Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sadmep t1_j25uhjp wrote

Reply to comment by JasonTodd123456 in Does copyright protect characters from being used as a parody? by Hexxegone

I guarantee you that the primary intent of the Pooh-based horror movie is to make people laugh.

−6

TheUmgawa t1_j2a5m2h wrote

The Pooh based horror movie is also likely based on the printed version of the story, so their lawyers probably have a list of what’s Disney original and what’s Milne original, so they don’t include anything that Disney invented. But the book is fair game, having dropped into public domain not terribly long ago, so there’s no one to sue them, regardless, unless they slap a red shirt on him.

3

Veszerin t1_j25w6n3 wrote

That may be the primary result, but not the primary intent. The production company behind it has a slew of shitty movies that are just ripoffs of popular works or things in the public domain.

1

sadmep t1_j262qg0 wrote

Yes, I'm sure Jagged Edge Productions intended Easter Bunny Massacre/Easter Killing to be an edge of your seats thrill ride of a horror movie. Not one intentional laugh... at the Easter bunny killing people.

2

Coupe_on_Zs t1_j26h5iz wrote

Isn’t that the primary intent of all the rest of the Pooh based movies, cartoons, and television shows too?

0

Syn7axError t1_j26m5g3 wrote

Legally speaking, that's completely irrelevant. Does it comment on the original work or not?

0

sadmep t1_j26mce3 wrote

In the case of Pooh, it is all irrelevant. The work is public domain now. Disney still owns the familiar design, iirc.

1