Another thread about the "War on Christmas"

[Chuck S]

Funny you mention that. Weird Al did produce one parody that he couldn't get the copyright--so he offered it free on his website which isn't against the law. B/c he couldn't get permission to use the music--he couldn't sell it, but parody is totally covered by law as a form of expression and thus he could have it on his website. So "Amish Paradise" most likely had some form of "permission" at least for the orchestration of the music.


As far as the shirts---my copyright limited experience is more in the writing/television realm. Not sure how it extends to images. But they are probably covered to some extent.

Actually, yes, Weird Al does get permission for every modern parody offered for profit. He has to or be sued, as both the musical score, as well as the lyrics, are copyrighted.

 

[mickeyfan2]

I will say I've never seen someone use a cross as a tree topper!

So this is OK but not the other?

BTW I don't find it offensive.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Merry Chri$tma$ indeed!

Now come our to our church Chistmas program so the church leaders can increase their vacation fund.

That was just ignorant

ermm... do you have a problem with people being paid to be pastors? Wait...no... don't answer. Just have a happy holiday

 

[Crankyshank]

You can certainly be offended by something or think it's rude for reasons that didn't occur to or weren't intended by the wearer/doer. That could very well be the case with the shirts.

I probably wouldn't be offended by the shirts but they would have made me roll my eyes. I find displays like that tacky and it makes me uncomfortable because I was raised differently.

Mike could have also noticed the tee shirts more than others there at the same time because shirts like that are less common where he lives and therefore would stand out more. They definitely would have stood out to me because they're definitely not a common sight in good old bright blaring blue Rhode Island.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

You can certainly be offended by something or think it's rude for reasons that didn't occur to or weren't intended by the wearer/doer. That could very well be the case with the shirts.

I probably wouldn't be offended by the shirts but they would have made me roll my eyes. I find displays like that tacky and it makes me uncomfortable because I was raised differently.

Mike could have also noticed the tee shirts more than others there at the same time because shirts like that are less common where he lives and therefore would stand out more. They definitely would have stood out to me because they're definitely not a common sight in good old bright blaring blue Rhode Island.

nor here in upstate NY

- although there is one house near us - the guy put up a sign stating "ITS merry christmas" instead of just MC...and some kind of huge birth announcement thing for Jesus.....very in your face.....guy has quite a chip on his shoulder.....there is NO mistaking his intentions.....

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

I got the idea from a couple of their posts that these weren't "simple" reason for the season shirts - OP seemed to allude that the shirts somehow went beyond that - but they didn't say how....

i googled and all I could find were shirts that were actually quite pretty or cute - I couldn't find any examples that would be more "in your face" or anything - I not saying the OP is lying, just that I can't find any that would be worse than the simple message.....

not sure, wish OP would be clearer....

the message itself isn't offensive or bothersome to me.....just how SOME/FEW people intend it.....

And I doubt you will find anything "offensive". Notice how the OP told us to go find pix. OP has none. This is a thread of the first degree. I'm playing along because I'm bored and I've been off the CB for what seems like ages, so I'm itching for a good... erm, conversation.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

And I doubt you will find anything "offensive". Notice how the OP told us to go find pix. OP has none. This is a thread of the first degree. I'm playing along because I'm bored and I've been off the CB for what seems like ages, so I'm itching for a good... erm, conversation.

I'm wondering too ...as I stated before, I wish OP would elaborate.....

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

Actually, yes, Weird Al does get permission for every modern parody offered for profit. He has to or be sued, as both the musical score, as well as the lyrics, are copyrighted.

This is from Wikipedia on Amish Paradise:
Although Yankovic traditionally secures permission from the artists he parodies (even though this is not legally required), and was told by his record label that Coolio had given permission, Coolio later claimed that he had not given such permission.

I think the James Blunt song he just gave away because he didn't want to share any money with the guy when the record company gave him a hard time.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

This is from Wikipedia on Amish Paradise:
Although Yankovic traditionally secures permission from the artists he parodies (even though this is not legally required), and was told by his record label that Coolio had given permission, Coolio later claimed that he had not given such permission.

I think the James Blunt song he just gave away because he didn't want to share any money with the guy when the record company gave him a hard time.

I thought they secured permisson from the record label or whomever owns the copyright. Don't know much about Coolio's song--but just b/c he sang it, doesn't necessarily mean that he retained the rights to it.

 

[amy4bruce]

Just to continue on the parody line (which is OT, I know), there is such a thing called "fair usage," which means that someone can use something that is copywrited in a limited manner, as long as it doesn't interfere with the copyrighted item. Once the object goes commercial, it's no longer fair usage. However, if the original copyright holder doesn't object in writing, they may lose the lawsuit later on.

Examples: Forbidden Broadway is a commercial show that makes fun of other Broadway musicals. You never see a parody of Andrew Lloyd Weber's work, because he refuses to give them permission. On the other hand, Stephen Sondheim sends over his music after he's written it.

Marvel Comics created the Squadron Supreme, a parody of DC Comics' Justice League, as the villains in one of their books. DC did not object, because it was fair usage. Later on, Marvel used them again, in another book. Again, DC did not object. When Marvel published a Squadron Supreme limited series, DC objected, but their lawyers pointed out that, since they hadn't objected previously, a lawsuit would probably be rejected by the court. This is why DC regularly sends out objection letters to everybody who parodies Superman or Batman, just to keep it from going too far.

And now, back to the War on Christmas. (And Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Happy Kwanzaa, Blessed Solstice, Happy Diwali, Happy Santa Lucia, and Happy Holidays.)

