Thomas Dalton wrote:
Counterexample:
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/documentary-film-program/film/a-fair-y-us=
e-tale
A short film explaining the concept of fair use that was cobbled together entirely from clips of Disney movies.
=20 That's not a collection of copyrighted works for the sake of it, that's using a copyrighted works to illustrate the discussion about fair use.
None of which changes the fact that this is a fair use work composed entirely of copyrighted material, which your previous posting claimed was not possible. It's a counterexample to your assertion, not a perfect analogy for BJAODN. Once the notion that it's possible to have a fair use work composed entirely of copyrighted material is accepted, _then_ we can progress on further quibbling about BJAODN specifically.
One could well consider BJAODN as an example of parody, in fact. :)
=20 A parody of what? "parody" doesn't just mean something funny. It has to be a parody of something, and then you can use that something under fair use. BJAODN would have to be a parody of itself for that to work, which is obviously nonsense.
I'm suggesting it could be considered a parody of Wikipedia, not of BJAODN itself.