The key factor in any legal case will not be whether or not this constitutes parody, but whether he's doing what he's doing with a profit motive. Whether it damages NBC will also be a major factor (and it doesn't have to damage it much).

In my experience, when a 'marketing guy' makes a generaliation like 'females like male artists', he usually has nothing to back it up.

Or athletic ones, for that matter.

oh, i totally agree that they can't…if by "can't" you mean "can."

can we freeze the replies to this before they inevitably cease to be awesome?

if you wanted to be really subtle about it, you could have said "The search for Money" — but I think most people wouldn't have gotten it. (FTR I would have thought that was hilarious. But then, that's one of my favorite Spaceballs gags.)

if you wanted to be really subtle about it, you could have said "The search for Money" — but I think most people wouldn't have gotten it. (FTR I would have thought that was hilarious. But then, that's one of my favorite Spaceballs gags.)

i reckoned it was just 'more money because this rathole turned out to be really deep.'

i reckoned it was just 'more money because this rathole turned out to be really deep.'

While I won't take a stand on the verbification of nouns*, I would point out that it definitely possible to _describe_ it accurately in a sentence.

you know, i haven't heard anybody say that yet (that she works better with capaldi than smith), but you've got a point.

downvoted for misuse of 'interrobang.'

Nietzsche wept.

Nietzsche swiped everything from Schopenhauer, and only ever admitted it in all those books he wrote.

i see that one so often I don't even think anymore about what it looks like.

The allegation is borrowing of phrases. US copyright law holds that simply rewording isn't enough — if a court finds a clear intent to copy the work, they'll typically rule that there's been infringement. They have 'special masters' they go to for this kind of thing, so it's not typically just some judge's opinion —…

Look, this is actually pretty simple: If there's substantial borrowing of a work currently in copyright, there's a case for infringement. If the work is not in copyright, Pizzolato can do whatever the heck he wants. Chambers? Not in copyright. Ligotti? In copyright. If someone with standing sued, they'd probably win.

Why, exactly, should I give a crap about the dreams of those artists?

Ah — a fanboi!

I think this is the point where Snyder's ego officially gets too big for Superman to lift.