My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
Ezekiel Krahlin
matter. I just received an e-mail that I should cease displaying one
of my satirical works, using two "Peanuts Characters". This cartoon
can be seen at:
http://members.tripod.com/~ezekielk/peenut.htm
In case it has been removed by the web host by the time you get this
e-mail, I have also made it available at:
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/extra/copyrite.htm
I understand that under copyright law of the U.S., one can legally
derive a theme from another artist--without that artist's
permission--as long as it is used as a form of satire. This would
explain why so many underground comics parody Peanuts and many other
mainstream cartoons...and I hardly doubt they got the authors'
permission.
Nonetheless, we have a poor history of defending copyright laws, when
powerful companies step in...and I cannot afford any competent legal
counsel. So I advise anyone concerned, to make a copy of my image in
question, before it is likely to be censored a short time from now.
And, once you have obtained a copy...do with it what you will! My
Peanuts satire is a severe criticism against gay censorship in
mainstream comic strips...and a strong stand for gay rights.
Now, here is that message accusing me of infringement:
---begin message
From: DUNCAN POIRIER <DPOI...@baker-hostetler.com>
Subject: Unauthorized use of PEANUTS Characters
To: ezek...@members.gayweb.com
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 15:44:24 -0500
August 27, 1998
Mr. Ezekiel Krahlin
<ezek...@iname.com>
Re: Unauthorized Use of "PEANUTS" Characters
Dear Mr.Krahlin:
Baker & Hostetler LLP is general counsel for United Feature Syndicate,
Inc., which syndicates the comic strip PEANUTS(r) by Charles M. Schulz
in over two thousand newspapers in the United States and throughout
the world. United Feature Syndicate, Inc. owns all of the copyrights,
trademarks, and other subsidiary rights relating to the comic strip
and its characters, including "Snoopy," "Charlie Brown," "Lucy,"
"Linus," "Woodstock," etc. Because of the foregoing rights, third
persons are not authorized to reproduce or copy the PEANUTS(r) comic
strip characters in any form for any purpose without a written license
from United Feature Syndicate, Inc.
Notwithstanding the above rights, we have evidence indicating that you
are operating a website, <members.tripod.com/~ezekielk/peenut.htm>,
that uses the name "Peenuts;" that displays an authorized use of the
PEANUTS comic strip; and that offers to license artwork featuring the
characters LUCY and CHARLIE BROWN, all of which constitutes a clear
violation of these rights. You have not been licensed by our client
to use, display the comic strip name or likenesses of the PEANUTS
characters, or manufacture or sell artwork or goods that contain the
names and likenesses of the PEANUTS characters. Therefore, this
letter advises you that such activity constitutes unfair competition
and an infringement of our client's rights, rendering you liable for
damages.
Therefore, on behalf of United Feature Syndicate, Inc., we demand that
you immediately and permanently discontinue the use of the name or
likeness of the PEANUTS comic strip and its characters, including,
without limitation, immediately and removing deleting all references
to PEANUTS on your site on the World Wide Web. By September 11, 1998,
you must advise us in writing of your compliance with our requests and
furnish us with the following information so that we can make a
judgment as to the terms on which we are willing to resolve this
matter:
(1)The date you first posted the "Peenuts" strip on the World Wide Web
.
(2)The date you first offered to license the "Peenuts" artwork on the
World Wide Web.
(3)A list of each item manufactured and/or sold by you or those that
you have licensed to use the "Peenuts" artwork.
(4)The number of each of the items listed pursuant to paragraph 3 that
you manufactured and/or sold.
(5)The sales price of each of the items listed pursuant to paragraph
(6)The names and addresses of each person or company to which you or
your licensees sold any of the items listed in paragraph 3.
(7)The names and addresses of the owners of your business; the names
and addresses of the officers, if any, of your business; and the names
and addresses of any affiliated company or business.
(8)Whether you have used the PEANUTS characters on any other material.
If the answer is yes, describe each item and the extent of its use,
and provide the same information requested in paragraphs one through
seven.
We trust that you will understand the concern of our client about the
infringement of its rights and that you will fully cooperate with us.
Please direct your written response to Duncan Poirier, Case Assistant
<dpoi...@baker-hostetler.com> by no later than September 11, 1998, to
avoid the necessity of our taking further legal action.
Very truly yours,
Melanie S. Corcoran
cc: United Feature Syndicate, Inc.
---end message
---
"Some Thracian now enjoys my blameless shield,
which I unwillingly left beside a bush.
But I was saved; what do I care about that shield?
Let it go, I'll get another no worse."
- Archilocus, 7th Century BC
---
My website kicks (but never licks) butt!
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
GodHates...@HetBeGone.com
Mike Silverman
(a) yes, your use falls under fair use as a political commentary/satire
and
(b) it would probably be expensive to prove this.
Big coproations often send their legal counsel on search-and-destroy
missions against anything on the web having to do with their "property."
It's been used against everything from Barbie paraody sites to Star Trek
fan sites.
It is a total legal boilerplate, also. They don't actually look at the
content of a site (as can obviously be seen from the fact they want your
"sales" figures!).
You might want to ask your local Legal Aid office what to do, or
alternatively contact the Electronic Freedom Foundation (I think).
Or, you could simply write them back and explain that the work is a
political satire falling under fair use, and see what happens.
But, like I said, I am not a lawyer, and you ought to contact a lawyer who
practices in your jurisdiction if you want to be 100% for sure on
anything.
--
Mike Silverman -- cubsfan at turnleft.com -- Lawrence, KS
http://www.turnleft.com/personal
James Doemer
They are correct, you are in violation of copyright laws. United Feature
Syndicate Inc., is the only entity that is allowed to license, for use or
distribution,
those images which you used in your strip. Any profits made from use or
distribution of said images without the expressed consent (written) of
United Feature Syndicate Inc., represents a economic loss to them. As to
the other agencies that may be using those images without permission, I
cannot say until I know the specific details. In addition, if another party
used
"Peenuts" to sell T-Shirts, ball caps, etc... You may be held liable, along
with
the further party, for damages.
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message <35eb1751...@nntp.sj.bigger.net>...
James Doemer
Mike Silverman wrote in message ...
>I am not a lawyer but I would guess that
>
>(a) yes, your use falls under fair use as a political commentary/satire
No, for 3 reasons, it offers a license for use, and it sells that license
for
profit (His own and yet another party), and lastly, it offers no credit to
the
original artist. Under fair use, the proper credit must be given to the
original artist(s).
>
>and
>
>(b) it would probably be expensive to prove this.
>
>Big coproations often send their legal counsel on search-and-destroy
>missions against anything on the web having to do with their "property."
>It's been used against everything from Barbie paraody sites to Star Trek
>fan sites.
>
>It is a total legal boilerplate, also. They don't actually look at the
>content of a site (as can obviously be seen from the fact they want your
>"sales" figures!).
>
>You might want to ask your local Legal Aid office what to do, or
>alternatively contact the Electronic Freedom Foundation (I think).
>
Good advice...
>Or, you could simply write them back and explain that the work is a
>political satire falling under fair use, and see what happens.
>
>But, like I said, I am not a lawyer, and you ought to contact a lawyer who
>practices in your jurisdiction if you want to be 100% for sure on
>anything.
Also good advice.
MyKill
cartoonist too - so please forgive!)
I'm no lawyer, but as a rule of thumb you can get away with
parody imitation of copywrit and/or trademarked material if
the following conditions are met: The work is a one-shot and
no franchise and the creative work is original and not
copied or copied and altered. A single "peenuts" cartoon
parody - written and drawn by yourself, should be perfectly
legal.
Contact the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund for legal support
if it comes to that. From looking at your cartoon, I think
the cartoon syndicate hasn't a legitimate leg to stand on -
especially as you're distributing it for no profit. Peanuts
is common material for MAD magazine to parody, perhaps
finding an example would be of use.
Do look for a public spirited lawyer to help you free of
charge. This is likely a free speech issue - and perhaps
even the ACLU would help you out.
(By they way, I don't share your sentiment that "no comment"
regarding gayness in a sunday strip can be equated with
homophobia, particularly where the subjects are intended to
be pre-adolescent. Your cartoon would argue Calvin and
Hobbes or Pogo or Blondie..etc. is in the same category as
Jesse Helms, which is simply not true.)
Best of luck!
MyKill
(Michael Cooke)
(My comics can be seen at http://myksite.fsn.net)
salty
--
salty
king salty music&pitcures
toronto canada
"for we still keep our time to the turn of the tide
this boat that i built with my father
still lifts to the sky! the one-lunger and i
still talk like old friends on the water"
-from_make and break harbour_by stan rogers
Mike Silverman
> Secondly, it's quite offensive. I'm gay and I'm offended by it.
That it is. And I am gay too.
"Peanuts" doesn't deal with gay rights the same reason it doesn't deal
with the wave theory of light....it has nothing to do with the cartoon.
It should be noted that some cartoons do offers "ins" to deal with
homosexuality. For example "For Better or For Worse" had a very touching
series of 'toons on the struggles of a gay teenager coming out a few years
back.
Anyway, getting back to legal matters, doesn't political commentary allow
one to engage in "fair use" of trademarked material? I do remember lots
of cartoons on the Disney Boycott which used trademarked Disney property
as part of a political commentary. This was legal, so I would assume
Zeke's use of trademarked Peanuts property as part of political commentary
would be legal too.
Any lawyers out there?
Ward Stewart
<leb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Secondly, it's quite offensive. I'm gay and I'm offended by it.
>
Offensive and stupid too --
The only funny part was the disclaimer in which the dismal yutz Zeke
claims authorship of the image and suggests that it be used for
"fund-raising" DEMANDS that one-percent of all monies raised be sent
to HIM. For this benighted creature to then whine about the actual
creator of the images asking him to cease his piracy is, finally,
hilarious.
ward
----------------------------------------------------
"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage but it is
nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation.
It cannot be classified as an illness; we consider
it to be a variation of the sexual functions . . "
Sigmund Freud
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Hawk
>
> Anyway, getting back to legal matters, doesn't political commentary allow
> one to engage in "fair use" of trademarked material? I do remember lots
> of cartoons on the Disney Boycott which used trademarked Disney property
> as part of a political commentary. This was legal, so I would assume
> Zeke's use of trademarked Peanuts property as part of political commentary
> would be legal too.
>
> Any lawyers out there?
>
> --
> Mike Silverman -- cubsfan at turnleft.com -- Lawrence, KS
> http://www.turnleft.com/personal
I can't access the pages. Ward says that Zeke is attempting to license
the work and "demands" (?) a 1% royalty on the use. This is where he
steps over the line between fair use and mis-appropriation of the
efforts of another. The rules say you must be licensed in order to gain
pecuniary profits.
Tom
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>In article <35EB2C09...@bellsouth.net>, leb...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>> Secondly, it's quite offensive. I'm gay and I'm offended by it.
>
>That it is. And I am gay too.
>
>"Peanuts" doesn't deal with gay rights the same reason it doesn't deal
>with the wave theory of light....it has nothing to do with the cartoon.
>
>It should be noted that some cartoons do offers "ins" to deal with
>homosexuality. For example "For Better or For Worse" had a very touching
>series of 'toons on the struggles of a gay teenager coming out a few years
>back.
>
>Anyway, getting back to legal matters, doesn't political commentary allow
>one to engage in "fair use" of trademarked material? I do remember lots
>of cartoons on the Disney Boycott which used trademarked Disney property
>as part of a political commentary. This was legal, so I would assume
>Zeke's use of trademarked Peanuts property as part of political commentary
>would be legal too.
It would not have seemed to me to matter a mouse-fart -- HOWEVER when
our own Zekey announced HIS exaction, that anyone who used HIS image
was REQUIRED to pay Zekey one percent of the revenues; it ceased to be
funny and became grotesque. Presumably one can pay in Thracian
Thalers.
ward
--------------------------------------------------
"The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet
that people have the right to live life as they please, as long
as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. No one has ever
shown me how being gay or lesbian harms anyone. ... Last year,
many who opposed lifting the ban on gays in the military gave lip
service to the American ideal that employment opportunities
should be based on skill and performance. In civilian life,
they'd never condone discrimination. Well, now's their chance to
put up or shut up."
Barry Goldwater 1994
-------------------------------------------------
Ward Stewart
<mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>(Yes, I'm bad and wrong for posting to APH - but I'm a
>cartoonist too - so please forgive!)
>
>
>I'm no lawyer, but as a rule of thumb you can get away with
>parody imitation of copywrit and/or trademarked material if
>the following conditions are met: The work is a one-shot and
>no franchise and the creative work is original and not
>copied or copied and altered. A single "peenuts" cartoon
>parody - written and drawn by yourself, should be perfectly
>legal.
>
>Contact the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund for legal support
>if it comes to that. From looking at your cartoon, I think
>the cartoon syndicate hasn't a legitimate leg to stand on -
>especially as you're distributing it for no profit. Peanuts
>is common material for MAD magazine to parody, perhaps
>finding an example would be of use.
You didn't read the stuff printed to the right of his absurd parody --
in which he DEMANDED that if HIS images were rep;roduced HE rewquired
payment.
>Do look for a public spirited lawyer to help you free of
>charge. This is likely a free speech issue - and perhaps
>even the ACLU would help you out.
Not to hold your breath!
>
>(By they way, I don't share your sentiment that "no comment"
>regarding gayness in a sunday strip can be equated with
>homophobia, particularly where the subjects are intended to
>be pre-adolescent. Your cartoon would argue Calvin and
>Hobbes or Pogo or Blondie..etc. is in the same category as
>Jesse Helms, which is simply not true.)
There goes your Thracian Passport!!
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>fuck 'em, zeke.
Thanks, Salty. I'm going to push this as far as I can, as I know I am
totally within my legal rights. Unfortunately, this is not a fair and
democratic country, especially in regards to our legal system. Combine
a controversial parody of a prominent cartoonist's sacred cow
heterocentric comic strip, along with the homophobia intrinsic in the
legal community...and you have a lot to confront.
But that is one main reason I used Schultz's strip to parody...to draw
their attention, with likely threat to sue. I didn't really know if
this would happen, but I'm delighted. Now, I will milk it for all it's
worth. I am hoping to draw media attention over this issue, as a
project to forward the gay rights movement. Anyone else who cares to,
is quite welcome to contact your local news stations and papers, in
hopes of garnering their interest.
Those who do try to get media interest in their area, are also welcome
to keep me informed of their actions. I will give all participants
full credit on a web page that will evolve from the ensuing
issue...unless they request anonymity.
Ezekiel Krahlin
<big...@provide.net> wrote:
>No, for 3 reasons, it offers a license for use, and it sells that license
>for profit (His own and yet another party), and lastly, it offers no credit to
>the original artist. Under fair use, the proper credit must be given to the
>original artist(s).
This would be true, if the piece were not obvious satire. In the case
of satire, a derived work of one artist may be used by another
artist...if the intent is different from that of the original
artist...and said intent is satirical. And in the case of mimicry for
the sake of satire...one does not need permission from the original
artist. In fact, due to the totally different effect the satirical
version puts forth...it is considered an original work in its own
right...thus legitimizing the distribution and sale of this work to
the author of the satire...with no obligation to inform, or
financially reward, the first artist who is being parodied.
In my "Peenuts" comic, I am obviously satirizing the prolonged and
blatant suppression of gay characters in our mainstream daily and
Sunday comics. There is no question that this is not a work of
satire...in fact, the satirical intent is so obvious, that it may even
be laughed out of court, should the issue ever get that far.
I will present the actual reference regarding copyright protection of
satire tomorrow, so all can see for themselves. I'm too busy tonight
to dig it up.
But in past conversations, I do find that your average citizen has
poor knowledge of copyright laws...and thus believes that satire is
not so protected. Which is untrue. Just look at all the underground
comic books, comedians, and night club shows that parody so many other
artists, entertainers, and politicians! Do you think that any of them,
let alone some, first get permission from those they are parodying? Of
course not...and if satire were not protected by law, we'd have a most
chilling impact of what free speech remains in this sorry, homophobic
nation. Just try to imagine how much important criticism of social
wrongs would be censored, if satire through mimicry were verboten!
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>I am not a lawyer but I would guess that
>
>(a) yes, your use falls under fair use as a political commentary/satire
>
>and
>
>(b) it would probably be expensive to prove this.
Thanks, Mike. I appreciate your well-thought replies. Obviously, I
cannot afford any legal counsel...but I have decided to press the
issue as far as I can...keeping my fingers crossed that I'll obtain
pro-bono support.
>You might want to ask your local Legal Aid office what to do, or
>alternatively contact the Electronic Freedom Foundation (I think).
I will proceed accordingly.
Copyright law definitely protects satire, including using
identical-appearing works of another artist. The parody of well-known
characters lends more effective criticism, than would conjuring up
unknown ones...thus, the serious matter of protecting mimicry of other
works as a form of social criticism.
It is not a question of whether or not I am in my rights. It is a
question of whether the bullies win once more, or we gain another
strike in favor of gay rights and against media suppression of gays in
the form of mainstream daily comics.
>Or, you could simply write them back and explain that the work is a
>political satire falling under fair use, and see what happens.
I am composing my reply to them tonight. Then I will post it in this
thread, so that anyone may advise me as to what I should add to this
letter, or change. Actually, I feel no impinging obligation to
respond, or to respect their self-made mandate to get back to them by
Sept. 11 (or else!). They have already stepped beyond their legal
bounds...but as you say, money talks louder than liberty, in this
nation. I am hoping to be a rare exception to this fascist rule.
>But, like I said, I am not a lawyer, and you ought to contact a lawyer who
>practices in your jurisdiction if you want to be 100% for sure on
>anything.
