The fair use doctrine thus “permits [and requires] courts to avoid rigid application of the copyright statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity which that law is designed to foster.”
The task is not to be simplified with bright-line rules, for the statute, like the doctrine it recognizes, calls for case-by-case analysis.
Denying a work the protection of fair use due to the possibly that other less-deserving works might take the same path goes against the very essence of fair use.
(P.S. Sorry for the late reply. You know, life).
Fair enough. But let me put on my lawyer hat (i.e., go to Wikipedia, try to find a pertinent precedent, find the actual opinion, and quote like hell) and see what I can do.
I reference Campbell, aka Skyywalker, et al. v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. from the United State Reports Volume 510: Cases Adjudged in The Supreme Court at October Term,1993 (PDF page 773).
Concerning the fair use defense of 2 Live Crew to parody Roy Orbison's song "Oh, Pretty Woman", to quote Justice Souter's opinion for a unanimous Court decision (pp. 782-783):
The first factor in a fair use enquiry is
I would argue, thought I'm sure not without debated, that POWER/RANGERS fulfills this transformative requirement of fair use.
Concerning the issue of parody, Justice Souter goes on to say (p.784):
For the purposes of copyright law, the nub of the definitions, and the heart of any parodist’s claim to quote from existing material, is the use of some elements of a prior author’s composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author’s works.
POWER/RANGERS offers the perspective, or critique, of teenagers being recruited to fight an intergalactic war with more actual war-like elements that stand in stark contrast to the light-hearted portrayal of the sampled work. It mimics the characters and world but does make a point: war isn't as fun as was shown.
Concerning the issue of excessive use of elements from the original work, the Justice says (p.792):
Parody presents a difficult case. Parody’s humor, or in any event its comment, necessarily springs from recognizable allusion to its object through distorted imitation. Its art lies in the tension between a known original and its parodic twin. When parody takes aim at a particular original work, the parody must be able to “conjure up” at least enough of that original to make the object of its critical wit recognizable.
I would argue that the author of the work in question took as many elements as needed to make the parody recognizable to the audience such that the parody would function. In taking those elements however, the author did transform a number of aspects to suite the intended parodic purpose of the piece (e.g., newly added machine guns, Bulk and Skull turning homicidal, the protagonists losing and dying).
Lastly, concerning the economic incentive, the Justice states (p.794):
[The fourth fair use factor] requires courts to consider not only the extent of market harm caused by the particular actions of the alleged infringer, but also "whether unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by the defendant . . . would result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential market" for the original.
Since the work is blatantly made without the desire of monetary feedback, is not intended to supersede or replace any of the extant or future productions of the original work or author, and has done nothing but bring attention to the original work through this parody, the fourth factor of fair use is satisfied.
But again, I'm no lawyer. I just play one on Slashdot.
But it is intentionally parodying Power Rangers by its very tone and visual style relative to the source material. Just because the actors don't wink at the camera doesn't mean they're are not poking fun at both the show and the remake craze.
But I do feel this short film is devisive on this reason for a similar reason that Verhoeven's Starhship Troopers was: if you take yourself too seriously, people won't know what think or, worse, complete misinterpret you. Or maybe I've just internalized Poe's Law too much.
I was thinking the opposite. Since a Word Documents (.doc or
That is if the intent of the document is to be viewed. If it is to be edited amongst a group, feel free to choose in the group the editor/creator of choice. Word, Abiword, Lotus Symphony, OO Writer, LaTeX, Google Docs (where I mainly created in HTML and CSS when I do)
Where does the waste go?
The used assemblies, usually on a 12-18 month cycle, will be put into wet storage (a big pool of cooled water) for a period of time until all highly radioactive/short half-life substances have decayed to reasonable levels. Then they will be put into dry casks and stored on-site until such a time as the Federal Government opens a suitable long-term or interim storage repository.
What is the cost of waste disposal?
Nuclear waste disposal and technology development is all on the Federal Government. As per the Nuclear Energy Act of 1982, the generators (plants) will pay the DOE 1 mill/KWe-h (1 $/MWe-h) to assume ownership of the waste.
Have they factored that cost into their calculations?
Under the assumption that TVA is a money-making entity and has a finance department, I would assume they do
Not only that but if not for massive government subsidies nuclear power would not be profitable, it may actually loose money.
That is a funny thing to say considering that in 2007 the U.S. gave 4,875 million dollars to renewables (81% in Tax credits) opposed to 1,267 million dollars to nuclear (72% R&D) and 5,451 million dollars to Coal/Petroleum/Natural Gas.
Energy Information Administration Report
"An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of code." -- an anonymous programmer