A) obviously parody, and thus "fair use" unless you get very lucky on your judge-and-jury selection
B) the only thing making Garfield even remotely palatable to a new audience - but it's a WHOLE NEW AUDIENCE who are now reading Garfield looking for remix options. Which is to say, a net positive for Jim Davis And Studio.
C) either not making money, or paying licensing fees. And Jim Davis And Studio are *not at all shy* about taking money for Garfield from anyone.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-13 08:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-14 02:16 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-13 08:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-13 09:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-13 11:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-14 01:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-14 01:38 am (UTC)(On that subjsect, as painfully trite as the comic is, it must be said that its author gets points for not being a copyright fetishist.)
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-14 02:09 am (UTC)A) obviously parody, and thus "fair use" unless you get very lucky on your judge-and-jury selection
B) the only thing making Garfield even remotely palatable to a new audience - but it's a WHOLE NEW AUDIENCE who are now reading Garfield looking for remix options. Which is to say, a net positive for Jim Davis And Studio.
C) either not making money, or paying licensing fees. And Jim Davis And Studio are *not at all shy* about taking money for Garfield from anyone.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-14 02:19 am (UTC)