I have already researched this matter several years ago...as it has
been my plan all along, to draw the wrath of Schultz...who is
notorious for squelching any and all effigies of his characters,
regardless of whether or not they are legally portrayed in satirical
form.
I am only all too pleased that they have finally found me!
My plan, you might say, is a publicity stunt. But I am doing it for a
very important reason: to publicly announce my grievance against our
society for maintaining the invisibility of gays in our mainstream
comic strips. Even here in our lovely gay mecca of San
Francisco...there is not one single gay comic in either of our two
major newspagers. I can only exclaim the same way Charlie Brown
would: "Good grief!"
If worse comes to worse, I'll just move the image in question, to a
web page demonstration of copyright issues, rather than offering the
image for distribution.
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>"Peanuts" doesn't deal with gay rights the same reason it doesn't deal
>with the wave theory of light....it has nothing to do with the cartoon.
Every artist of mainstream comics could come up with that same excuse.
This is just passing the buck. Gay people...including some of very
young years who are so identified...do exist, and walk the same earth
as heteros. It is totally wrong to continuing suppressing this fact,
by denying gays participation in the great Amerikan fun tradition of
the Sunday and daily comics. There's no reason Schultz could include a
"gay" dog, cousin of Snoopy, who comes visiting from time to time.
There could also be a *discussion of an older brother or sister, who
is gay. With Schultz's inimitably light-hearted and friendly treatment
of this issue.
>It should be noted that some cartoons do offers "ins" to deal with
>homosexuality. For example "For Better or For Worse" had a very touching
>series of 'toons on the struggles of a gay teenager coming out a few years
>back.
It was censored in many areas. Good for the author, and I would hope
more authors take up the torch for gay rights, instead of benignly
suppressing the issue while scooping up big bucks with their
heterocentric family-values pap that appeals to a vast and
vacant-minded middle class.
We should at *least demand that the gay mecca main newspapers finally
include one gay-oriented daily and Sunday comic strip. Those are the
S.F. Examiner, and the S.F. Chronicle. We should demand this from all
our urban areas...which I assume by now, all have prominent gay
populations.
>Any lawyers out there?
I will post my original article that started this thread, to some of
our legal oriented newsgroups...and let everyone know which ones.
Stay tuned tomorrow.
Thank you everyone, for all your various inputs and
suggestions...including those with whom I disagree.
Ezekiel Krahlin
>Secondly, it's quite offensive. I'm gay and I'm offended by it.
Wipe your nose, there's brown stuff all over it. (And I don't mean
"charlie" brown!)
Ezekiel Krahlin
<mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I'm no lawyer, but as a rule of thumb you can get away with
>parody imitation of copywrit and/or trademarked material if
>the following conditions are met: The work is a one-shot and
>no franchise and the creative work is original and not
>copied or copied and altered.
It can even be mostly copied, and minimally altered...if such little
alteration suffices to convey a totally different intent from the
original artist...and if such intent is satirical.
>Contact the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund for legal support
>if it comes to that.
Thanks for the suggestion. I will follow through.
>Do look for a public spirited lawyer to help you free of
>charge. This is likely a free speech issue - and perhaps
>even the ACLU would help you out.
Another great suggestion!
>(By they way, I don't share your sentiment that "no comment"
>regarding gayness in a sunday strip can be equated with
>homophobia, particularly where the subjects are intended to
>be pre-adolescent. Your cartoon would argue Calvin and
>Hobbes or Pogo or Blondie..etc. is in the same category as
>Jesse Helms, which is simply not true.)
Heterocentrism behaves as if it needs no justification. I claim that
the only way to shatter such prejudiced pretension, is to challenge
the sacred cows of hetero-self-adulation. All the cartoon authors you
have mentioned have, in one way or another, used their comics as a
vehicle for at least one aspect of civil rights or social
enlightenment. It is only to their shame, to avoid the issue of
homosexual rights., while including all others.
Ezekiel Krahlin
<mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>(My comics can be seen at http://myksite.fsn.net)
Good stuff, "mykill"! I just perused a bit of it, and laughed right
from the first one I saw...Interview with Satan. I also revelled over
your "Straight White Men" parody. You are very talented, by all means
don't stop! I highly recommend this site to all lesbians and gays, and
heteros who can stomach it! (Definitely *not for right-wing types,
whether het, bi or gay.) I'm putting you on my new hot-links page (not
up yet)...and I'll fight tooth and nail to keep it!
I don't have a great drawing talent, like you...but my ideas are
potent. So I have to work for a very long time, just to make a simple
sketch. Hopefully, I'll get better. Ideally, I'd like to collaborate:
my ideas, with a talented sketcher. Meanwhile, I'll just plod along.
To see some of my graphics and animations, you can go to:
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/icons.htm
And to the site where my "Peenuts" cartoon is, and which includes two
*other Sunday comic parodies (Beetle Bailey and Cathy), go to:
http://members.tripod.com/~ezekielk/
Ezekiel Krahlin
following legal-related newsgroups:
law.school.copyright
misc.legal
misc.legal.moderated
Ezekiel Krahlin
<mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>(My comics can be seen at http://myksite.fsn.net)
Good stuff, "mykill"! I just perused a bit of it, and laughed right
from the first one I saw...Interview with Satan. I also revelled over
your "Straight White Men" parody. You are very talented, by all means
don't stop! I highly recommend this site to all lesbians and gays, and
heteros who can stomach it! (Definitely *not for right-wing types,
whether het, bi or gay.) I'm putting you on my new hot-links page (not
up yet)...and I'll fight tooth and nail to keep it!
I don't have a great drawing talent, like you...but my ideas are
potent. So I have to work for a very long time, just to make a simple
sketch. Hopefully, I'll get better. Ideally, I'd like to collaborate:
my ideas, with a talented sketcher. Meanwhile, I'll just plod along.
To see some of my graphics and animations (including "Animated Baby
Jesus" and "Crotch Itch"), you can go to:
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/icons.htm
And to the site where my "Peenuts" cartoon is, and which includes two
*other Sunday comic parodies (Beetle Bailey and Cathy), go to:
http://members.tripod.com/~ezekielk/
On another site, you may find my growing anthology of creative works
by other pro-gay authors and artists. I am particularly looking for
homeless, poor, disabled, and other lesbian/gay types who are left out
of (and even denigrated by) our elitist queer community. I offer them
a free web page, to tell the world their story...when they would
otherwise have no Internet access, or community recognition. Go to
URL:
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Stonewall/8944/
Ezekiel Krahlin
<mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Contact the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund for legal support
Done! Here is the complete list of organizations I have sent an e-mail
to, regarding my copyright issue:
Comic Book Legal Defense Fund
First Amendment Lawyers Association
http://www.fala.org/index.html
Freedom Forum
http://www.freedomforum.org/first/welcome.asp
First Amendment Cyber-Tribune
http://w3.trib.com/FACT/index.html
The National Coalition Against Censorship
http://www.ncac.org/
People For the American Way
http://www.pfaw.org/
ACLU/San Francisco does not have an e-mail, so I will phone them
tomorrow.
ACLU - San Francisco
http://www.metro.net/mitchell/aclu/
Tomorrow and the next day, I will seek out gay media both online and
locally...and other local media. Any other leads, will be greatly
appreciated.
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>I can't access the pages.
That was my "xoom" site, which has regular down time...but it's
usually up again within an hour. But the other site, "tripod" is up.
So if you can't get one, try the other. Also, I have added a third
site, which I have decided will be the one with regular updates:
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/contribs.htm
>Ward says that Zeke is attempting to license the work and "demands" (?)
>a 1% royalty on the use.
Well, you know Wart! He distorts whatever someone says, whose ideology
does not please his lordship. Go to my web page, and judge for
yourself. Why not get your info straight from the horse's mouth,
instead of from a forked-tongue snake?
>This is where he
>steps over the line between fair use and mis-appropriation of the
>efforts of another. The rules say you must be licensed in order to gain
>pecuniary profits.
This is where you show your ignorance about basic copyright laws
regarding satirical content...which I have already explained in an
earlier message in this thread.
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>You didn't read the stuff printed to the right of his absurd parody --
>in which he DEMANDED that if HIS images were rep;roduced HE rewquired
>payment.
Nonsense. What I request is obvious for all to read for
themselves...and which clearly belies your nasty distortion of the
situation. I freely offer the design for all personal and activist
use. I also offer it as a fund raiser to les/gay organizations...in
which case I want 1% of all sales.
>>Do look for a public spirited lawyer to help you free of
>>charge. This is likely a free speech issue - and perhaps
>>even the ACLU would help you out.
>
>Not to hold your breath!
I sure wish you would. But then again...go ahead and flap your jaw
some more...and you'll only look that much more foolish and deceitful.
J. Northwood
Krahlin) wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 01:07:17 -0400, Tom Hawk <tqh...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>>Ward says that Zeke is attempting to license the work and "demands" (?)
>>a 1% royalty on the use.
>Well, you know Wart! He distorts whatever someone says, whose ideology
>does not please his lordship. Go to my web page, and judge for
>yourself. Why not get your info straight from the horse's mouth,
>instead of from a forked-tongue snake?
From the "cartoon"
"This graphic is free for personal or activist use, as
long as copyright credit remains intact. I offer this
design as a fund raiser for lesbian/gay groups...for
T-shirts, decals, coffee mugs, etc. It is copyrighted,
and you must arrange permission and payment with the
artist. I want 1% of all sales of items using this
image...send me a contract."
"It is copyrighted"
"You must arrange permission and payment"
"I want 1% of all sales . . . using this image"
Where has Ward distorted your position, hmmmm?
>>This is where he
>>steps over the line between fair use and mis-appropriation of the
>>efforts of another. The rules say you must be licensed in order to gain
>>pecuniary profits.
>This is where you show your ignorance about basic copyright laws
>regarding satirical content...which I have already explained in an
>earlier message in this thread.
You've given us your spin on them, yes. I wonder how much you really
know about copyright, intellectual property and so forth, though.
As much as, say, you know about hacking?
>"Some Thracian now enjoys my blameless shield,
> which I unwillingly left beside a bush.
> But I was saved; what do I care about that shield?
> Let it go, I'll get another no worse."
> - Archilocus, 7th Century BC
Still misquoting Archilocus, I see.
Or are you claiming "satire" there, too?
Nicole Lasher
Ward Stewart wrote:
> You didn't read the stuff printed to the right of his absurd parody --
> in which he DEMANDED that if HIS images were rep;roduced HE rewquired
> payment.
Ward, we all do this, whether our works are parodies of other artists or
our own out-of-the-grey creations.
If a work is a parody of another, and someone wants to use it for profit,
or to raise funds, they still have to pay the artist. It is then the
artist's responsibility to pay the creator of the original work a royalty
based on an agreed to "percentage".
For instance, if I posted a cartoon parody on Mistress Kitten called
"Kittyporn" and posted it on my site, I would owe Mistress Kitten nothing
because my site is not a paid site...but if I sold the idea to a
publishing company or a magazine, that would be my business, but it is my
job, not the buyer's job to make sure Kitten gets her royalty.
I am positive that Eziekiel would be more than happy to pay a royalty,
were he to get an offer. Any artist worth more than their body-weight in
fertilizer would.
The legality or illegality question is moot until someone actually makes
an offer...and usually doesn't come into play unless an artist's work is
good enough to attract that kind of attention anyway.
So, to be safe, if it was me, I'd take down the cartoons til the issue is
resolved, but it should not take long to resolve.
~Niki
Nicole Lasher
Tom Hawk wrote:
> I can't access the pages. Ward says that Zeke is attempting to license
> the work and "demands" (?) a 1% royalty on the use. This is where he
> steps over the line between fair use and mis-appropriation of the
> efforts of another. The rules say you must be licensed in order to gain
> pecuniary profits.
>
> Tom
But the point is that no publisher in their right mind is going to purchase
unlicensed parodies, unless they stand to make so much money from it that the
"damages" can easily be covered by the profit made.
Peanuts is in no danger of losing fans because of Ezekiel's site. If anything,
it'll make people want to read more Peanuts.
But, since when has anything been fair in the world of art for profit?
I live in and deal with that world every day, which I why I think he should take
the site down until the issue is resolved.
I also think, though, that it would be a good idea for Ezekiel to get licensed,
or apply for a license...Then when he is rejected because they don't want
Peanuts associated with homosexuality, he'll have a case for continuing the
unlicensed work.
Right now, everything's based on hypotheticals, so I don't know how much good a
lawyer is going to do. Once there is some solid evidence that the problem is
homosexuality, and not copyright, then he'll have a better case. Until then,
they'll probably just tell him to get a license. The circle-jerk game..."You
can't do this because you have to go to department A first" Then you go to
department A, and they tell you you can't do it because you have to go through
department B.
~Niki
Nicole Lasher
Ward Stewart wrote:It would not have seemed to me to matter a mouse-fart --
HOWEVER when
> our own Zekey announced HIS exaction, that anyone who used HIS image
> was REQUIRED to pay Zekey one percent of the revenues; it ceased to be
> funny and became grotesque. Presumably one can pay in Thracian
> Thalers.
>
> ward
Once again, Wart...ALL artists, especially those who post our works on the
internet either watermark or attach copyright or fee requirement information
for the use of our images, unless we don't care.
In the case of parodies, cartoons, icons, and such, it is to protect the work
from being over-published all over the place...
Once it is altered for satire, it ceases to be the sole property of the
originator of the idea. At best, if it is not absolutely obvious (as it is in
Peenuts) the original originator is owed a percentage of whatever monies are
made from the altered work. That could be high or low depending on how much of
the original idea was actually used.
Ezekiel has a right to require payment for his work...If someone offers him
payment for a work that was a parody of another artist's work, THEN he is
required to pay a royalty. If he has not been paid, then there is no issue.
Of course, this doesn't stop jerks from making waves where none should be, but
I doubt those waves will be very big over a copyright issue.
I don't think it's a copyright issue, but a gay issue. If Ezekiel applied for
a license, and it turned down, that would be proof.
~Niki
James Doemer
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message
:On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 19:30:43 -0400, "James Doemer"
:<big...@provide.net> wrote:
:
:>No, for 3 reasons, it offers a license for use, and it sells that
license
:>for profit (His own and yet another party), and lastly, it offers no
credit to
:>the original artist. Under fair use, the proper credit must be given
to the
:>original artist(s).
:
:This would be true, if the piece were not obvious satire. In the case
:of satire, a derived work of one artist may be used by another
:artist...if the intent is different from that of the original
:artist...and said intent is satirical. And in the case of mimicry for
:the sake of satire...one does not need permission from the original
:artist. In fact, due to the totally different effect the satirical
:version puts forth...it is considered an original work in its own
:right...thus legitimizing the distribution and sale of this work to
:the author of the satire...with no obligation to inform, or
:financially reward, the first artist who is being parodied.
It has been awhile since my law classes, but I do not believe that
to be the case here. You used an exact likeness of the characters
without proper attribution. However, to be sure, I suggest you contact
someone that practices law in the area of copyright infringement.
:In my "Peenuts" comic, I am obviously satirizing the prolonged and
:blatant suppression of gay characters in our mainstream daily and
:Sunday comics. There is no question that this is not a work of
:satire...in fact, the satirical intent is so obvious, that it may even
:be laughed out of court, should the issue ever get that far.
:
Coulda, woulda, shoulda...... It is not my intent to debate this
issue, you
asked, I gave an opinion based on what I remembered from my law
courses in college 20 years ago. I may very well be wrong, if you can
afford to take that chance, please continue as you are, if not, I
suggest
that you seek a more compitant source for legal advice.
:I will present the actual reference regarding copyright protection of
:satire tomorrow, so all can see for themselves. I'm too busy tonight
:to dig it up.
:
:But in past conversations, I do find that your average citizen has
:poor knowledge of copyright laws...and thus believes that satire is
:not so protected. Which is untrue. Just look at all the underground
:comic books, comedians, and night club shows that parody so many other
:artists, entertainers, and politicians! Do you think that any of them,
:let alone some, first get permission from those they are parodying?
One could not make a decision unless one examined each and every
single individual case. Based on what I seen of your case, you may
be in violation of copyright laws, however, I am not a lawyer, I may
be wrong.
: Of
:course not...and if satire were not protected by law, we'd have a most
:chilling impact of what free speech remains in this sorry, homophobic
:nation. Just try to imagine how much important criticism of social
:wrongs would be censored, if satire through mimicry were verboten!
:
:
See an attorney.
James Doemer
Nicole Lasher wrote in message <35EBBE54...@netvision.net.il>...
:
:
:Tom Hawk wrote:
:
:> I can't access the pages. Ward says that Zeke is attempting to
license
:> the work and "demands" (?) a 1% royalty on the use. This is where he
:> steps over the line between fair use and mis-appropriation of the
:> efforts of another. The rules say you must be licensed in order to
gain
:> pecuniary profits.
:>
:> Tom
:
:But the point is that no publisher in their right mind is going to
purchase
:unlicensed parodies, unless they stand to make so much money from it
that the
:"damages" can easily be covered by the profit made.
:Peanuts is in no danger of losing fans because of Ezekiel's site. If
anything,
:it'll make people want to read more Peanuts.
That is not the point of copyright laws.. It has been shown through
studies that
software piracy actually increases overall software sales. (Those
that pirate
software get to try the software, then they purchase it, those that
don't, usually
couldn't afford to purchase it in the first place). However software
is still
protected.
:But, since when has anything been fair in the world of art for profit?
:I live in and deal with that world every day, which I why I think he
should take
:the site down until the issue is resolved.
