(September 26, 2014 at 1:39 pm)Heywood Wrote:(September 26, 2014 at 1:21 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote: The only action Disney would have, would be on the basis of copyright infringement, not "desecration" of a venerated cartoon.
By your logic, if one day I come out of the gym, and a guy is dry humping the back of my Mazda, he has committed a crime. I will never look at the trunk of my Mazda the same way again.
The unspoken implication here seems to be, "But it's Jeeesus! And he's a special little snowflake of a statue!"
No he ain't.
And ain't nobody got no copyright on Jesus. Not even the Catholics, much as they might like to.
Yes there are laws against trademark infringement....but there are also laws against desecrating other peoples property. The point of the Micky example was to show that Free Speech doesn't always give you a free pass. If private property can be protected against trademark infringement why can't private property be protected against desecration?
The kid should get his own Jesus statue if he wants to simulate sex acts with a Jesus statue instead of desecrating someone else's.
Trademarks don't matter. I can piss all over Coca Cola's logo, tape it and put it on youtube and have no trouble. Mickey Mouse, like any drawing, has copyright. And copyright comes with the right to insist to be copied... right. In Holland we call this personality right.
If I would own the right to publish lets say edvard munch's the scream, I'm not allowed to change it into a picture of Obama and say thats what munch made.