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

Just to continue on the parody line (which is OT, I know), there is such a thing called "fair usage," which means that someone can use something that is copywrited in a limited manner, as long as it doesn't interfere with the copyrighted item. Once the object goes commercial, it's no longer fair usage. However, if the original copyright holder doesn't object in writing, they may lose the lawsuit later on.

And now, back to the War on Christmas. (And Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Happy Kwanzaa, Blessed Solstice, Happy Diwali, Happy Santa Lucia, and Happy Holidays.)

I agree that this war is very important, but I'd have to disagree with your statement about commercial use. It is just 1 factor in deciding fair usage.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS.html
The supreme court ruled in favor of 2 Live Crew for an album that sold about a quarter of a million copies when it went to court.

 

[cardaway]

Mike could have also noticed the tee shirts more than others there at the same time because shirts like that are less common where he lives and therefore would stand out more. They definitely would have stood out to me because they're definitely not a common sight in good old bright blaring blue Rhode Island.

Actually, as I described, it was the sheer number of custom shirts that got us looking at all the shirts from that point on. People were looking at ours too since we were wearing park shirts that were up to 6 years old and people were wondering where we bought them.

 

[phisigprincess]

Just as an aside, on the KTTK tour on the 13th, someone asked our guide whether WDW planned to switch over to happy holidays, sparkle season, etc. Our guide saidDisney has no plans of the sort and will remain "merry christmas" since they are a private company and have the right to do so. Thought that was interesting.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Just as an aside, on the KTTK tour on the 13th, someone asked our guide whether WDW planned to switch over to happy holidays, sparkle season, etc. Our guide saidDisney has no plans of the sort and will remain "merry christmas" since they are a private company and have the right to do so. Thought that was interesting.

Disney won't give in to the extremists because they know who butters their bread. Smart company. No need to cause a stir by making an unnecessary "statement".

 

[cardaway]

And I doubt you will find anything "offensive". Notice how the OP told us to go find pix. OP has none. This is a thread of the first degree. I'm playing along because I'm bored and I've been off the CB for what seems like ages, so I'm itching for a good... erm, conversation.

Why don't you take a minute, sit down, and try and get over yourself.

You always have the option of ignoring my posts. I certainly do ingore yours unless they are one of the many end around at attacks on me.

And for those who refuse to just do their own searches here one great example.

http://fcbcapparel.com/Christmas.php

But of course you are somebody who probaly thinks calling people commies is fine.

BTW: I really doubt Keven Smith gave them the rights to use his Buddy Christ trademark.

Maybe I should have taken pictures. Who knew I would be accused of making this all up or just stirring the pot. :rolleyes They were everywhere, but many more at Disney than at the other parks.

And before somebody takes this angle, yes, a search brings up quite a few rude shirts from the anti-Christmas side. I think those are just as bad.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Mike


ETA for clarity: The shirts you linked to are kind of funny in a wierd sort of way. Say you saw a whole lot of these exact shirts at WDW recently? And that's what rained on your parade? I'm not calling you a liar; it's just that I can't believe they're that popular.

 

[amy4bruce]

I agree that this war is very important, but I'd have to disagree with your statement about commercial use. It is just 1 factor in deciding fair usage.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS.html
The supreme court ruled in favor of 2 Live Crew for an album that sold about a quarter of a million copies when it went to court.

I'm sure you're right. One of the most interesting articles I ever read in TV Guide was an article about what TV gets right and wrong about the law. The author of the article, who I don't remember, said that, in many ways, the most accurate show about the law on television at that time (1980s) was Night Court, because it made the point that the law was flexible, and always being interpreted by judges who are human.

 

[mickeyfan2]

Why don't you take a minute, sit down, and try and get over yourself.

You always have the option of ignoring my posts. I certainly do ingore yours unless they are one of the many end around at attacks on me.

And for those who refuse to just do their own searches here one great example.

http://fcbcapparel.com/Christmas.php

But of course you are somebody who probaly thinks calling people commies is fine.

BTW: I really doubt Keven Smith gave them the rights to use his Buddy Christ trademark.

Maybe I should have taken pictures. Who knew I would be accused of making this all up or just stirring the pot. :rolleyes They were everywhere, but many more at Disney than at the other parks.

And before somebody takes this angle, yes, a search brings up quite a few rude shirts from the anti-Christmas side. I think those are just as bad.

I searched on "reason for the season". Not knowing what to look for did make the search harder. Some of them were funny (approved by the ACLU) and some were not. But this is JMO. I also found the "Axial tilt is the reason for the season" funny too.

Honestly I would not wear any of them myself, so just not me. I prefer Disney Christmas shirts.

BTW I only looked at the "Christmas" page you posted. I went back and looked at some others and they are more offensive than the "Christmas" ones were.

 

[amy4bruce]

And for those who refuse to just do their own searches here one great example.

http://fcbcapparel.com/Christmas.php

But of course you are somebody who probaly thinks calling people commies is fine.

I've been trying to stay out of this part of the argument, but I have to say that these shirts are offensive. Of course, to my mind, the Hanukkah shirts are even more offensive, since they seem to indicate that Hanukkah (not my preferred spelling, btw) is this deeply religious holiday, when the true importance of the holiday is that it falls in December, and is an excuse for Jewish children to receive gifts. But that, as they say, is another story.

Since the company labels itself "for conservatives by conservatives" it would be unrealistic to think that the shirts don't have a political agenda.

 

[Chuck S]

And I'm also pretty sure Christ loves being used to sell T-shirts with a political message at near Disney prices.