:I also think, though, that it would be a good idea for Ezekiel to get
licensed,
:or apply for a license...Then when he is rejected because they don't
want
:Peanuts associated with homosexuality, he'll have a case for continuing
the
:unlicensed work.
?? And just how would he prove that?? Charles Shultz has been
noterious for
protecting the images associated with "peanuts" for a variety of
reasons. Hell,
do you have any idea how much "Met Life" had to pay to use "Peanuts"?
Well
into the millions.
:Right now, everything's based on hypotheticals, so I don't know how
much good a
:lawyer is going to do. Once there is some solid evidence that the
problem is
:homosexuality, and not copyright, then he'll have a better case. Until
then,
:they'll probably just tell him to get a license.
Shultz is under absolutely no obligation to provide a reason behind why
he denied
a license. Or, he could offer it, and set the price so high that few
could afford it.
:The circle-jerk game..."You
:
James Doemer
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message
:On 31 Aug 1998 20:31:01 -0500, cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman)
:wrote:
:
:>"Peanuts" doesn't deal with gay rights the same reason it doesn't deal
:>with the wave theory of light....it has nothing to do with the
cartoon.
:
:Every artist of mainstream comics could come up with that same excuse.
:This is just passing the buck. Gay people...including some of very
:young years who are so identified...do exist, and walk the same earth
:as heteros. It is totally wrong to continuing suppressing this fact,
:by denying gays participation in the great Amerikan fun tradition of
:the Sunday and daily comics. There's no reason Schultz could include a
:"gay" dog, cousin of Snoopy, who comes visiting from time to time.
:There could also be a *discussion of an older brother or sister, who
:is gay. With Schultz's inimitably light-hearted and friendly treatment
:of this issue.
Question.... If a gay character did show up, say Snoopy's cousin,
exactly
how, considering the number of children that watch and read "Peanuts",
would we know that he was gay?? Would he be somewhat better dressed
than Snoopy? For all we know, Snoopy is gay..... Save for,
perhaps,
Lucy and CB's sister, there is no indication of the sexuality of any of
the
other characters. Indeed, Linus fairly faints whenever Sally refers
to him
as her, "Sweet Baboo"... Perhaps he is a gay youth.... And doesn't
Schroder (sp) totally ignore Lucy's advances?? What's up with a guy
that worships the bust of a dead male composer? Then there's pig-pen,
you really gotta wonder about the kinks of a guy that loves dirt that
much.
Of course Lucy hits the roof whenever Snoopy kisser her, wonder what's
up with that? How would you like this handled in a cartoon of
pre-teen
characters??
:
:>It should be noted that some cartoons do offers "ins" to deal with
:>homosexuality. For example "For Better or For Worse" had a very
touching
:>series of 'toons on the struggles of a gay teenager coming out a few
years
:>back.
:
Cool, do you happen to know where I might find that, I would like to see
it.
:It was censored in many areas. Good for the author, and I would hope
:more authors take up the torch for gay rights, instead of benignly
:suppressing the issue while scooping up big bucks with their
:heterocentric family-values pap that appeals to a vast and
:vacant-minded middle class.
:
:We should at *least demand that the gay mecca main newspapers finally
:include one gay-oriented daily and Sunday comic strip. Those are the
:S.F. Examiner, and the S.F. Chronicle. We should demand this from all
:our urban areas...which I assume by now, all have prominent gay
:populations.
:
Then demand......
:>Any lawyers out there?
:
:I will post my original article that started this thread, to some of
:
James Doemer
Nicole Lasher wrote in message <35EBC026...@netvision.net.il>...
:
:
:Ward Stewart wrote:It would not have seemed to me to matter a
So, then I could take that Ezekiel's parody, change a few things, call
it my parody,
and pay nothing? And no, that would not be proof... Charles Schultz
has kept
the "Peanuts" theme under very tight control for many years, he has
turned down
licenses to many for a variety of reasons not having to do with the gay
issue. Or,
he may simply charge the same rate for the license that he charged "Met
Life" for
their use in their advertising.
James Doemer
Great, I will be interested in seeing the responses....
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message
<35eb9de1...@nntp.sj.bigger.net>...
:On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 20:47:28 -0700, MyKill
:<mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
:
:>Contact the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund for legal support
:
:Done! Here is the complete list of organizations I have sent an e-mail
:to, regarding my copyright issue:
:
: Comic Book Legal Defense Fund
: http://www.cbldf.org/
:
: First Amendment Lawyers Association
: http://www.fala.org/index.html
:
: Freedom Forum
: http://www.freedomforum.org/first/welcome.asp
:
: First Amendment Cyber-Tribune
: http://w3.trib.com/FACT/index.html
:
: The National Coalition Against Censorship
: http://www.ncac.org/
:
: People For the American Way
: http://www.pfaw.org/
:
:
:ACLU/San Francisco does not have an e-mail, so I will phone them
:tomorrow.
:
: ACLU - San Francisco
: http://www.metro.net/mitchell/aclu/
:
:Tomorrow and the next day, I will seek out gay media both online and
:locally...and other local media. Any other leads, will be greatly
:appreciated.
:
:
:---
:
:"Some Thracian now enjoys my blameless shield,
: which I unwillingly left beside a bush.
: But I was saved; what do I care about that shield?
: Let it go, I'll get another no worse."
:
: - Archilocus, 7th Century BC
:
:---
Ezekiel Krahlin
Northwood) wrote:
>"This graphic is free for personal or activist use, as
> long as copyright credit remains intact. I offer this
> design as a fund raiser for lesbian/gay groups...for
> T-shirts, decals, coffee mugs, etc. It is copyrighted,
> and you must arrange permission and payment with the
> artist. I want 1% of all sales of items using this
> image...send me a contract."
>
>"It is copyrighted"
>"You must arrange permission and payment"
>"I want 1% of all sales . . . using this image"
>
>Where has Ward distorted your position, hmmmm?
If you can't read what's there right before your face, I wonder if
it's even worth talking any more with you. I quote Wart (as if you
couldn't read for yourself):
"he DEMANDED that if HIS images were rep;roduced HE rewquired
payment."
I hardly call offering everyone who wants, my design for free...as a
DEMAND. They can put it on T-shirts, stickers, decals, book covers,
whatever...to their hearts' content! I even suggested it be used
freely for activist purposes...such as gay rights demonstrations. All
I ask is that the copyright remain intact.
I also offer any of my designs (not just the "Peenuts" one) for fund
raisers for les/gay groups...and in that situation, I do request a
mere 1% of all sales made.
And that is quite clear in my original copyright statement, which you
and Wart choose to skew as meaning *other than what is obvious.
So why don't you take your "hmmmm?" and shove it where the sun don't
shine...only in your case, it probably does, all the time!
Ezekiel Krahlin
<kla...@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>But the point is that no publisher in their right mind is going to purchase
>unlicensed parodies, unless they stand to make so much money from it that the
>"damages" can easily be covered by the profit made.
We shall see!
>Peanuts is in no danger of losing fans because of Ezekiel's site. If anything,
>it'll make people want to read more Peanuts.
I would think so. In fact, I'd like to find a more direct line of
communication directly to Mr. Schulz, instead of dealing with his
legal vultures.
>I live in and deal with that world every day, which I why I think he should take
>the site down until the issue is resolved.
I will consider this suggestion...after musing on many suggestions
over the next several days. Thanks.
>I also think, though, that it would be a good idea for Ezekiel to get licensed,
>or apply for a license...Then when he is rejected because they don't want
>Peanuts associated with homosexuality, he'll have a case for continuing the
>unlicensed work.
I will consider that, too. However, asking for a license puts me in a
situation where this may be interpreted as an admission that not
having a license is illegal...which it is not.
>Right now, everything's based on hypotheticals, so I don't know how much good a
>lawyer is going to do.
In the past, I had belonged to California Lawyers for the Arts, and
consulted an attorney after having done much reading on copyright
laws. He didn't know a damned thing, but pretended to. I was appalled
at his ignorance.
>Once there is some solid evidence that the problem is
>homosexuality, and not copyright, then he'll have a better case.
This is an interesting situation, and I look forward to the adventure.
I will report back soon, with updated info. Thanks for your excellent
input, ~Niki! Between these two surprising and unexpected
incidents--the S.F. Anti-gay ad, and Schulz's attack--I am quite busy
with these pursuits.
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>Charles Shultz has been noterious for protecting the images
>associated with "peanuts" for a variety of reasons.
Indeed he has, irrespective of stepping on the rights of satirical
artists. However, I see many underground artists parodying Schulz's
characters, with no apparent attempt to squelch them. So it is
possible that they may back off.
>Shultz is under absolutely no obligation to provide a reason behind why
>he denied a license.
True. Nor am I under any obligation to provide a reason why I display,
distribute, or sell any legal piece of art I create...satirical
mimicry or other form.
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>Of course Lucy hits the roof whenever Snoopy kisser her, wonder what's
>up with that? How would you like this handled in a cartoon of
>pre-teen characters??
If you believe homosexuality is something dirty and unnatural...then
you'd have a real problem with that. If, however, you believe that
educating children to grow up without bigoted attitudes, you would
assume the responsibility of including the gay issue, in their
formative years. Not to mention (God forbid) sex education!
I think how to go about doing this has many obvious, non-lewd
possibilities...that would not over-strain one's imagination. However,
by the looks of it, you would not be the right person to consult in
this matter.
>Then demand......
Uhh...why do you think I stirred up the wrath of Schulz in the first
place?
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>So, then I could take that Ezekiel's parody, change a few things, call
>it my parody, and pay nothing?
I certainly wouldn't complain. Parody me all you want...thanks for the
free publicity!
I did charge one gay street patrol with copyright infringement, seven
years back. I had originally offered the design for free, but they
turned it down. About a year later, they then used a derived version
of my design, which another person got credit for. But my copyright
insured that the combination of two symbols (snake and triangle) with
the words "Don't Tread on MOI", were unique in this new combination,
so as to protect my creation. Thus, their derived version was not
unique enough to deserve original credt.
Since they were not selling the design, I could not sue...nor did I
want to. I only wanted fair recognition of my contribution. As I
believe it is a terrible thing when gays steal ideas from other gays,
and claim credit for their theft. This is not community, when one
commits such an act.
I scanned a news article about this, if anyone is curious:
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/extra/treadmoi.htm
Since there has been trouble logging onto my xoom site, you can also
go here:
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/treadmoi.htm
Don't forget to read my addendum below the article.
Ezekiel Krahlin
<kla...@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>Ward, we all do this, whether our works are parodies of other artists or
>our own out-of-the-grey creations.
Not to mention that my designs are dedicated to gay rights...to help
us profit financially, by using them on T-shirts, decals, etc. as fund
raisers. And all I ask in exchange is just 1% of all sales! This is an
admirable goal, yet do you see any gay person acknowleding my efforts?
Hardly...because most gays participating in newsgroups are,
unfortunately, conservative and even ultra-conservative...as well as
vindictive, jealous, petty, and downright nasty.
And considering how absolutely prejudiced/bigoted were some people
(including Wart), about my statement that I'm on disability
funding...you'd think they might applaud my efforts to find some way
to earn a living, that suits my conscience!
I can only conclude that my gay attackers are a sorry and pathetic
lot, who need to be exposed in the light of truth. My grating
personality is just the ticket to make them squirm! There shall come a
time when a lot more radical and progressive gays join Usenet...and
for which time I will be most grateful.
>If a work is a parody of another, and someone wants to use it for profit,
>or to raise funds, they still have to pay the artist. It is then the
>artist's responsibility to pay the creator of the original work a royalty
>based on an agreed to "percentage".
Considering that I'm unlikely to get Schulz's approval of my design in
the first place, I don't think it wise to alert him, even if to give
him a share. Also, I understand it is not obligatory--or even
suggested by copyright law--that an artist's satire of another, should
give a share of the profits to the artist being satired. Often times,
satire is used to expose the corruption of the one being
parodied...and therefore, the satire is more ethically worthwhile than
the person or work from which it was derived. But this is not just
philosophical conjecture...it is the way the law has been written.
>I am positive that Eziekiel would be more than happy to pay a royalty,
>were he to get an offer. Any artist worth more than their body-weight in
>fertilizer would.
If the work is a *satire on another, there is no law saying one must
give some of the profit to the person who is, or whose work is, being
satirized. If otherwise, much of our expression of free speech would
quickly grind to a halt.
Final point: considering how cruel Amerika is to lesbians and gays, I
feel it is not only our calling, but our duty, to find ways to milk
finances from a homophobic system, in order to strengthen our
cause...which is The Good Cause and The Good Fight.
Give us marriage or give us death: slay the beast of homophobia!
Amen. (Or to be PC: "Apeople".)
Ezekiel Krahlin
<kla...@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>I don't think it's a copyright issue, but a gay issue. If Ezekiel applied for
>a license, and it turned down, that would be proof.
Good point...however, I fear they'd be crafty enough not to give that
as their reason...though perhaps we can find a way to trap them into
such a revelation! I have offered discussing this issue, not just for
any assistance, but as an opportunity to be a community
project...where all those involved get full credit for their
contributions.
Then I think: How soon before Schulz's lackeys censor *this thread,
too?
James Doemer
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message
:On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:35:11 -0400, "James Doemer" <big...@provide.net>
:wrote:
:
:>Of course Lucy hits the roof whenever Snoopy kisser her, wonder what's
:>up with that? How would you like this handled in a cartoon of
:>pre-teen characters??
:
:If you believe homosexuality is something dirty and unnatural...then
:you'd have a real problem with that.
I'd have a problem with open acts of sex, gay or straight, displayed
where
pre-teen children are concerned.
:If, however, you believe that
:educating children to grow up without bigoted attitudes, you would
:assume the responsibility of including the gay issue, in their
:formative years. Not to mention (God forbid) sex education!
I have no problem with sex education, from a teacher certified as such,
I have
no wish that Charles Schultz become the new sex guru of the kiddie
crowd.
The two issues are unrelated.
:
:I think how to go about doing this has many obvious, non-lewd
:possibilities...that would not over-strain one's imagination. However,
:by the looks of it, you would not be the right person to consult in
:this matter.
Perhaps, perhaps not, either way, you failed to answer the question....
:
:>Then demand......
:
:Uhh...why do you think I stirred up the wrath of Schulz in the first
:place?
:
:
Had no idea, you did not clarify that in the original post.
Frank Martinez Lester
mainstream comic strips...and a strong stand for gay rights.>>
I don't think it is. I couldn't disagree more.
The Baker & Hostetler lawyers are obviously harassing Krahlin far out of
proportion to his ability as one person with limited resources to respond,
as all (corporate) lawyers are trained & expected to do, but Krahlin set
himself up for such treatment by illegally using the images, posting them
on his website, and, not only that, offering the image as a "fund raiser
for lesbian/gay groups" PLUS asking for "1% of sales of all items using
this image ... send me a contract."
And I also think, having loved Charles Schulz' strips from the time I was
a toddler, that his strips are far from being "anti-gay" just because they
do not include debates between Charlie Brown & Linus about gay civil
rights. I find Krahlin's labelling of Schulz as "anti-gay" offensive.
In fact, I personally feel that reading Schulz' strips were a big help to
me in my childhood. They were one of the few things I saw in the media
that celebrated kookiness, diversity, & difference, not to mention the
pain of childhood in a conformist society. He had a black comic strip
character before it was socially acceptable to do so. He had strong
female characters before it was socially acceptable to do so. He had
bookworms. He had kids who failed at everything they tried to do. He had
kids who felt scared about their difference but who were also strangely
reveling in that difference. He had geeks in an era when most cartoon
strips contained normative, bland, uninteresting portrayals of normative,
bland, uninteresting people, or else overidealized superheroes or
stereotyped "Mary Worth" characters. He had one character, Pig-Pen, who
constantly walked around covered in a cloud of dust. He had characters
quoting Aristotle, for crying out loud!
Here's one of my favorite exchanges in a "Peanuts" strip, dated 1961 or
1962:
Lucy: "You can't drift along forever.....You have to direct your
thinking.....for instance, you have to decide whether you're going to be a
liberal or a conservative.....you have to take some sort of stand.....you
have to associate yourself with some sort of cause....."
Linus: (All this time he has had his thumb in his mouth, sucking on it
while he holds a security blanket): "Are there any openings in the
lunatic fringe?"
Prove to me that this is "anti-gay" or anti-anything except conformity and
I will eat the book I got it from.
<frank.>
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>Great, I will be interested in seeing the responses....
EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) just contacted me:
---begin message
From: Gilbert Rankin <gil...@eff.org>
Subject: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
> I'm wondering if anyone at EFF can give me any advice in the following
> matter. I just received an e-mail that I should cease displaying one of my
> satirical works, using two "Peanuts Characters".
I've forwarded your message to our Staff Counsel, Shari Steele.
---end message
I also heard from two others, with "sorry, can't help"...one because
it only deals specifically with issues of separation of church and
state. The other, from The First Amenment Freedom Forum, said:
---begin message
Dear Ezekiel:
The Freedom Forum and its operating program, the First Amendment
Center, track developments in copyright law along with a host of other
First Amendment and related journalism issues. But we are not able to
offer advice or counsel on specific cases. I would suggest that you
contact a local lawyer or law firm focused on copyright issues. I have
forwarded a copy of your note to staff at the First Amendment Center
so that they know of your circumstances.
Gene Policinski
The Freedom Forum
---end message
James Doemer
Hmmm... Hope you have better luck from the other contacts...
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message <35ec4ec3...@nntp.sj.bigger.net>...
