On Jan 23, 2008 7:02 PM, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 23/01/2008, Chris Howie
<cdhowie(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 23, 2008 5:22 PM, Ian A Holton
<poeloq(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting point. Is the license okay? It uses
parts of Wikipedia,
shouldn't it therefor be a derivative licensed piece of art?
IANAL, but this is clearly parody. I'd call it fair use.
It's also only using a short amount of text, and not very creative
text at that, so I doubt it's even copyrightable.
I was going to say something like that at first but I have more
knowledge in the area of fair use than what is or isn't copyrightable.
:)