Of course not. The original(s) are all still there, and it is laughable to claim that producing new material destroys the original(s), even if the new material uses and, in the eye of some beholders, horribly defaces and makes a mockery of the original(s)
hmmmā¦
Are you laughing though? Because you donāt seem to be laughing.
I can put it this way: I was gonna use that Mona Lisa mustache example earlier to bolster my point (except I thought my examples were funnier) so Iām not sure weāre even on the same page. Itās fine to just say this is an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussion that you have no interest in.
octovagina
4 Likes
God imagine if Ian Fleming were alive today. Heād definitely be rich from the fox news circuit.
2 Likes
I mean, I get it, if a mf says āyou shouldnāt deface an artistās original workā and then you hold up a goddamn mona lisa with a goddamn mustache drawn on it, and the mf says āoh, thatās not what I mean, in fact, thatās the opposite of what I mean; thatās totally good and encouragedā I can hypothesize the potential confusion.
All the womanizing and killing you love, half the n-words!ā¢
3 Likes
Btw, the discussion about how ridiculous it is to remove āfatā from William Wonka but leave in the over-the-top description choc full of 37 synonyms for āfatā calling Gloop a fat fuck, and, the discussion about not ādefacingā an artistās original work, are two separate discussions. And the discussion about copyright law in practice is separate from both.
1 Like
Like Jal, you clearly didnāt look at the post Iām responding to and have no understanding of what my point was in your haste to dunk on me.
Yeah thatās totally what Iām known for, not reading posts. You should see how mad they get at me, all like, āOmg 6ix you should go back in a thread and read and respond to a bunch of old posts, but you never do!ā
Ked mentioned āeditsā and you posted something that is clearly not an āeditā so I pointed that out. I wasnāt trying nor did I know I was dunking.
Poll for people NOT involved in this discussion. Note: I do not know the answer.
How many people do you think are actively involved in this discussion?
- One
- Two
- Three
- Four
- Five
- More than five
0 voters
i like where this is going
I already admitted itās counterintuitive af, to the point that if you accused me of trolling Iād admit that I see how it could look like that:
Being the owner of The Mona Lisa and changing the shade of the background and calling it The Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci= defacing
Drawing a mustache and dicks on The Mona Lisa and calling it The Mona Lisa With A Mustache And Dicks On Her Forehead by Not Leonardo da Vinci = not defacing
Well, I appreciate knowing your definition of defacing, even if yours is hardly in common usage. But that still isnāt the claim I was addressing!
Just a heads up, thereās no non-cringe non-shitty way to say āhey guys I have people here on my ignore list plz like me and tell me iām good and that i fit inā.
1 Like
Hey look, the out crowd is having a conversation
Pathetic
Ok, time to comment on how pathetic they are
Not what I was saying at all fwiw.
ALSO not what I was saying at all.
Thread is completely dominated by an involved and active discussion among a small group of people that should be its own thread. IMO.
1 Like
Itās not the word I wouldāve picked but it seems to be the one being used, just very figuratively and with a lot of artistic license. "āDefacingā the artistās original intentā I suppose. In the mustache mona lisa everybody knows itās not da Vinci.