Ezekiel Krahlin
they are interested. So I offered to e-mail him some material, to help
them decide whether or not to cover my story. Here is the message I
sent (abridged):
TO: Michael Salinas
FROM: Ezekiel J. Krahlin
Hello, Michael, thanks for listening. Immediately below, is the letter
I received via e-mail yesterday, from Schulz's representative. After
that, will be more information relevent to this matter.
[Schulz letter here]
================================================
Now, the image in question is at
http://members.tripod.com/~ezekielk/peenut.htm
The actual home page for that site is
I am also featuring this issue--with daily updates--here:
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm
(This is also in case the original Peenuts site is shut down.)
There is an interesting thread I began yesterday, in
"alt.politics.homosexuality" entitled:
My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
You might find this useful. Also, my master web site is at:
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
which includes a picture of me in the upper right corner; click on it
for another photo of me. That web site includes some of my former
actions as a self-made activist, including the section "The Somalian
Affair"...which your newspaper covered. The Somalian Affair--like some
other sections of my web site--is actually hosted on another server. I
seem to be having bad luck with my sites, as the main one, plus at
least one other, seems to be having connect problems. But if you can
manage to log onto "Somalian Affari", you will find the B.A.R. article
(written by David O'Conner) about it, at:
http://www2.fortunecity.com/village/weaver/76/article.htm
A B.A.R. reporter is welcome to visit me at my home, to view all my
web sites from my computer...if the connect problems persist. I also
have my original hand painting of "peenuts.htm" here.
In 1991, I also was involved with a charge of copyright infringement
upon the Queer Nation Street Patrol. That article is at:
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/treadmoi.htm
In my addendum beneath the news article, is a link to proof of my
name-change. Or you can just go to:
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/newname.htm
================================================
I believe you now have more than enough material, to decide whether or
not you want to cover this issue. I presently have no legal counsel,
and am trying to get some. Being on disability, I am too poor to
accept any lawyer's help, except as pro-bono. I do feel, however, that
my case could represent the gay community at large, and be a potential
victory for our side.
My main argument is this: In my "Peenuts" comic, I am obviously
satirizing the prolonged and blatant suppression of gay characters in
our mainstream daily and Sunday comics. Even here, in our own
so-called "gay mecca", we have yet to see a gay-themed daily and
Sunday comic in either of our major newspapers: the S.F. Examiner and
the S.F. Chronicle. In light of the recent anti-gay ad published by
the Examiner, I am especially furious...and definitely in the mood to
duke it out with Charles Schulz.
You will find more of my opinions in that newsgroup thread I mentioned
above, from which you may freely quote. Since I use my single phone
line for the Internet, I am usually hard to reach by voice. E-mail is
quicker. In any event, if I don't hear from you by tomorrow afternoon,
I will definitely voice call. If you decide not to pursue my
situation, no hard feelings...but I am determined to bring this to the
media one way or another. Thanks again!
J. Northwood
Krahlin) wrote:
< snip >
>If you can't read what's there right before your face, I wonder if
>it's even worth talking any more with you. I quote Wart . . .
Actually, Eugene, his name is Ward.
>I hardly call offering everyone who wants, my design for free...as a
>DEMAND. They can put it on T-shirts, stickers, decals, book covers,
>whatever...to their hearts' content! I even suggested it be used
>freely for activist purposes...such as gay rights demonstrations. All
>I ask is that the copyright remain intact.
But you wouldn't mind if, say, somebody took "your" design, added the
word "not" in front of the word "gay" in CB's word bubble, and claimed
copyright, right?
>I also offer any of my designs (not just the "Peenuts" one) for fund
>raisers for les/gay groups...and in that situation, I do request a
>mere 1% of all sales made.
And, since you've drawn extensively from intellectual property without
recognition of copyright, and since you call for proceeds if used in
fund raisers, what portion of your proceeds are you spending for the
licensing w/r/t fair-use restrictions.
They apply even with "satirical" use.
It applies equally to song, writing and artwork. This is something we
had to research when Judi's business was starting, this is something
that "Weird Al" has to take under consideration with each album, and
this is something that comes up on a fairly regular basis in the
corporate world. That's why they have the refresher courses on
intellectual property management (and why some of us take them).
>And that is quite clear in my original copyright statement, which you
>and Wart choose to skew as meaning *other than what is obvious.
< snicker >
'S'about as obvious as your immense knowledge of computers and virii.
>So why don't you take your "hmmmm?" and shove it where the sun don't
>shine...
Oh. How hurtful.
How painful.
Oh.
>only in your case, it probably does, all the time!
I can't even _pretend_ to understand what you're saying, here.
>"Some Thracian now enjoys my blameless shield,
And you still can't Archilocus' words right, can you?
J. Northwood
Krahlin) wrote:
< snip >
>Then I think: How soon before Schulz's lackeys censor *this thread,
>too?
Well JHC, twit.
How in the seven hells are they going to manage _that_?
John De Salvio
jmno...@gte.uce_is_icky.net (J. Northwood) wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 08:19:32 GMT, ezek...@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel
> Krahlin) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 01:07:17 -0400, Tom Hawk <tqh...@ix.netcom.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>Ward says that Zeke is attempting to license the work and "demands" (?)
> >>a 1% royalty on the use.
>
> >Well, you know Wart! He distorts whatever someone says, whose ideology
> >does not please his lordship. Go to my web page, and judge for
> >yourself. Why not get your info straight from the horse's mouth,
> >instead of from a forked-tongue snake?
>
> From the "cartoon"
>
> "This graphic is free for personal or activist use, as
> long as copyright credit remains intact. I offer this
> design as a fund raiser for lesbian/gay groups...for
> T-shirts, decals, coffee mugs, etc. It is copyrighted,
> and you must arrange permission and payment with the
> artist. I want 1% of all sales of items using this
> image...send me a contract."
>
> "It is copyrighted"
> "You must arrange permission and payment"
> "I want 1% of all sales . . . using this image"
>
> Where has Ward distorted your position, hmmmm?
>
> >>This is where he
> >>steps over the line between fair use and mis-appropriation of the
> >>efforts of another. The rules say you must be licensed in order to gain
> >>pecuniary profits.
>
> >This is where you show your ignorance about basic copyright laws
> >regarding satirical content...which I have already explained in an
> >earlier message in this thread.
>
> You've given us your spin on them, yes. I wonder how much you really
> know about copyright, intellectual property and so forth, though.
Just the idea that he could copyright someone else's copyrighted
characters is in itself amusing...
--
John
NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:
desalvio["AT" SYMBOL]monitor.net
Bill Lindemann
> On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 00:49:56 GMT, wste...@hi.net (Ward Stewart)
> wrote:
>
> >He added insult to injury by changing the name "Schultz" to "Schitz."
> >Not a move designed to ensure a warm welcome!
>
> As if I was looking for a warm welcome in the first place. Amerikan
> society, due to its excessive homophobia, is extremely cold to gays,
> if not downright violent. I therefore do not feel particularly obliged
> to appease anyone in the mainstream. Aren't they already coddled
> enough, even when knowing that gays are consistently villified and
> bashed?
Some people believe that "if you're not part of the solution, you're
part of the problem". I don't. Ad hominem attacks on those who
are not guilty of any expressed homophobia, and may in fact be friends
of the cause, does nothing except alienate those who could have been
supporters.
If you want to hack a cartoonist, at least pick one with a demonstrated
history of either active or passive homophobia. My suggestions are "B.C."
and "Family Circus". Hmm... If you still want to be in-your-face, how
about penning a takeoff called "Family Jerkoff"?
-Bill
Frank Martinez Lester
social issues...did he leave out any aspect about gays? The only
reason I can see, is the pressure of society's homophobia...which
weighs heavily on all of us.>>
Mr Krahlin:
It is of no use trying to actually communicate with you. You have completely
missed the point of my argument. You have an agenda. If anyone disagrees or
differs, he/she is the enemy.
As someone with many close heterosexual friends & family, I find the
hatefulness of your website offensive & antagonizing, to say the least.
"GodHates...@HetBeGone.com" is a sentiment that the ancient Greek
forebears you praise on your site would unquestionably disown.
It is unfortunate that you have had experiences in your life which have led you
to this level of prejudice.
I have nothing further to say to you.
Frank Martinez Lester
Ward Stewart
Northwood) wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 17:34:13 GMT, ezek...@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel
>Krahlin) wrote:
>
>< snip >
>
>>Then I think: How soon before Schulz's lackeys censor *this thread,
>>too?
>
>Well JHC, twit.
>
>How in the seven hells are they going to manage _that_?
YOU will never know Jon -- YOU'RE not a paranoiac.
ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"The default condition for a citizen in our republic is that in any
harmless matter he is FREE to act as he will. He is NOT to be
restricted by prejudices and animosity amongst his neighbors --
if THEY wish to restrain him from his freedom, THEY must
demonstrate the public interest in so restricting him."
Uncle Ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Ward Stewart
<FMLe...@pacbell.net> wrote:
><<My Peanuts satire is a severe criticism against gay censorship in
>mainstream comic strips...and a strong stand for gay rights.>>
>
>I don't think it is. I couldn't disagree more.
>
>The Baker & Hostetler lawyers are obviously harassing Krahlin far out of
>proportion to his ability as one person with limited resources to respond,
>as all (corporate) lawyers are trained & expected to do, but Krahlin set
>himself up for such treatment by illegally using the images, posting them
>on his website, and, not only that, offering the image as a "fund raiser
>for lesbian/gay groups" PLUS asking for "1% of sales of all items using
>this image ... send me a contract."
He added insult to injury by changing the name "Schultz" to "Schitz."
Not a move designed to ensure a warm welcome!
>
>And I also think, having loved Charles Schulz' strips from the time I was
>a toddler, that his strips are far from being "anti-gay" just because they
>do not include debates between Charlie Brown & Linus about gay civil
>rights. I find Krahlin's labelling of Schulz as "anti-gay" offensive.
By this measure both Popular Mechanics and Popular Science are vicious
propaganda and must be rooted out of the librariesd post-haste.
If this pathetic creep were not so destructive to the cause of
Gay/Lesbian rights he would be funny.
*The* Didaskalos
alt.politics.homosexuality:
==
== --------------A7CE697D9261F0BE49CCE7A7
== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
== Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
==
== I am a writer and have researched copyright rather extensively. And from
== what I can see of your cartoon, the characters you use are Charlie Brown
== and Lucy Van Pelt, who were created by Charles M. Schulz for his comic
== strip The Peanuts.
==
== In my amateur opinion, you have infringed, because...
==
== a.) Those characters are too well-known for you to claim "innocent
== infringement" (which would mean you had no idea they were the property of
== Charles M. Schulz or United Media Syndicate, whichever.)
==
== b.) Those characters are too well known for you to claim "fair use".
== This means, quite simply, that you are not using them in the manner that
== the owner intends for them to be used. It would be one thing to use a
== strip like The Peanuts in your page and give proper credit to Mr. Schulz
== and United Media Syndicate. You did not. You took his characters and
== presented them as your own, even with the word "copyright" beside them.
==
== That is infringement.
==
== Sorry if this isn't what you wanted to hear.
==
== Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
==
== > I'm wondering if anyone can give me any advice in the following
== > matter. I just received an e-mail that I should cease displaying one
== > of my satirical works, using two "Peanuts Characters". This cartoon
== > can be seen at:
== >
== > http://members.tripod.com/~ezekielk/peenut.htm
== >
== > In case it has been removed by the web host by the time you get this
== > e-mail, I have also made it available at:
== >
== > http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/extra/copyrite.htm
== >
== > I understand that under copyright law of the U.S., one can legally
== > derive a theme from another artist--without that artist's
== > permission--as long as it is used as a form of satire. This would
== > explain why so many underground comics parody Peanuts and many other
== > mainstream cartoons...and I hardly doubt they got the authors'
== > permission.
== >
== > Nonetheless, we have a poor history of defending copyright laws, when
== > powerful companies step in...and I cannot afford any competent legal
== > counsel. So I advise anyone concerned, to make a copy of my image in
== > question, before it is likely to be censored a short time from now.
== > And, once you have obtained a copy...do with it what you will! My
== > Peanuts satire is a severe criticism against gay censorship in
== > mainstream comic strips...and a strong stand for gay rights.
== >
== > Now, here is that message accusing me of infringement:
== >
== > ---begin message
== >
== > From: DUNCAN POIRIER <DPOI...@baker-hostetler.com>
== > Subject: Unauthorized use of PEANUTS Characters
== > To: ezek...@members.gayweb.com
== > Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 15:44:24 -0500
== >
== > August 27, 1998
== >
== > Mr. Ezekiel Krahlin
== > <ezek...@iname.com>
== >
== > Re: Unauthorized Use of "PEANUTS" Characters
== >
== > Dear Mr.Krahlin:
== >
== > Baker & Hostetler LLP is general counsel for United Feature Syndicate,
== > Inc., which syndicates the comic strip PEANUTS(r) by Charles M. Schulz
== > in over two thousand newspapers in the United States and throughout
== > the world. United Feature Syndicate, Inc. owns all of the copyrights,
== > trademarks, and other subsidiary rights relating to the comic strip
== > and its characters, including "Snoopy," "Charlie Brown," "Lucy,"
== > "Linus," "Woodstock," etc. Because of the foregoing rights, third
== > persons are not authorized to reproduce or copy the PEANUTS(r) comic
== > strip characters in any form for any purpose without a written license
== > from United Feature Syndicate, Inc.
== >
== > Notwithstanding the above rights, we have evidence indicating that you
== > are operating a website, <members.tripod.com/~ezekielk/peenut.htm>,
== > that uses the name "Peenuts;" that displays an authorized use of the
== > PEANUTS comic strip; and that offers to license artwork featuring the
== > characters LUCY and CHARLIE BROWN, all of which constitutes a clear
== > violation of these rights. You have not been licensed by our client
== > to use, display the comic strip name or likenesses of the PEANUTS
== > characters, or manufacture or sell artwork or goods that contain the
== > names and likenesses of the PEANUTS characters. Therefore, this
== > letter advises you that such activity constitutes unfair competition
== > and an infringement of our client's rights, rendering you liable for
== > damages.
== >
== > Therefore, on behalf of United Feature Syndicate, Inc., we demand that
== > you immediately and permanently discontinue the use of the name or
== > likeness of the PEANUTS comic strip and its characters, including,
== > without limitation, immediately and removing deleting all references
== > to PEANUTS on your site on the World Wide Web. By September 11, 1998,
== > you must advise us in writing of your compliance with our requests and
== > furnish us with the following information so that we can make a
== > judgment as to the terms on which we are willing to resolve this
== > matter:
== >
== > (1)The date you first posted the "Peenuts" strip on the World Wide Web
== > .
== >
== > (2)The date you first offered to license the "Peenuts" artwork on the
== > World Wide Web.
== >
== > (3)A list of each item manufactured and/or sold by you or those that
== > you have licensed to use the "Peenuts" artwork.
== >
== > (4)The number of each of the items listed pursuant to paragraph 3 that
== > you manufactured and/or sold.
== >
== > (5)The sales price of each of the items listed pursuant to paragraph
== >
== > (6)The names and addresses of each person or company to which you or
== > your licensees sold any of the items listed in paragraph 3.
== >
== > (7)The names and addresses of the owners of your business; the names
== > and addresses of the officers, if any, of your business; and the names
== > and addresses of any affiliated company or business.
== >
== > (8)Whether you have used the PEANUTS characters on any other material.
== > If the answer is yes, describe each item and the extent of its use,
== > and provide the same information requested in paragraphs one through
== > seven.
== >
== > We trust that you will understand the concern of our client about the
== > infringement of its rights and that you will fully cooperate with us.
== > Please direct your written response to Duncan Poirier, Case Assistant
== > <dpoi...@baker-hostetler.com> by no later than September 11, 1998, to
== > avoid the necessity of our taking further legal action.
== >
== > Very truly yours,
== >
== > Melanie S. Corcoran
== >
== > cc: United Feature Syndicate, Inc.
== >
== > ---end message
== >
== > ---
== >
== > "Some Thracian now enjoys my blameless shield,
== > which I unwillingly left beside a bush.
== > But I was saved; what do I care about that shield?
== > Let it go, I'll get another no worse."
== >
== > - Archilocus, 7th Century BC
== >
== > ---
== > My website kicks (but never licks) butt!
== > http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
== > GodHates...@HetBeGone.com
==
==
==
== --------------A7CE697D9261F0BE49CCE7A7
== Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
== Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
==
== <HTML>
== I am a writer and have researched copyright rather extensively. And
== from what I can see of your cartoon, the characters you use are Charlie
== Brown and Lucy Van Pelt, who were created by Charles M. Schulz for his
== comic strip <I>The Peanuts</I>.
==
== <P>In my amateur opinion, you have infringed, because...
==
== <P>a.) Those characters are too well-known for you to claim "innocent
== infringement" (which would mean you had no idea they were the property
== of Charles M. Schulz or United Media Syndicate, whichever.)
==
== <P>b.) Those characters are too well known for you to claim "fair
== use". This means, quite simply, that you are not using them in the
== manner that the owner intends for them to be used. It would be one
== thing to use a strip like The Peanuts in your page and give proper credit
== to Mr. Schulz and United Media Syndicate. You did not. You
== took his characters and presented them as your own, even with the word
== "copyright" beside them.
==
== <P>That is infringement.
==
== <P>Sorry if this isn't what you wanted to hear.
