good luck with that (Score:2)
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.
Does anybody really think that will hold up? I'm pretty sure the courts will see this as a blatant attempt to profit from the works of others.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I for one think that yes, the courts would eventually uphold the law and the precedents surrounding the validity of such use.
If this use had any validity. Personally, I'm not seeing the "parody" angle. Exactly what is he trying to parody? Look at the website. These works would more appropriately be called "homage" than parody.
Re: (Score:2)
Odds are he'd survive claiming he was parodying WtP, but George Lucas will sue him into the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
If he claimed that he was parodying the Star Wars Holiday Special, George Lucas would slowly walk away without making eye contact - careful not to give away that there is such a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the courts will see this as a blatant attempt to profit from the works of others.
Isn't it?
Actually... (Score:2, Insightful)
The Real Origin of the Name (Score:1)
Winnie-The-Pooh's name comes from a soldier's pet bear from Winnipeg named Winnie. Christopher Robbins named his stuff bear after that pet bear.
Re: (Score:2)
Winnie-The-Pooh's name comes from a soldier's pet bear from Winnipeg named Winnie. Christopher Robbins named his stuff bear after that pet bear.
Great! Now what does Pooh mean?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bear, forest... come on, you can work it out, surely?
That's not parody (Score:2)
Parody has a very specific legal definition. IANAL but basically if you make some kind of derivative work that doesn't actively parody the object it's being derived from then it's just ripping off it's fame and style and you're not protected as a parody.
MacGruber is a parody... Micky Mouse pooping on GWB's head is not a parody.
Re: (Score:1)
Parody has a very specific legal definition. IANAL but basically if you make some kind of derivative work that doesn't actively parody the object it's being derived from then it's just ripping off it's fame and style and you're not protected as a parody.
MacGruber is a parody... Micky Mouse pooping on GWB's head is not a parody.
Then explain how Robot Chicken uses the parody defination?
Right up there with... (Score:2)
...Lord of the Peeps.
Chewie the Wook? (Score:2)
Wookiee the Chew sounds stupid.
It just doesn't make any Sense!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, his name is Edward.
How long does copyright last? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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?
Re: (Score:2)
Star Wars wasn't published in 1920.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Let's see we have 2 posibilities here:
1. 70 years + Remaining Segment of Authors Life
-or-
2. 95 years + 0-25 years of time from creation to publication.
So the author's rule is always better if he lives more than 50 years after creating his work. If the work is published imediatly the author's rule is always better if he lives more than 25 years. Assuming he lives in the US wit
Re: (Score:2)
If I decide to create some important work of art, I'll be sure to give myself a dollar first! But if the author lives 60 years AFTER publishing, then that would be a total term of 130 years.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
It doesn't of course, but the argument is since the work can be sold for longer it is worth more and there is therefore more incentive to create it.
What's ironic about this particular law is that it encourages the murder of the creator, since this makes the copyright expire sooner. It's no accident that it's life plus the lifetime of anyone old enough to kill the creator.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Shouldn't the copyright on something published in 1920 have expired by now?
Copyright expires?
Cease and Desist from Lucas in 3....2....1..... (Score:2)
Subject line says it all.
Re: (Score:2)
Subject line says it all.
If that's the case, then why did you feel the need to add text in the body of your comment?
Because he doesn't understand n/t (Score:2)
n/t
Re: (Score:2)
It's an old slashdotism. You're too young to understand. Now get off my lawn.
Uhhhh nooo (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Disney's depiction of the characters from Winnie the Pooh is distinct from (and in my opinion inferior to) the E.H. Shephard versions. In part this may have been because of the needs of animation. Shephard's characterizations were somewhat ragged stuffed toys we animate with our imaginations.
Depicting Pooh as Chewbacca is a stoke of genius. Lucas's huge accomplishment is that he envisioned a somewhat grimy, lived-in science fiction world that was different from the obviously plywood sound stages of low
AVP (Score:2)
Common wealth games 2010 (Score:1)
This shouldn't work (Score:1)