oh...the irony. Look, play all the word games you want Vic, but reproducing (copying) a copyrighted material is against the law. Period. Full Stop. And copyright violation (infringement) can be prosecuted by law.
"Willful copyright infringement can also result in criminal penalties, including imprisonment of up to five years and fines of up to $250,000 per offense. For more information, please see the Web site of the U.S. Copyright Office at
www.copyright.gov, especially their FAQ's at
www.copyright.gov/help/faq."
So here is the irony, the fact you referenced a non-profit organization whose mission it was to call into question the law, but has since closed its doors, does not give your argument any legal credibility. They knew the law. They FOLLOWED the law. Perhaps you recognize the carton character they were copying? Walt Disney's first breakout character (before mickey), Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, created in 1923 while Walt was working with Universal Studios, and as such was owned by Universal (that pesky copyright). So Walt, instead of violating the law by copying his own creation, renegotiated his contract with Universal, and created a NEW character, Mickey Mouse, where he had the copyrights, and the rest is history. So why didn't Question Copyright use Disney's creation Mickey Mouse in their propaganda? Because it was still under copyright, but Oswald has since gone out of copyright. BTW, Disney Corp bought the rights back to Oswald in 2006 perhaps out of loyalty to Walt. But wait, more irony, Walt first called Mickey, 'Mortimer.' Point is, you reference a radical group that obeyed the same law they were protesting. yes, protesting. Does not change the law.
So you share their opinion that the copyright law is stupid, fine, it's still the law. So you either break the law, steal, or you change the law first.
Thanks for the chuckle and the chance to visit nostalgia.