==
== <P>Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
== <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>I'm wondering if anyone can give me any advice in
== the following
== <BR>matter. I just received an e-mail that I should cease displaying one
== <BR>of my satirical works, using two "Peanuts Characters". This cartoon
== <BR>can be seen at:
==
== <P> <A HREF="http://members.tripod.com/~ezekielk/peenut.htm">http://members.tripod.com/~ezekielk/peenut.htm</A>
==
== <P>In case it has been removed by the web host by the time you get this
== <BR>e-mail, I have also made it available at:
==
== <P> <A HREF="http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/extra/copyrite.htm">http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/extra/copyrite.htm</A>
==
== <P>I understand that under copyright law of the U.S., one can legally
== <BR>derive a theme from another artist--without that artist's
== <BR>permission--as long as it is used as a form of satire. This would
== <BR>explain why so many underground comics parody Peanuts and many other
== <BR>mainstream cartoons...and I hardly doubt they got the authors'
== <BR>permission.
==
== <P>Nonetheless, we have a poor history of defending copyright laws, when
== <BR>powerful companies step in...and I cannot afford any competent legal
== <BR>counsel. So I advise anyone concerned, to make a copy of my image in
== <BR>question, before it is likely to be censored a short time from now.
== <BR>And, once you have obtained a copy...do with it what you will! My
== <BR>Peanuts satire is a severe criticism against gay censorship in
== <BR>mainstream comic strips...and a strong stand for gay rights.
==
== <P>Now, here is that message accusing me of infringement:
==
== <P>---begin message
==
== <P>From: DUNCAN POIRIER <DPOI...@baker-hostetler.com>
== <BR>Subject: Unauthorized use of PEANUTS Characters
== <BR>To: ezek...@members.gayweb.com
== <BR>Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 15:44:24 -0500
==
== <P>August 27, 1998
==
== <P>Mr. Ezekiel Krahlin
== <BR><ezek...@iname.com>
==
== <P>Re: Unauthorized Use of "PEANUTS" Characters
==
== <P>Dear Mr.Krahlin:
==
== <P>Baker & Hostetler LLP is general counsel for United Feature Syndicate,
== <BR>Inc., which syndicates the comic strip PEANUTS(r) by Charles M. Schulz
== <BR>in over two thousand newspapers in the United States and throughout
== <BR>the world. United Feature Syndicate, Inc. owns all of the copyrights,
== <BR>trademarks, and other subsidiary rights relating to the comic strip
== <BR>and its characters, including "Snoopy," "Charlie Brown," "Lucy,"
== <BR>"Linus," "Woodstock," etc. Because of the foregoing rights, third
== <BR>persons are not authorized to reproduce or copy the PEANUTS(r) comic
== <BR>strip characters in any form for any purpose without a written license
== <BR>from United Feature Syndicate, Inc.
==
== <P>Notwithstanding the above rights, we have evidence indicating that you
== <BR>are operating a website, <members.tripod.com/~ezekielk/peenut.htm>,
== <BR>that uses the name "Peenuts;" that displays an authorized use of the
== <BR>PEANUTS comic strip; and that offers to license artwork featuring the
== <BR>characters LUCY and CHARLIE BROWN, all of which constitutes a clear
== <BR>violation of these rights. You have not been licensed by our
== client
== <BR>to use, display the comic strip name or likenesses of the PEANUTS
== <BR>characters, or manufacture or sell artwork or goods that contain the
== <BR>names and likenesses of the PEANUTS characters. Therefore, this
== <BR>letter advises you that such activity constitutes unfair competition
== <BR>and an infringement of our client's rights, rendering you liable for
== <BR>damages.
==
== <P>Therefore, on behalf of United Feature Syndicate, Inc., we demand that
== <BR>you immediately and permanently discontinue the use of the name or
== <BR>likeness of the PEANUTS comic strip and its characters, including,
== <BR>without limitation, immediately and removing deleting all references
== <BR>to PEANUTS on your site on the World Wide Web. By September 11,
== 1998,
== <BR>you must advise us in writing of your compliance with our requests
== and
== <BR>furnish us with the following information so that we can make a
== <BR>judgment as to the terms on which we are willing to resolve this
== <BR>matter:
==
== <P>(1)The date you first posted the "Peenuts" strip on the World Wide Web
== <BR>.
==
== <P>(2)The date you first offered to license the "Peenuts" artwork on the
== <BR>World Wide Web.
==
== <P>(3)A list of each item manufactured and/or sold by you or those that
== <BR>you have licensed to use the "Peenuts" artwork.
==
== <P>(4)The number of each of the items listed pursuant to paragraph 3 that
== <BR>you manufactured and/or sold.
==
== <P>(5)The sales price of each of the items listed pursuant to paragraph
==
== <P>(6)The names and addresses of each person or company to which you or
== <BR>your licensees sold any of the items listed in paragraph 3.
==
== <P>(7)The names and addresses of the owners of your business; the names
== <BR>and addresses of the officers, if any, of your business; and the names
== <BR>and addresses of any affiliated company or business.
==
== <P>(8)Whether you have used the PEANUTS characters on any other material.
== <BR>If the answer is yes, describe each item and the extent of its use,
== <BR>and provide the same information requested in paragraphs one through
== <BR>seven.
==
== <P>We trust that you will understand the concern of our client about the
== <BR>infringement of its rights and that you will fully cooperate with us.
== <BR>Please direct your written response to Duncan Poirier, Case Assistant
== <BR><dpoi...@baker-hostetler.com> by no later than September 11, 1998,
== to
== <BR>avoid the necessity of our taking further legal action.
==
== <P>Very truly yours,
==
== <P>Melanie S. Corcoran
==
== <P>cc: United Feature Syndicate, Inc.
==
== <P>---end message
==
== <P>---
==
== <P>"Some Thracian now enjoys my blameless shield,
== <BR> which I unwillingly left beside a bush.
== <BR> But I was saved; what do I care about that shield?
== <BR> Let it go, I'll get another no worse."
==
== <P> - Archilocus, 7th Century BC
==
== <P>---
== <BR>My website kicks (but never licks) butt!
== <BR><A HREF="http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/">http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/</A>
== <BR>GodHates...@HetBeGone.com</BLOCKQUOTE>
== </HTML>
==
== --------------A7CE697D9261F0BE49CCE7A7--
==
*** NOTE *** NOTE *** NOTE *** NOTE
You have posted two copies of your message.
One is in MIME, which is bad enough,
since it adds extraneous material and
obscures your message, but you have also
posted a copy in HTML, which comes through
as a garbled mess.
This unnecessary duplication means that
your message takes 2-3 times longer to download
than a decent, simple text message, and that a
corresponding waste of extra disk space is required
for storing it.
Accordingly, I have adopted a practice of
ignoring such messages except to post this comment.
J. Northwood
wrote:
>>How in the seven hells are they going to manage _that_?
>YOU will never know Jon -- YOU'RE not a paranoiac.
< peering around -- glassy-eyed and sweating >
Whatdoyoumeanbythat?
RavensHeart
Krahlin) wrote:
>I just called the S.F. Bay Area Reporter, spoke with Michael Salinas:
>they are interested. So I offered to e-mail him some material, to help
>them decide whether or not to cover my story. Here is the message I
>sent (abridged):
>
>TO: Michael Salinas
>
>FROM: Ezekiel J. Krahlin
>
<snip>
>
>You will find more of my opinions in that newsgroup thread I mentioned
>above, from which you may freely quote. Since I use my single phone
>line for the Internet, I am usually hard to reach by voice. E-mail is
>quicker. In any event, if I don't hear from you by tomorrow afternoon,
>I will definitely voice call. If you decide not to pursue my
>situation, no hard feelings...but I am determined to bring this to the
>media one way or another. Thanks again!
>
Let's hope he doesn't view this one:
On 8/23/98 at 5:28am, exek...@my-dejanews.com(Ezekiel Krahlin)
wrote:
I am also an angelic spirit who speaks through Zeke,
from time to time...or in this case, types through his fingers, as I
am doing this very moment. This is how schizophrenia can be
transformed into the psyche's most powerful tool. We *insist that he
glorify himself from time to time, as the path we have chosen for him
is often very rough...meaning among other things, with little if any
pats on the back from his fellow humans. He does, however, get plenty
of pats from us, his guardian spirits. In fact, we have decided to
step in on this shameful harangue you and others in this thread, are
persisting in doing against one really decent man.
What would you know of his supposed mental illness...to judge that our
Zeke does not qualify for an occassional merit badge or two...or a
gold star or bronze star, or even the Purple Heart of Pegasus?
You have absolutely no power over him, a
loyal servant of the White Sister/Brotherhood (the angels). Your
insistance that Zeke deserves no recognition or reward, bespeaks one
who dabbles in the black arts...using one's tongue to condemn through
reptitious chants of denigration. Coming from the level from which you
speak, we hardly could say you are qualified to make any value
judgment about our good buddy. In fact, you rate lower than an
earthworm, and barely qualify to judge a cockroach! Do you have any
Cajun Voodoo in your blood?
He has *our help. We are his archetypal archangels, better than
thorazine, stellazine, hellazine, mellowzine, getwellazine, or even
the sanctified prozac...or anything else man's dark sciences can
conjure up.
>My Aunt, also a schizophrenic, experiences the same symptoms as you.
That is untrue. There may be overlapping similarities, but untrue. She
is much more deeper into her journey than Zeke, for she has a
different path than him.
>She thinks she is called by God for a special purpose, and that she
>can see and talk to angels. Now that she is on medication, the angels
>are gone. You need medication.
We angels laugh at your instructions. Your poor aunt has been
chemically lobotomized. Zeke's higher purpose is genuine...but he does
not hear voices. He has insights and dreams, through which we convey
our wishes and instructions. Zeke is quite capable of turning off our
thoughts whenever he so wishes...and indeed he does, when he needs to
rest.
Would you have suggested Edgar Cayce to take medications to stop his
gift of healing? Had he done so, he'd sleep normally, and never suffer
the strange maladies he did, as an exchange for his great gift. All
true psychics are blessed with a deep flaw, which keeps them grounded
enough to do their calling with effective results.
Many people have done much good works, while believing they are
communicating with angels. Besides Cayce, we suggest you consider
William Blake.
Back to your poor Aunt: she is without any real support for her gift,
and thus is not well grounded. In that circumstance, we recommend she
"forget" her angels, until such time decent souls discover her as a
friend. Then, being so grounded with them, she can reduce the
medication and eventually eliminate it...as she learns how to use
these angels for meaningful direction. But until then, she has been
taught to fear their voices, and must do everything possible to get
rid of them. This is barbaric mind control, not love. She has shamanac
talents that should be nurtured, not suffocated.
>>I suggest you read for yourself, The Book of Job, in the Old
>>Testament. It stands alone among all the other books, in its radical
>>departure from the conventional preachings espoused in all the other
>>books.
>
>Another similarity to Fred Cherry- he also focuses his attentions on
>just one book of the Bible.
The similarity you make, dear Placenta, is another of your vulgar
miscarriages of implication that Ezekiel is crazy. The Book of Job is
an outstanding work, for it essentially challanges everything else in
the Old Testament. While there are many other good books you could
read, that would teach you the same lesson...the Book of Job is an
incredibly existential work of intellectual brilliance that reaches
into man's very heart of hearts, to ask the scariest question of all:
why does God seem to punish the righteous?
You would do well to study the Book of Job, as in there you will come
to understand Zeke's particular path we have set him on...as one who
has, like Job, experienced massive boils over his entire face for
seven years. The experience of being both handsome and very ugly, has
given our beloved friend, a deeper insight into the human soul, than
you could ever hope to know in this life...and, as it seems by your
present behavior, for many more lives to come. Perhaps we should have
made you into a cat...what with 9 lives and all, you could play cat
and mouse for a long time before having to answer to your maker.
Furthermore, we only see your clutching onto his statement of
schizophrenia, as a useful weapon by which to bludgeon Zeke, and scare
everyone in Usenet away from him. You know nothing of this state of
mind...as schizophrenia is a very broad term to include a wide variety
of mental anomalies. You know very well that some borderliners can be
quite intelligent, coherent, and compassionate...in fact, far more so
than average...as in some cases, schizophrenia can make a person extra
sensitive with his thoughts and emotions.
You also know very well that just because someone mentions having, or
having had, a mental illness...does not in any way invalidate their
ability to speak up for civil rights and other good causes. Were you
more enlightened, you would regard Zeke as an interesting person, if
not more than that...and say something like: "Well, you are rather
unique. While I don't agree with all your opinions, you have a way
with words, and a controversial manner of stimulating conversations. I
am not here to judge you, but I do hope you are taking good care of
yourself...and if there is anything I can do to make your life a
little less bumpy, just say so."
Instead, you have proven yourself time and again, to be extremely
vindictive...as you pounce on every perceived weakness Zeke has
mentioned...with intent desire to completely tear him apart without
mercy. You wouldn't blink an eye should he suddenly disappear from the
newsgroups...no concern at all, if he should have committed suicide,
suffered a serious breakdown, or felt too hurt by your crudeness, to
ever bother joining Usenet again. Sadly, your kind represents the
present attitude of the surface gay community in Amerika.
But our Angelic Order sustains him with courage and insight...so as a
result, he is far too strong to be deterred or blown away by your foul
stench. You are a rotting walking talking corpse. For while Zeke is
strong enough to take what you dish out...how many others were not,
whose lives you have devastated? We ask not for you to confess your
sins her in Usenet, for we already know...and were it not for God's
patience, we would have taken care of you the best way we know how.
For one, you wouldn't be so smug in your conceit as you now are. And
let's leave it at that, for now. Zeke needs his sleep.
Ezekiel Krahlin
Salvio) wrote:
>Just the idea that he could copyright someone else's copyrighted
>characters is in itself amusing...
This happens all the time...usually as satirical expressions. There is
nothing new in this. Look at all those underground comics that parody
mainstream comics, including Schulz's "Peanuts"! An artist could also
paste together photos of all sorts of other original works as a
collage, and deem her work as an original piece, with its own
copyright.
Political cartoons are a superb example of parody through mimicking
politicians and other controvesial people or items or events. One does
not need any permission by the objects of such parody, to publish and
copyright the satirical result.
---
"Some Thracian now enjoys my blameless shield,
which I unwillingly left beside a bush.
But I was saved; what do I care about that shield?
Let it go, I'll get another no worse."
- Archilocus, 7th Century BC
---
My website kicks (but never licks) butt!
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
GodHates...@HetBeGone.com
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>:If you believe homosexuality is something dirty and unnatural...then
>:you'd have a real problem with that.
>
>I'd have a problem with open acts of sex, gay or straight, displayed
>where pre-teen children are concerned.
Then you did not read my post correctly, in the first place. I said,
"non-lewd" ways of portraying gays as normal people. Such as couples
hanging out together, and gay friends. You insistance of seeing "gay"
as sexually intrusive is but your own homophobic viewpoint. Get over
it.
>I have no problem with sex education, from a teacher certified as such,
>I have no wish that Charles Schultz become the new sex guru of the kiddie
>crowd.
I didn't say Schulz should use sex education...I only gave that as the
second of two examples, where mainstream comics can educate people
about gays. In the case of "Peanuts", there could be a light-hearted
conversation about a gay neigbor or brother or sister or friend. Or
even a gay character. Why on earth do you insist that a sexual act, or
even mentioning one, is the only way to educate young children about
gays?
>Perhaps, perhaps not, either way, you failed to answer the question....
I answered your questions quite well...it is you who needs to take a
little more time reading my replies. Because now, I have merely
rehashed what I said in my previous message.
Mainstream comics inevitably play an important role in educating young
people about the real world...often portraying a minority in some
situation that enlightens the readers as to this character's humanness
and normalcy. Both daily and Sunday comics cover, on a regular basis,
issues regarding the rights of women, children, people of color, the
elderly, the physically and/or mentally challenged, the poor, and
various alternative lifestyles. But the coverage of gay people is
glaringly absent.
This is wrong, and we must not continue to allow this-and-that excuse
of our mainstream comic strip authors, to persist in keeping a blind
eye to the gay issue. To imply that this would be "dirty" or "obscene"
to children, is a slap in our face. We are neither immoral nor
inappropriate with or without children in our presence.
Charles Schulz's comic strip portrays a very bland, pabulum image of
Amerika...and thus is a target for my criticism. He also symbolizes
the quintessential Amerikan comic strip, more so than any other author
today. Again, this makes him an apt target. But targeting him is still
a general condemnation of our mainstream comic strips...and not
intended to single him out, among all artists. On my Gay Sunday Comics
web site, I also take aim at Beetle Bailey and Cathy. In due time, I
will include others.
I am asking, not even for ten percent representation in our daily
comic strips...but for five percent. And that is half of what reality
shows.
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>Hmmm... Hope you have better luck from the other contacts...
Thank you. This is only day one. I have had a request to leave out
names and titles from the lawyers' letter, by the moderator of
newsgroup "misc.legal.moderated". This means they would be interested
in dealing with this issue...and so I re-posted it per his wishes.
ACLU won't take my case, as they usually represent groups, not
individuals. The S.F. Bay Area Reporter was very interested, after I
voice-called them. I spoke with Mike Salinas, their news editor...and
he was receptive to my sending material to him by e-mail. Hopefully,
he'll be interested enough to write up an article. I will be
contacting local TV and radio centers tomorrow.
Other legal agencies I haven't been able to reach today...busy
signals...but I'll keep at it.
Now, an excerpt from the book: "Copyright Plain & Simple" By Cheryl
Besenjak (copyright 1997):
---begin quote
The guidelines used to identify whether a work can be seen as parody
and receive protection under the fair use provision of the Copyright
Act include the following:
- The work may contain only enough of the original work to make it
identifiable as a parody.
- The parody must create a new work that can stand on its own, while
criticizing the original work.
