◊
edited 25th Jan '13 10:24:30 PM by Pykrete
, because why not?
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Yup, Fallout Equestria shouldn't be on zat list. I did find the rape bits uncomfortable but they weren't graphically described.
The first one just makes me think - mare breasts are like cow udders.
The second one does not sound appetizing.
I'm not sure about the 4th on the list - the one about a rainbow factory.
edited 25th Jan '13 10:46:10 PM by probablyinsane
.gif_100.jpeg){kind=avatar}
Meh, let the latecomers vent.
edited 25th Jan '13 11:00:02 PM by Sydxelia
Um...Blob ponies?
edited 25th Jan '13 11:47:47 PM by dRoy
edited 25th Jan '13 11:59:56 PM by dRoy
Fair Use is typically judged against four factors: Purpose and character, Nature of the copied work, Amount and substantiality, and Effect upon work's value.
"Purpose and character" is the factor that the typical "parody" defense weighs in against. Basically, it asks "What is the reason that the copyrighted work is being used?" In this case, it is indeed intended as a parody of the original work, and may therefore be considered "transformative" enough to pass on this factor. It is only one factor of four, though.
"Nature of the copied work" refers to whether or not the copyrighted work is a statement or demonstration of history or facts that should be available for public use, or whether it is a work created by/for the copyright holder that they should have definite ownership of. It is fairly clear that Hasbro owns Friendship is Magic as a recently created work of fiction, and therefore FiW fails in this factor.
"Amount and substantiality" is how much of the original work is being used. If say, someone copies a few lines of a poem for a book, then that is far more likely to fall under fair use than if they had copied the whole poem instead. In this case FiW uses extensive bits of footage from Friendship is Magic verbatim with minimal editing, and therefore would likely fail in this factor as well in court.
"Effect upon work's value" is, obviously, how much the contested work infringes upon the value of the original, whether directly in its own market, or indirectly through other markets. This factor would likely be highly contested in court. Due to the difference in focus of the two works, they do not directly infringe upon each other's market share, though an argument could be made for FiW being freely available undermining FiM, since it is not free. There is also the issue of licensing and merchandising. FiW could easily be used to create T-Shirts and the like, which would clearly harm FiM's market share of relevant merchandising. It can also be argued, though that since Hasbro has officially licensed Sweetie Bot shirts, that they are profiting off of FiW, rendering the previous point moot.
So, with only the Parody factor to coast on, and the other factors either being outright failed or contested, the case for FiW or any other Abridged Series in terms of Fair Use is shaky, at best.
edited 26th Jan '13 12:10:15 AM by PerpetualLurker