What if the new work is in bad taste and its existence may hinder the
sales of the original work? While a parody's effect on the market for
the original work is weighed when cases are heard, the Supreme Court
maintains that if a work is identified as a parody, it will have a
different market than the original work and should not hinder sales.
Therefore, Anthony Hecht was within his rights when he turned Matthew
Arnold's love interest in "Dover Beach" into a prostitute in his
parody: "Dover Bitch: A Criticism of Life"....
After four years in various courts, the Supreme Court upheld an
artist's right to parody original works under existing fair use
doctrine. Justice David Souter referred to the work as
"transformative". "Transformative" has become part of the fair-use
test. It is different from a derivative work; the right to create
derivative work belongs to the copyright owner. The more
transformative the second work is, the more likely it will be
considered fair use.
Although the Supreme Court upheld the right to comment or criticize
original works through the creation of parodies, simply calling a work
a parody does not guarantee protection against an infringement suit.
The courts will continue to have the final say on whether a use is
fair....
- Section 107 of the copyright law identifies four factors that must
be considered when claiming a fair use of copyrighted material: the
*purpose and *character of the use; the *amount and *substantiality of
the use; the *nature of the use; the *effect of the use on the market
for the original. Courts may also consider other factors in
determining whether a use is fair....
- Parody (the criticism or satirization of another's work) is
protected as freedom of speech. However, simply claiming a work is a
parody does not automatically protect it against a copyright
infringement suit.
- When you claim fair use, you take a risk. The wording of fair use
language in the Copyright Act is vague and subject to interpretation
by the courts!
---end quote
J. Northwood
(RavensHeart) wrote:
< snip >
>Let's hope he doesn't view this one:
< snip >
Actually, I rather hope he _does_.
Ezekiel Krahlin
<FMLe...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Prove to me that this is "anti-gay" or anti-anything except conformity and
>I will eat the book I got it from.
Then why, after all his years of popularity and covering so many
social issues...did he leave out any aspect about gays? The only
reason I can see, is the pressure of society's homophobia...which
weighs heavily on all of us.
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>He added insult to injury by changing the name "Schultz" to "Schitz."
>Not a move designed to ensure a warm welcome!
As if I was looking for a warm welcome in the first place. Amerikan
society, due to its excessive homophobia, is extremely cold to gays,
if not downright violent. I therefore do not feel particularly obliged
to appease anyone in the mainstream. Aren't they already coddled
enough, even when knowing that gays are consistently villified and
bashed?
>By this measure both Popular Mechanics and Popular Science are vicious
>propaganda and must be rooted out of the librariesd post-haste.
And most of our entertainment, including theater and movies. One could
say, by this all-pervasive heterocentric adulation, that these are for
the most part "Heterosexual Propaganda Reinforcement Centers".
>If this pathetic creep were not so destructive to the cause of
>Gay/Lesbian rights he would be funny.
Really? And what on earth have I destroyed? (Besides your own
ego-sopping delusions.)
Ezekiel Krahlin
(RavensHeart) wrote:
>Let's hope he doesn't view this one:
Let's hope he does...what fun *that would be! (And I'm certain you'll
make sure he does, my little messengers.)
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>Ad hominem attacks on those who are not guilty of any expressed
>homophobia, and may in fact be friends of the cause, does nothing
>except alienate those who could have been supporters.
I think if Mr. Schulz were a friend, we'd have know by now. Any author
who does not include the gay issue from time to time, is fair game.
Silence = death.
>If you want to hack a cartoonist, at least pick one with a demonstrated
>history of either active or passive homophobia. My suggestions are "B.C."
>and "Family Circus".
"Passive homophobia" is far more common than "active"...as it is much
easier to get away with, and no one can really prove it with direct
evidence. Schulz, to the best of my knowledge, qualifies as "passive".
I don't know any mainstream comic that could be considered "active".
>Hmm... If you still want to be in-your-face, how about penning a
>takeoff called "Family Jerkoff"?
I will still be confronted with copyright infringement attacks, in
order to squelch my parodies...whether Schulz or any other cartoonist.
RavensHeart
Krahlin) wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 05:24:08 GMT, she...@europa.nospam.com
>(RavensHeart) wrote:
>
>>Let's hope he doesn't view this one:
>
>Let's hope he does...what fun *that would be! (And I'm certain you'll
>make sure he does, my little messengers.)
>
Sorry, but I don't have the time, my little angel.
Ezekiel Krahlin
<FMLe...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>It is of no use trying to actually communicate with you.
Because you really don't want to.
>You have completely missed the point of my argument.
I doubt that. I just disagree.
>You have an agenda.
For more aggressive civil dissent.
>If anyone disagrees or differs, he/she is the enemy.
Nope. Depends on what the disagreement is all about. I take each case
on an individual level.
>As someone with many close heterosexual friends & family, I find the
>hatefulness of your website offensive & antagonizing, to say the least.
Hatred is in the mind of the beholder. Citizen, heal thyself!
>"GodHates...@HetBeGone.com" is a sentiment that the ancient Greek
>forebears you praise on your site would unquestionably disown.
Sorry, you lose. What do you think of Rev. Fred Phelps' site known as
"GodHatesFaggots.com"? I am only giving our arrogant heteros a little
taste of what kind of blasphemy is poured upon us gays every moment of
every day of our lives. What's the matter, can't take it? So what, if
some innocent-bystander gay-friendly heteros get caught in the fray?
*All of us gays are under constant hateful attacks...and aren't we all
innocent? What did we do to be so hated?
It's only fair that more heteros, who consider themselves gay
friendly, have some of this bitter taste in their own mouths...and
then, perhaps, just perhaps, they will lift a finger to fight with us.
It's not enough just to be "gay friendly", and pat yourself on the
back for saying so. Where's the real action behind that claim? Seems
that 9 out of every 10 hets who call themselves gay friendly, haven't
done one single thing to contribute to gay rights...whether in money
or elbow grease. They are snakes in the grass.
>It is unfortunate that you have had experiences in your life which have led you
>to this level of prejudice.
Far more unfortunate is the awesome homophobia that rips apart our
society!
This level of prejudice you claim I possess, is like less than 1% of
the level of homophobia by your average het. I believe that returning
just that little amount of nastiness will go far in bringing us our
freedom. It is wrong, even treasonous, for gays like you to be so
unquestionably accommodating to heteros. It must end, or we will be
buried.
Don't you see what is being done to us? The anti-gay ad in San
Francisco, DOMA? This is the result of the mass of heteros who are not
part of the religious right...and many who regard themselves as
"progressive". Can you really blame all this sanction against us as
soley a religious right attack?
>I have nothing further to say to you.
If you wish. You are always welcome to change your mind. After all,
this is a terrorist...er, free, country! (And I'm sure Mr. Schulz
would agree with you.)
Ezekiel Krahlin
<FMLe...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>You have an agenda.
MY PEENUT AGENDA
(c) 1998 by Ezekiel J. Krahlin
I will be dragged into the courts...hopefully with copious media
attention. And then I will say:
"I will gladly remove my Peenuts parody, if Mr. Schulz will promise in
writing, that he will add a gay character or two in his regular
Peanuts comic strip. But if I can't even have that, I want to address
all our major newspapers...especially those in urban areas with a
major homosexual population:
Please, for God, for any god's, sake, start including one gay comic
strip in your daily and Sunday comics. Don't you see what is going to
happen to us gay people, if more of you heteros in power continue to
*not make an outspoken and incontrovertible stand for gay freedom?
Like it or not, we are dependent on heterosexuals for our liberty, our
food, our homes, our survival. We gay people cannot *possibly win our
rights on our own.
Where is your honor, your dignity, your sense of Amerikan values of
decency and fair play? Are you really so afraid of Christian fanatics
as to toe their party line, at the cost of gay people's annihilation?
Until you do the right thing, the heartfelt and respectful
thing...which is including a gay-relevant comic strip...our blood, gay
blood, will continue to be spilled across your pages, across your
headlines, across every newspaper in this troubled, homophobic nation.
May Charlie Brown, our little friend to all hetero-centered children,
suddenly acquire a new neighbor...a neighbor who is (dare we say it)
also gay...and proud of it!
We're here! We're queer! Good grief!"
P.S.: Anyone who'd like to embellish and/or polish up this speech,
please offer up your ideas. Full credit will be given to all
contributors...as long as I maintain recognition as the inventor of
this idea...in other words: respect my copyright. (Parodies, of
course, are a different story...have fun with that; I won't stand in
your way...it's against the law!)
Ezekiel Krahlin
<FMLe...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>You have an agenda.
Already, I have something to add. Insert the following paragraph right
above the next-to-the-final paragraph that starts with "May Charlie
Brown, our little friend...":
---begin paragraph
For as we raise our children, so bends the tree. And if gays remain
invisible to them in our daily comic strips, as well as in other media
so influential to the formative psyche...then we cannot expect
anything better than future generations fearing and villifying gays.
---end paragraph
James Doemer
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message <35ecbe3e...@nntp.sj.bigger.net>...
>On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 15:19:40 -0400, "James Doemer" <big...@provide.net>
>wrote:
>
>>:If you believe homosexuality is something dirty and unnatural...then
>>:you'd have a real problem with that.
>>
>>I'd have a problem with open acts of sex, gay or straight, displayed
>>where pre-teen children are concerned.
>
>Then you did not read my post correctly, in the first place. I said,
>"non-lewd" ways of portraying gays as normal people.
Then I asked exactly how you would determine that in a cartoon of
pre-teen characters. You have yet to answer that question.
>Such as couples
>hanging out together, and gay friends.
No problem, Snoopy & Woodstock hang out together all the time,
as do Linus & Charlie Brown...
>You insistance of seeing "gay"
>as sexually intrusive is but your own homophobic viewpoint. Get over
>it.
You're insistance that the sexual orientation of any of these characters
can be readily determined is your wacked viewpoint, get over it.
>
>>I have no problem with sex education, from a teacher certified as such,
>>I have no wish that Charles Schultz become the new sex guru of the kiddie
>>crowd.
>
>I didn't say Schulz should use sex education...I only gave that as the
>second of two examples, where mainstream comics can educate people
>about gays.
And how would that be done, exactly, in a cartoon full of pre-teen
characters?
>In the case of "Peanuts", there could be a light-hearted
>conversation about a gay neigbor or brother or sister or friend. Or
>even a gay character. Why on earth do you insist that a sexual act, or
>even mentioning one, is the only way to educate young children about
>gays?
Why do you insist that pre-teen children needs a cartoon full of pre-teen
characters to educate them on sexual matters? And just how would
you work in the conversation with Sally, a character of about 5 years old,
a conversation on a gay neighbor??
>
>>Perhaps, perhaps not, either way, you failed to answer the question....
>
>I answered your questions quite well...it is you who needs to take a
>little more time reading my replies. Because now, I have merely
>rehashed what I said in my previous message.
>
You have yet to answer the question. How, exactly, would you work
your gay theme into a pre-teen orientated cartoon? And why?
>Mainstream comics inevitably play an important role in educating young
>people about the real world.
At the proper age, when kids are old enough to understand it. What would
happen
would be that parents would simply disallow their children from watching it,
no more,
no less. And that is regardless of whether the theme was gay, or straight.
In the case
of Charlie Brown, with little exception, there is no way to determine the
sexual orientation
of the characters involved.
>..often portraying a minority in some
>situation that enlightens the readers as to this character's humanness
>and normalcy. Both daily and Sunday comics cover, on a regular basis,
>issues regarding the rights of women, children, people of color, the
>elderly, the physically and/or mentally challenged, the poor, and
>various alternative lifestyles. But the coverage of gay people is
>glaringly absent.
>
Here's a thought, write a gay orientated comic, sell it to a paper...
>This is wrong, and we must not continue to allow this-and-that excuse
>of our mainstream comic strip authors, to persist in keeping a blind
>eye to the gay issue. To imply that this would be "dirty" or "obscene"
>to children, is a slap in our face. We are neither immoral nor
>inappropriate with or without children in our presence.
I did not imply that a gay theme would be dirty or obsene, I said, quite
plainly,
that sexual content in the sunday comics would be undesirable for children.
You are creating a strawman...
>
>Charles Schulz's comic strip portrays a very bland, pabulum image of
>Amerika...and thus is a target for my criticism He also symbolizes
>the quintessential Amerikan comic strip, more so than any other author
>today. Again, this makes him an apt target. But targeting him is still
>a general condemnation of our mainstream comic strips...and not
>intended to single him out, among all artists. On my Gay Sunday Comics
>web site, I also take aim at Beetle Bailey and Cathy. In due time, I
>will include others.
>
>I am asking, not even for ten percent representation in our daily
>comic strips...but for five percent. And that is half of what reality
>shows.
>
Did it ever occur to you to write your own strip?
kilp...@sgi.duh.com
>Sorry, you lose. What do you think of Rev. Fred Phelps' site known as
>"GodHatesFaggots.com"? I am only giving our arrogant heteros a little
>taste of what kind of blasphemy is poured upon us gays every moment of
>every day of our lives.
Hatred is evil, no matter what side you're on. You're just as evil as he
is. A black racist is less wrong than a white one.
Hating someone for their sexual preference is wrong, no matter what
that preference may be. All you've done is prove that you're as much
of a wacko nutball as Phelps. And that's quite an achievement.
--
John A. Kilpatrick Systems/Network Administrator
kilp...@sgi.com Silicon Graphics Inc., Team TREX
http://reality.sgi.com/kilpatri/ (650) 933-4387
"Kick! Punch! It's all in the mind..."
Nicole Lasher
James Doemer wrote:
> So, then I could take that Ezekiel's parody, change a few things, call
> it my parody,
> and pay nothing?
You most certainly could...and as long as you weren't making any money off
of it, it wouldn't matter much. It's a parody of a parody of a parody,
etc...
Once you alter it sufficiently, it becomes your intellectual property.
It if it obvious where it comes from, it's not copyright infringement...just
a parody.
If Ezekiel (or you) changed the clothing and other things, but used the
exact same theme as Peanuts, then you'd have problems.
Any copyright on any visual art is shakey because of "trends". Calvin Klein
can't sue Channel because some of their designs are similar. The meat of a
copyright on a cartoon is the story. If the story is copied, it doesn't
matter if you make Marcy look like a cockroach, it's still copyright
infringement.
> And no, that would not be proof... Charles Schultz
> has kept
> the "Peanuts" theme under very tight control for many years, he has
> turned down
> licenses to many for a variety of reasons not having to do with the gay
> issue.
This is true, but there is a difference between getting turned down for a
legitimate reason, and an illegitimate reason. One would have to have a
thorough history of the who's hows and whys to know for certain...
> Or,
> he may simply charge the same rate for the license that he charged "Met
> Life" for
> their use in their advertising.
He could, but then that would really paint a bad picture of "Peanuts". If
licenses were really turned down because of money.
Those people who make the Black Charlie Brown T-shirts have been doing it
for years, and it is doubtful any of them have paid the owners of "Peanuts"
a dime.
There are licensed "The Real Charlie Brown" T-shirts, but they have been
drowned in a sea of lower cost options.
~Niki
Nicole Lasher
James Doemer wrote:
> Why do you insist that pre-teen children needs a cartoon full of pre-teen
> characters to educate them on sexual matters? And just how would
> you work in the conversation with Sally, a character of about 5 years old,
> a conversation on a gay neighbor??
Child A: "Look what my moms got me for my birthday!" (child A shows child B a
baseball glove)
Child B: "Wow, that's cool..."
(conversation continues as any other, they go play baseball...)
~Niki
Nicole Lasher
Bill Lindemann wrote:
> Hmm... If you still want to be in-your-face, how
> about penning a takeoff called "Family Jerkoff"?
>
> -Bill
How about "Family Circle-jerk"?
~Niki
James Doemer
Nicole Lasher wrote in message <35ED32B6...@netvision.net.il>...
:
:
?? Do you not read Peanuts? How often does the pre-teen characters
make
reference to there parents, or any adult other than the (blah, blah)
teacher, and
the occasional camp counsellor... Rarely if ever. That's the way
Shultz has
written it for decades.
Nicole Lasher
kilp...@sgi.duh.com wrote:
> ezek...@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin) writes:
>
> >Sorry, you lose. What do you think of Rev. Fred Phelps' site known as
> >"GodHatesFaggots.com"? I am only giving our arrogant heteros a little
> >taste of what kind of blasphemy is poured upon us gays every moment of
> >every day of our lives.
>
> Hatred is evil, no matter what side you're on.
This is where your opinion and mine differ, and probably why you have a
problem relating to Ezekiel. Since it's my job, or my future job, to mediate
such situations, I guess I'll start practicing now....So here goes.
Justified hatred is not evil. Some people have done things for which they
deserve much hatred indeed.
It is not a good idea to generalize a whole group of people...So perhaps what
you percieve to be his generalization of hetrosexuals is not a good thing,
but his expression of hatred for homophobes most certainly is constructive
for him.
It is better that he express his feelings, feelings that some others share,
than to keep them pent up. Also, it is good for him to be human...It keeps
those of us who agree with much of what he says aware that he is not a god,
and keeps us thinking for ourselves.
I don't agree with everything Ezekiel says, but I do agree with his
self-preservation, self-defense, and strategic offense, ideas. If he hates
heterosexuals (which he doesn't, that I can tell, because I can see the
difference between a genuine insult, and a prod) then that is because of his
experiences. I would never presume to deny him the validity and value of his
experiences.
> You're just as evil as he
> is. A black racist is less wrong than a white one.
I think you were trying to say a Black racist is no less wrong than a White
one, and in that case, you'd be wrong to.
Let's take the case of Angela Davis vs. the case of Ronald Regan.
They lived in some of the same areas around the same times...
It is doubtful that Ronald Regan has ever been pelted with jars full of piss
by Black men driving by...and yet Ronald Regan is racist. Most of his
experiences with Blacks during his formative years left him, likely, either
indifferent, or with some physical need met...like his clothes laundered, or
his belly filled...And yet, he is racist.
Angela Davis's experiences with Whites were not exactly great...Her hatred
for Whites is not like Ronald Regan's hatred for Blacks. Hers is the same as
the lion's hate for a hyena...The hyenas will consume anything in their path,
and though, probably not intending to be "evil" have a certain nature and
culture...They steal food the lions catch, and will even take a cub or a
grown lion if there are enough of them.
It is for this reason that the lion kills hyena, but never eats them. They
quite literally, hate hyena...Hate is natural. What we do with hate is what
makes the difference. Just as lions have never purposefully set out to kill
or enslave every hyena on the planet, Blacks are unlikely to want to do this
to Whites. The hyena is also, unlikely to ever set out to do this to
lions...So they hate each other, but they know the difference between dislike
and dwelling on hatred.
Only problem is that people are not two different competitive species' like
lions and hyenas...That makes both Regan's and Davis's hate counterporductive
for humanity, but constructive, possibly, for themselves.
It is not the ideal...it is the reality.
When someone is hurt, they remember, and they naturally seek vengeance.
When someone who has not been hurt feels threatened, they will do anything
they can to preserve the systems that keep them in power, for fear of
reciprocation of the pain they have caused directly or indirectly.
Understanding this, and understanding that people have faults, fears, and
insecurities, one must also understand that those faults do not negate the
virtues that person may have.
In a nutshell, accept that the most radical and powerful forces for the gay
rights movement, will be just a tad biased. Just as with anything or anyone
else, take the good you can get from it, and scrap the rest.
Support the causes you like, and don't support the ones you don't.
I have noticed that a good deal of time is spent talking shit about Ezekiel,
but little time is spent talking about the good things he has to say, and the
fact that some of us think it's high time to stop asking for things from "the
man" and start voting when we should, and shooting when we must.
> Hating someone for their sexual preference is wrong, no matter what
> that preference may be.
Hating someone simply for their color is wrong too, but you have to know the
difference between "hate" and "initial mistrust" (also known as "prejudice")
Prejudice is natural, as is hate, but there is a difference between prejudice
and racism or sexism. Vanilla-heterocentrics have hurt many of us terribly,
and there is nothing wrong with being wary of people until you know that they
are not out to hurt you. That's intelligence, and learning from one's
experiences...not hate.
> All you've done is prove that you're as much
> of a wacko nutball as Phelps. And that's quite an achievement.
Perhaps, but there have been many "whackos" whose philosophies have bettered
the world. Instead of talking shit, you should be taking notes.
Take what's good for you, discard the rest.
~Niki
Rev. E. Lloyd Olson
Ezekiel Krahlin <ezek...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 23:40:01 -0700, Frank Martinez Lester
><FMLe...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>"GodHates...@HetBeGone.com" is a sentiment that the ancient Greek
>>forebears you praise on your site would unquestionably disown.
>Sorry, you lose. What do you think of Rev. Fred Phelps' site known as
>"GodHatesFaggots.com"? I am only giving our arrogant heteros a little
>taste of what kind of blasphemy is poured upon us gays every moment of
>every day of our lives. What's the matter, can't take it? So what, if
>some innocent-bystander gay-friendly heteros get caught in the fray?
>*All of us gays are under constant hateful attacks...and aren't we all
>innocent? What did we do to be so hated?
Phelps is an asshole. Insofar as you choose to emulate him, you
are also an asshole.
>It's only fair that more heteros, who consider themselves gay
>friendly, have some of this bitter taste in their own mouths...and
>then, perhaps, just perhaps, they will lift a finger to fight with us.
>It's not enough just to be "gay friendly", and pat yourself on the
>back for saying so. Where's the real action behind that claim? Seems
>that 9 out of every 10 hets who call themselves gay friendly, haven't
>done one single thing to contribute to gay rights...whether in money
>or elbow grease. They are snakes in the grass.
Maybe I'm not gay-friendly enough then. All I do is carry out
my business day by day with whomever wants to deal with me, and deal
with people with no regard for sexual orientation. I'm no less likely
to rent to you or buy from you if you happen to be gay, but I'm no more
likely to either. I haven't been on a jury, but you can bet if I was
on a jury at a gay-bashing trial, the defendant wouldn't get off easy.
I don't give to charity, but I support the local Lambda funddraisers,
but that's because I think I get value from it -- they are fun to attend.
Am I a snake then? Would you rather I was a homophobe?
>Don't you see what is being done to us? The anti-gay ad in San
>Francisco, DOMA? This is the result of the mass of heteros who are not
>part of the religious right...and many who regard themselves as
>"progressive". Can you really blame all this sanction against us as
>soley a religious right attack?
I can't comment on the anti-gay ad, because I don't know what
that paper's editorial policy is; i.e., if they make a practice of
running ads from whoever wants to place them no matter what they say,
even if the KKK wanted one page and the Black Panthers wanted the next,
then it's cool to sell the anti-gay ad; if, on the other hand, they
bar some ads for offensive content and let this one through, that shows
anti-gay bias, and should warrant a boycott.
DOMA is a fucking joke. I've been telling all my Robertson-
groupie acquaintances that if they really wanted to defend marriage,
instead of refusing to recognize gay marriages, they'd refuse to
recognize MULTIPLE marriages -- your first marriage would count and
any subsequent ones wouldn't.
And I don't know anyone who thinks DOMA progressive. Most of
my friends think it reeks of religious socialist sentiment.
Frank Martinez Lester
Thank you for confirming that there is nothing further we have to discuss. You are
completely unreceptive to anyone who does not agree with your bigoted separatist
agenda. Your response is no surprise to me at all; it reads exactly like every
other post you write.
For you to label me "treasonous" when you know nothing about me or my life is the
height of arrogance, not to mention ignorance. It must take a lot of energy to spew
so much hate into the world on a daily basis. You are no better than the
heterosexual dictatorship you claim to be a warrior against. You play right into
their hands.
Frank Martinez Lester
Frank Martinez Lester
but little time is spent talking about the good things he has to say, and the
fact that some of us think it's high time to stop asking for things from "the
man" and start voting when we should, and shooting when we must.>>
I think hatred is hatred, period.
I do not spend my time making distinctions between hatred justified by the pain
of past experience & plain ignorant-assed heterosexual hatred. I have had plenty
of hateful experiences in my life. Nonetheless, I do not post web pages stating
that "breeders must die." I don't think that calling Ezekiel Krahlin on his
message is "talking shit."
And "shooting when we must"? What's that about?
<<Perhaps, but there have been many "whackos" whose philosophies have bettered
the world. Instead of talking shit, you should be taking notes.
Take what's good for you, discard the rest.>>
None of it is good for me. Hatred is never good.
Therefore, I discard it in its entirety. I take no notes.
<frank.>
Ezekiel Krahlin
(RavensHeart) wrote:
>>Let's hope he does...what fun *that would be! (And I'm certain you'll
>>make sure he does, my little messengers.)
>>
>Sorry, but I don't have the time, my little angel.
Sure you do...just copy and paste the text in question, to the e-mail
address of Schulz's legal counsel...which you will find in the
introductory message to this thread. How long would that take? Two
minutes?
Ezekiel Krahlin
<kla...@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>Child A: "Look what my moms got me for my birthday!" (child A shows child B a
>baseball glove)
>Child B: "Wow, that's cool..."
>(conversation continues as any other, they go play baseball...)
Thank you, ~Niki...that would be a very nice way to introduce a gay
character into a popular comic strip loved by many children.
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>>Then you did not read my post correctly, in the first place. I said,
>>"non-lewd" ways of portraying gays as normal people.
>
>Then I asked exactly how you would determine that in a cartoon of
>pre-teen characters. You have yet to answer that question.
Do you lack even the simplest of imaginations? I already gave some
ideas...and that's that.
>And how would that be done, exactly, in a cartoon full of pre-teen
>characters?
You do this on the appropriate level for the age group. Only instead
of just showing how heteros like to pair off as young adults, you also
show the same thing can happen to same-sex couples. If the kids being
taught are very young, you don't get into sexual acts...save that for
the older-that-12 set. Duh!
>Why do you insist that pre-teen children needs a cartoon full of pre-teen
>characters to educate them on sexual matters?
I already explained that. To teach children not to be bigoted against
gays, you must exposed them to their existence, and treatment as
normal and decent human beings. Who's talking about sexual matters for
young children? The gay issue is a human matter.
You are a good example of a "gay friendly" hetero...really rather weak
in your understanding and true support of gays. You are what I term
"friendly fire".
>You have yet to answer the question. How, exactly, would you work
>your gay theme into a pre-teen orientated cartoon? And why?
Duh.
>At the proper age, when kids are old enough to understand it.
The proper age would be when kids are allowed to see hetero couples
kiss and hug. Seems to me, this starts at day 1 of any child's birth.
>What would happen would be that parents would simply
>disallow their children from watching it, no more, no less.
Homophobic parents, that is.
>In the case of Charlie Brown, with little exception, there
>is no way to determine the sexual orientation
>of the characters involved.
That's why it is important to demand our traditional, mainstream
comics stop pretending gays don't exist. The only reason Schulz's
comics are not known to have one gay character, is that Mr. Schulz has
chosen to appeal to a mainstream, conservative public. It would be
real easy to put a pink triangle on Snoopy, and have him march in a
gay parade. Likewise for any other Schulz character. I think it would
be absolutely adorable.
>Here's a thought, write a gay orientated comic, sell it to a paper...
Here's a thought: There are already plenty of gay comic strip authors
out there. I'm not interested in taking the years of work to finally
gain, perhaps, a spot in a mainstream newspaper. I think it would be
much better, and only decent, for papers to select from a rich pool of
gay cartoonists that already exists. To place me in a position to do
this myself...is just putting off for many more years, having a gay
cartoon in the traditional press.
And here's another thought: Being gay-supportive as you claim, why
don't you write a letter to the editor to several major newspapers in
your region, requesting they include a daily and Sunday comic by a gay
cartoonist? Identifying yourself in the letter as a gay-friendly
hetero will be a great help.
In fact, I suggest that all people in this thread write a letter to
the editor on this. *Then we might get somewhere...instead of looking
for me to do everything.
>I did not imply that a gay theme would be dirty or obsene, I said, quite
>plainly, that sexual content in the sunday comics would be undesirable for children.
And I said: you don't know how to read...or your homophobia blinds
you.
>You are creating a strawman...
Should I assume this strawman is heterosexual, since you haven't
indicated otherwise? Is he wearing a pink triangle? Is there any
indication that might suggest he is not str8? C'mon, don't keep me
guessing!
For shame, for shame, for HETERO shame!
Ezekiel Krahlin
Ezekiel Krahlin
<kla...@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>> Hmm... If you still want to be in-your-face, how
>> about penning a takeoff called "Family Jerkoff"?
>>
>> -Bill
>
>How about "Family Circle-jerk"?
They really are pap, and deserve to be parodied. I will eventually get
around to them. Have you seen my Beetle Bailey and Cathy parodies yet?
I'm sure you'll get some chuckles out of 'em.
The Lesbian/Thracian Sunday Comics
http://members.tripod.com/~ezekielk/
I want to add here: if anyone in the gay community cares to, she or he
can do their own comic parody, which I will add to my gay comics
parody...giving that person complete credit and copyright respect.
Here is another example where I offer a project for the gay community
at large. I think it would be absolutely terrific, to have a huge
anthology of gay sunday comics on a web site! Can you imagine all the
controversy and lawsuits this would ensue? And how much we could sue
these arrogant bullies...contributing a chunk of these victory spoils
to gay civil rights?
Ezekiel Krahlin
>Hating someone for their sexual preference is wrong, no matter what
>that preference may be. All you've done is prove that you're as much
>of a wacko nutball as Phelps. And that's quite an achievement.
Satire is as satire does. Perhaps you'll understand some day, when you
lose your peach fuzz.
Ezekiel Krahlin
<kla...@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>This is where your opinion and mine differ, and probably why you have a
>problem relating to Ezekiel. Since it's my job, or my future job, to mediate
>such situations, I guess I'll start practicing now....So here goes.
Most of these people who attack me, seem to have a right-wing agenda.
Just because they're gay, is no excuse to pardon them. In fact, it's
treason.
>It is better that he express his feelings, feelings that some others share,
>than to keep them pent up. Also, it is good for him to be human...It keeps
>those of us who agree with much of what he says aware that he is not a god,
>and keeps us thinking for ourselves.
I'd go nuts, if I repressed all this horrible hatred society dumps on
me for being gay. It's not like I can walk away from it. The recent
anti-gay ad in the S.F. Examiner has me *really pissed off...and now,
this situation with Schulz. Well, I am more than ready to duke it out.
And no, I'm not god. But I am one of the voices of justice. I am
driven by my visions. Yes, I do see and communicate with angelic
forces, or whatever else you want to call them: imaginary playmates,
dreams, subconscious messages, whatever. And I will speak of this
matter in greater length and more often, as time passes, and as I gain
a wider audience in the gay community. I am here, among other things,
to strengthen the troops, and empower as many as I can. You may
consider me as a sergeant drilling the grunts...I'll make men of them
all...or they'll run away whimpering, to cower in some dark shameful
corner.
>I don't agree with everything Ezekiel says, but I do agree with his
>self-preservation, self-defense, and strategic offense, ideas.
It is vitally important that gays work really hard on bridging our
differences, regardless of disagreements on basic issues. However, I
don't see how right-wing queers can ever bridge this ideological
gap...thus I predict a schism in the gay community really
soon...similar to what happened to the Catholic Church many centuries
ago.
>If he hates heterosexuals (which he doesn't, that I can tell, because I can see the
>difference between a genuine insult, and a prod) then that is because of his
>experiences. I would never presume to deny him the validity and value of his
>experiences.
I do have some hetero friends and acquaintances who are very
supportive of my stance, and have no problem with it. But these are
true progressive people who understand free speech and human liberty.
They are definitely *not right-wing, nor do they degrad people who are
classified as disabled or poor. Unlike *some participants in this
newsgroup.
>Angela Davis's experiences with Whites were not exactly great...Her hatred
>for Whites is not like Ronald Regan's hatred for Blacks. Hers is the same as
>the lion's hate for a hyena...
I appreciate your excellent analysis of my situation, ~Niki. And you
have done a fine job of stating where I stand. I cannot see in
incorrect assumption of my attitudes, in your diagnosis.
>When someone is hurt, they remember, and they naturally seek vengeance.
And in the case of gays, we are hurt over and over again, many times
each day. I refuse to live out the rest of my life in silent anger. I
will speak the truth in the streets, on the Internet, from the
rooftops, in the court room, and everywhere else I may happen to be,
or forced to be.
>Understanding this, and understanding that people have faults, fears, and
>insecurities, one must also understand that those faults do not negate the
>virtues that person may have.
Thank you. Very astute. Unfortunately, I'm afraid your hard-earned
wisdom will fall mostly on deaf ears. But maybe someone will benefit,
even if we don't know who. And for that reason alone, if no other, you
have done a good thing. You are a healer, and a modern-day shaman.
>I have noticed that a good deal of time is spent talking shit about Ezekiel,
>but little time is spent talking about the good things he has to say,
One person who attacke me last year, has come around to regarding me
as an individual, and acknowledging my good contributions. So it does
pay to stick to your guns, and believe in yourself, your ideals, and
your ability to have influence.
>Perhaps, but there have been many "whackos" whose philosophies have bettered
>the world. Instead of talking shit, you should be taking notes.
I may be crazy, but I'm *good crazy.
>Take what's good for you, discard the rest.
I'm good for whatever ails you,
To remove whatever impales you.
I do everything I possibly can:
I'm a medicine man with a positive plan.
Ezekiel Krahlin
Lloyd Olson) wrote:
> Phelps is an asshole. Insofar as you choose to emulate him, you
>are also an asshole.
No doubt you think Jonathan Swift was an asshole for emulating British
aristocracy in his essay "A Modest Proposal".
What can I say? Some people have such flat brains, that satire and
parody bounce off them like a nerf ball.
June Cleaver
Two things: you are infringing on the man's work and two, it is just plain
tasteless to insert sexuality into Charlie Brown. What next, are you going
to attack the Rug Rats because Chuckie isn't in drag?
I'm a gay-friendly mom and I just don't understand the importance you are
placing on making a stupid little comic strip politically correct.
Finally, if someone in the strip must wear a pink triangle, may I suggest
that Peppermint Patty wear it?
Love and Kisses,
June
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message <35ed8d34...@nntp.sj.bigger.net>...
kilp...@sgi.duh.com
>It is not a good idea to generalize a whole group of people...So perhaps what
>you percieve to be his generalization of hetrosexuals is not a good thing,
>but his expression of hatred for homophobes most certainly is constructive
>for him.
Maybe it is, but as you say, he does not distinguish between homophobes
and and other heterosexuals, and that is where he is as wrong as Phelps.
For example, I could understand a white person being aprehensive about
African-American people if he or she had been carjacked by a gang member.
But to take that and start throwing the 'n' word around takes it too far.
>I would never presume to deny him the validity and value of his
>experiences.
So the aforementioned carjacking victem is o.k. in hating blacks, and
assuming that all black youths are bangers? What about if that person
starts actively promoting hatred for blacks?
>I have noticed that a good deal of time is spent talking shit about Ezekiel,
>but little time is spent talking about the good things he has to say, and the
>fact that some of us think it's high time to stop asking for things from "the
>man" and start voting when we should, and shooting when we must.
That's fine. Feel that way. I personally think that it's wrong. And
such militant homosexuality affects me in a way I percieve as negative,
and so I resent it. If he wishes to make clear that he speaks for himself,
that's fine. But when such people presume to speak for the 'gay community',
then it reflects on me and makes my life harder.
Just like your average Pakistani muslim doesn't want to be represented by
Osama Bin Ladin, I don't want to be represented by someone who says that
God hates straights.
>Vanilla-heterocentrics have hurt many of us terribly,
>and there is nothing wrong with being wary of people until you know that they
>are not out to hurt you. That's intelligence, and learning from one's
>experiences...not hate.
And saying that 'God Hates Hets' and such isn't being wary, it's being
actively negative.
>Perhaps, but there have been many "whackos" whose philosophies have bettered
>the world.
Can you name a 'wacko' who, by promoting hatred of a group as large as
one based on sexual preference, did some good? I'm honestly curious.
Bill Lindemann
> On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 23:18:29 +0000, Bill Lindemann <w...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Ad hominem attacks on those who are not guilty of any expressed
> >homophobia, and may in fact be friends of the cause, does nothing
> >except alienate those who could have been supporters.
>
> I think if Mr. Schulz were a friend, we'd have know by now. Any author
> who does not include the gay issue from time to time, is fair game.
> Silence = death.
Charles Schultz has never addressed date rape is his cartoons either,but that
hardly qualifies him as a silent supporter of sexual abuse of
women. Ditto for other issues like drug use and child molesting.
>
>
> >If you want to hack a cartoonist, at least pick one with a demonstrated
> >history of either active or passive homophobia. My suggestions are "B.C."
> >and "Family Circus".
>
> "Passive homophobia" is far more common than "active"...as it is much
> easier to get away with, and no one can really prove it with direct
> evidence. Schulz, to the best of my knowledge, qualifies as "passive".
> I don't know any mainstream comic that could be considered "active".
B.C. comes damn close, with his lead character (name, anyone?) reeling
off sermons that take up a whole Sunday comic. While I can't remember
him specifically targetting gays, he has made oblique references using
labels like (and this is admittedly a paraphrase of the original) "new social
values", "permissiveness", etc. And his sermons clearly come from a
fundamentalist Christian direction.
-Bill
kilp...@sgi.duh.com
>Satire is as satire does. Perhaps you'll understand some day, when you
>lose your peach fuzz.
Oh, I do understand. The problem is that when the satirist(sp?)
starts sounding too much like his satire that it becomes
obvious that it isn't satire anymore.
In otherwords, if you had espoused some common sense, instead of
saying that any comic author who doesn't address gay issues on
a regular basis is 'fair game', we might think you are a witty
satirist. Instead, you seem to believe what you say, which is
what's scary....
kilp...@sgi.duh.com
>I'd go nuts, if I repressed all this horrible hatred society dumps on
>me for being gay. It's not like I can walk away from it. The recent
>anti-gay ad in the S.F. Examiner has me *really pissed off...and now,
>this situation with Schulz. Well, I am more than ready to duke it out.
Someone dumps a load of shit on you. But *YOU* have to decide if you're
going to pick it up and carry it. Maybe you were the most popular
guy in school and didn't have people picking on you, but I long ago
decided that society can KISS MY ASS. The only things that get me
annoyed are legal obstacles - those have to be removed. Otherwise,
I'll just be me and anyone who has a problem with it can adress that
brick wall over there.
This attitude was not formed in response to society's feelings about
gays, but rather in response to how some of the people I went to high
school with were at the time (they've mellowed :-). However, it has
carried over remarkably well...
>It is vitally important that gays work really hard on bridging our
>differences, regardless of disagreements on basic issues.
Why? To do that, I must make being gay the #1 issue in my life. It's not.
I am not consumed by my sexuality. And I cannot, in good conscience,
align myself with someone who I fundamentally disagree with - I would have
to compromise some more important values.
>However, I
>don't see how right-wing queers can ever bridge this ideological
>gap...thus I predict a schism in the gay community really
>soon...similar to what happened to the Catholic Church many centuries
>ago.
It is not so black and white. It's not all 'right wing' and 'left wing'.
Like many of the heteros, a lot of gays are middle of the road. Yes, I
will work and support people trying to promote gay marriage, but I won't
support someone going around saying 'Got Hates Hets'.
There's left wing, and then there's radical militant left wing. I'm
definetly left of center, but not as far as you seem to be.
>I refuse to live out the rest of my life in silent anger. I
>will speak the truth in the streets, on the Internet, from the
>rooftops, in the court room, and everywhere else I may happen to be,
>or forced to be.
That's fine. Speak your mind. But in this great country, with the
excellent concept of free speech, be prepared to take shit for it.
Or you could choose to not get angry....
>I may be crazy, but I'm *good crazy.
Forgive the comparision, but it almost seems like you're like Puck from
the third season of the Real World. Puck on 5 or 6 was fine. Puck on
10 got thrown out of the house.
Mike Silverman
ezek...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 14:59:08 +0300, Nicole Lasher
> <kla...@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>
> >> Hmm... If you still want to be in-your-face, how
> >> about penning a takeoff called "Family Jerkoff"?
> >>
> >> -Bill
> >
> >How about "Family Circle-jerk"?
>
> They really are pap, and deserve to be parodied.
Has anyone seen the Family Circus parody which was on the web a few years
back. Basically some guy posted Family Circus cartoons absent the caption,
and viewers made up their own captions. Thes best 10 or so were then made
available to everyone. More often then not these wrre hilarious!
--
Mike Silverman -- cubsfan at turnleft.com -- Lawrence, KS
http://www.turnleft.com/personal
Mike Silverman
The Dysfunctional Family Circus
http://www.spinnwebe.com/dfc/
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>Hmmm... Hope you have better luck from the other contacts...
Good news, read the following message that just arrived in my
e-mailbox. (I have changed some names and address to psedonymous ones,
as indicated by anything between square brackets):
---begin letter from attorney
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 14:29:24 -0500
From: "[attorney1]" <[atto...@legal.net]>
Subject: (no subject)
Organization: [lawyers' group]
To: ezek...@iname.com
Mr. Kralin: I have forwarded your email message regarding your
"peanuts" cartoon to the other members of the First Amendment Lawyers
Association. You may be hearing from some of them shortly. It is not
surprising that you have received the letter from the attorney for
United Features Syndicate. If they do not object to what they believe
is unauthorized use of their characters, they may end up having waived
some rights. That, of course, does not mean that you are incorrect in
your belief that your parody is protected and your use of the
characters is a fair use. Obviously, you should consult an attorney.
While it may seem expensive to do so, it is much less expensive to
seek someone out to help you now rather than later when things may
have gotten worse.
There are a number of recent decisions which recognize that parodies
are fair use. Among those decisions are:
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 114 S. Ct. 1164, 510 U.S. 569,
127 L. Ed. 2d 500 (1994) - United States Supreme Court
Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 137 F.3d 109 (2nd Circuit.
1998)
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Moral Majority, Inc., 769 F.2d 12148 (9th
Circuit 1986).
Eveready Battery Co. v. Adolph Coors Co., 765 F. Supp. 440 (N.D.
Ill. 1991).
If you have access to a law library, you should take a look at these
cases.
I hope this is of some help. [attorney1]
Here are the thoughts of another one of our Members, [attorney2]:
"I think the problem is trademark infringement, not copyright
infringement. And a greater problem is trademark dilution. There are
First Amendment defenses, but my understanding is that the general
rule is that in order to qualify as satire, the target of the satire
has to be the trademarked product itself, rather than some third
party. What he is thinking of is the fair use defense in copyright
law, which won't help him with trademark infringement or dilution.
Sounds like an interesting problem, and he really needs an attorney
because of their need to police their trademarks.
---end letter from attorney
Ezekiel Krahlin
(RavensHeart) wrote:
>Sorry, but I don't have the time, my little angel.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Permission granted by author for anyone to distribute this
writing free of charge (including translation into any
language)...under condition that no profit is made therefrom,
and that it remain intact and complete, including title and
credit to the original author.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
ezek...@iname.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
THE LITTLE ANGEL WHO WOULDN'T FLY
(a parable for the 21st century)
copyright 1997 by Ezekiel J. Krahlin
(Jehovah's Queer Witness)
In the First Year of the Return of Our Lord, there was a
little angel who wouldn't fly. Not that he didn't have wings,
nor were they damaged in any way. He just wouldn't fly. And
this was a mystery to all the other angels who did, and looked
below and saw the little angel like a mite moving across the
brown and green face of Urth.
I must regress here for a moment, for my story comes from
the future, addressed to you who are, indeed, one of the
angels in my tale--as we all will be in a time very close to
your own. (Indeed, most of you will not shed your present
forms before witnessing the Evolutionary Rapture; but will,
instead, regenerate your deoxyribonucleic acids to form new,
and youthful, bodies.)
Anyway, from time to time a curious brother or sister
from above would pay this little angel a brief visit, to walk
beside him and ask the obvious question:
"Little angel, why don't you ever fly?"
And a shadow would cross the brow of the little angel as
he puffed up his chest and replied: "In memory of Man before
he earned his wings, I walk the earth for all eternity."
Then he'd pause, and a certain weariness would shake his
frame as he lowered his head: "And because...because I am
waiting."
The visiting angel would then lean closer and ask, quite
dumfounded, "Waiting for what, little angel? There is nothing
left to wait for."
The little angel would then raise his head and look
straight into the visitor's eyes: "I am waiting for a tall,
handsome angel to take me in his arms and fly away with me."
After the little angel gave this two-part reply (which
was always the same), the visiting angel would shrug its wings
and take flight.
One day, while the little angel was window shopping, a
pair of wings on a rack at J.C. Penny's caught his eye. He
came in and caressed it, admiring the downy texture and soft,
opal hues. Best of all, it would not shrink and was machine
washable. (The little angel hated doing laundry, which was
only second on his shit list to a visit to Purgatory.)
"May I help you?" A salesman courteously addressed the
little angel who gasped at this breathing creation of bronze,
muscled flesh and jet black hair. His green eyes flashed as
the little angel admired those tight, full buttocks from which
extended a sinewy tail that promised of anal delights beyond
the little angel's wildest dreams. A lump swelled in the
salesman's crotch and began to burst the seams of his fly.
"He's a real devil," thought the little angel. He almost
caressed the salesman's thighs, but withdrew his hand and
sighed.
"I was admiring this pair of wings," said the little
angel. "May I try them on?"
"Certainly," said the salesman, "there's an empty booth
over there." As the little angel walked away, the salesman's
heart melted. "A son like him would make me the proudest
father in Galactic Sector 357. How sad that he is not yet
loved."
The little angel emerged from the dressing booth with the
new pair of wings inserted into the slots between his shoulder
blades. He tossed his old wings into the moleculizer.
"They're on backwards," said the salesman. "Here, let me
help you." The little angel shuddered in ecstasy as the
salesman's warm hands touched his shoulders with a gentle
caress, and lingered. He felt some fingers slip into the rear
pocket of his pants, inserting a piece of paper with a
televideo number. He almost threw himself into the salesman's
arms.
"Oh, how I could love this man. He would be a wonderful
father," thought the little angel; and in the telepathic union
of their two minds, he pictured himself in the naked embrace
of the salesman, tail wrapped around the little angel and
beginning to enter his anus with increasingly eager prods.
"But he's not the one. Who is the one?" The little angel put
a stop to these delicious thoughts, paid for the wings, and
walked out.
The sun was intense as the little angel crossed the mall
to enter the Santa Cruz Bookstore. As he thought a cloud
across the sky to shield his eyes, a centaur almost ran over
him. "Oh, excuse me, little guy," said the centaur, "I should
have been watching where I was going."
The little angel admired the centaur's muscular torso as
he reared back and stamped his hooves with delight. "Say,
you're a cute little fellow. How about a ride?"
The little angel tried to climb up, but kept slipping.
"Say, aren't you used to those wings yet? Here, let me help
you up." And the centaur tenderly lifted him in his arms to
set the little angel on his back. The summer breeze tingled
the little angel's face as they raced down Pacific Avenue to
the ocean, where they sat and talked a spell.
Seals cavorted in the backwater beneath the piers, and
pelicans gathered around the centaur and the little angel as
if in serious contemplation of their conversation.
The little angel removed his shirt and dazzled the
centaur with the physical perfection of a sixteen-year-old
boy. His tiny nipples stood erect in the ocean mist, and a
halo of light played around his auburn hair. His eyes
sparkled like cracked ice in champagne, and the muscles on his
ribs and arms were only beginning to bud.
The little angel smiled: the centaur suddenly bowed his
head and covered his eyes, and the pelicans averted their
glance for a moment.
"Is the sun in your eyes?" asked the little angel, who
sat closer to the centaur in order to block the sun.
The centaur looked up and gently kissed the little angel.
They sat for a while in silence. The waves crashed on
the hot sand, and the sea foam hissed. Each was in his own
thoughts, yet their eyes did not leave each other, and thus
many thoughts were shared.
Then the little angel inched closer to the centaur until
he was nestled against its breast. "Oh, my little one," spoke
the centaur, folding his arms around the boy. He drank the
smell of the oils in his hair. "I am not a tall, handsome
angel. But I will be your father if that is what you want. I
will give you anything you want. Anything."
The little angel turned his eyes into full view of the
centaur's face and spoke not a word as the centaur spilled
tears onto the sand (for he knew that the little angel wanted
nothing, nothing at all. Except him).
The little angel grew drowsy under the sun, murmuring,
"My father, it has been so long, so very long. So very long."
"In which of your dreams shall we meet again, my little
sparkle of light?" thought the centaur and pulled him closer,
dragging him across the sand in a protective embrace that
reached deep into the boy's soul.
And the little angel dreamt the dream of a boy who knew
his father would never leave him again.
-----finis
Bill Lindemann
> MY PEENUT AGENDA
> (c) 1998 by Ezekiel J. Krahlin
>
> "I will gladly remove my Peenuts parody, if Mr. Schulz will promise in
> writing, that he will add a gay character or two in his regular
> Peanuts comic strip.
How in hell do you expect him to do that? If you haven't noticed,the main
gimmick in Peanuts is that you never see an adult. They
are all offstage, and their presence is only inferred. Do you seriously
think the Simpsons, for instance, is homophobic because the only
gay characters introduced are adults? Matt Goening *is* gay and
yet he knows it would be going off the deep end to introduce an
explicitly gay character (that funny piece of business in one episode
that implied Martin is gay notwithstanding) that is a child.
The reason people are flaming you is that you have inexplicably picked
one of the more innocuous cartoons to do battle with, when heterocentrist
puff-pieces like "Family Circus" sit unmolested. Remember, when
people see you coming out of left field they either *ignore* you or
*make fun* of you. If you can't see this, consider how you felt when
you saw Fred Cherry post that every gay man's fantasy is to knock female
prostitutes unconscious and then fill their pussies with plaster of paris.
That was a surreal masterpiece! It immediately brought back memories
of the best of Zippy the Pinhead. But it did nothing to make me want to
agree with Fred Cherry, as it came STRAIGHT OUT OF LEFT FIELD!
'Nuff said.
-Bill
Bill Lindemann
> For as we raise our children, so bends the tree. And if gays remain
> invisible to them in our daily comic strips, as well as in other media
> so influential to the formative psyche...then we cannot expect
> anything better than future generations fearing and villifying gays.
Very true. So I ask again, why aren't you directly fighting cartoons
like "Family Circus" that go out of their way to promote a sappy,
whitebread heterocentrist agenda? Good grief, Charlie Brown!
-Bill
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>Two things: you are infringing on the man's work and two,
Satire makes exception for this. In fact, implication of infringing is
part of the satire. It's quite legal.
>it is just plain tasteless to insert sexuality into Charlie Brown.
Who's inserting sexuality? I'm inserting gay humanity. I would never
dream of debased a comic loved by children, into something of an adult
nature.
>What next, are you going
>to attack the Rug Rats because Chuckie isn't in drag?
An idea whose time has come!
>I'm a gay-friendly mom and I just don't understand the importance you are
>placing on making a stupid little comic strip politically correct.
Exactly! Because it is stupid and little, and way, way overblown for
what it does. I am only offering to inject some *quality into Peanuts,
for a change. First off, we need to redecorate Snoopy's doghouse...and
you know how good gays are at interior design!
>Finally, if someone in the strip must wear a pink triangle, may I suggest
>that Peppermint Patty wear it?
Yessss!
>Love and Kisses,
You too, June. You're a great mom!
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>Charles Schultz has never addressed date rape is his cartoons either,but that
>hardly qualifies him as a silent supporter of sexual abuse of
>women. Ditto for other issues like drug use and child molesting.
Did I ever suggest he should? Do you think being homosexual per se is
pornographic? Thanks for nothing, then! You need to be defused of your
homophobia. How dare you compare gay humanity with sexual violence!
Ezekiel Krahlin
>In otherwords, if you had espoused some common sense, instead of
>saying that any comic author who doesn't address gay issues on
>a regular basis is 'fair game', we might think you are a witty
>satirist. Instead, you seem to believe what you say, which is
>what's scary....
I am criticising our mainstream comic strips, which are the dailies
and the Sundays. Any author of any of these strips is definitely fair
game...with the exception of two: Dunesbury and "For Better Or Worse".
Ezekiel Krahlin
<FMLe...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>I think hatred is hatred, period.
Simple solutions for simple minds.
Ezekiel Krahlin
<FMLe...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>You play right into their hands.
And it sure feels good where they put 'em.