Except in this example she lives in Phoenix, so yes sometimes it absolutely does. At times the overnight low temp in the summer doesn't go below 90 degrees.
I'm reading "The Secret Lives of Numbers" which has some fascinating deep dives into lesser taught math history (at least in western culture), including the Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics in India where significant contributions to calculus were made in the 1500's well before Newton and Leibniz!
This reminds me of aggressive technicians trying to convince me to install their bloatware on my computer in order to complete setting up internet connectivity 20+ years ago. One was completely baffled by my insistence that he was not going to be touching my computer, makes me laugh now.
I had the same question. The linked paper says they used gopher enclosures:
> In 1982, an individual pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides [Richardson]) from a nearby clearcut was placed in a 1m2 enclosure around a single L. lepidus individual for 24 hours
Right, plenty of the artists parodied by Weird Al are individuals. Any permission sought (or denials respected) are purely for goodwill, not legally required.
That said, Weird Al hasn't actually distributed unmodified trademarks of other entities, to my knowledge. Even if that would generally be problematic, the context of a "featured partners" list as in TFA probably falls below a threshold of likelihood of confusion which arises in other unauthorized uses of trademarks.
No, wrong. The approval of that target of the parody (Amish, McDonalds, CIA etc) are not legally required.
Case law suggests that he is required to (and he does), license artist's music.
He's not parodying Miley Cyrus in 'Party in the CIA'. He's parodying the CIA. Because the lyrics and track aren't the subject, licensing of the track is required.
Similarly, If Repaer used a licensed font on the site, they'd have to license it.
I'm not sure about that. The definition of parody hinges on imitating an author or work (sometimes a whole genre), rather than on satirizing/critiquing subject matter unrelated to the author/work being imitated. He could write a song satirizing/critiquing the CIA and if it happens to imitate a song/style of Miley, then it's a parody of the latter, not of the former. Or a parody of nothing at all, in the strictest definition, since he's not satirizing/critiquing that which he's imitating.
When it comes to music copyright, certain aspects are copyrightable (therefore requiring license to use) and other aspects are not. Words and melody are (so Weird Al would need to license Miley's melody if he doesn't modify it sufficiently), but rhythm/chords/timbre/style/etc. are not (so Weird Al wouldn't need to license anything if he is merely copying those things from Miley). I think Al makes some songs with a copied melody requiring licensing, and some songs without that in which case no permission of any kind is legally necessary.
Right. Protected uses are protected because they were necessary. The Weird Al track that comes to mind which could be protected (but does not need the protection because Al always secures permission for these works) is "Smells Like Nirvana" because that specifically needs to use Nirvana's track "Smells Like Teen Spirit" because it's a (well meant, like a comedy roast) critique of Nirvana and their song. "It's hard to bargle nawdle zouss / With all these marbles in my mouth" is about Nirvana and about Smells Like Teen Spirit.
If you replace Smells Like Teen Spirit with Cliff Richards' "Saviours Day" it does not work, Cliff is not going to confuse and annoy your parents, his utterances aren't incomprehensible, and so on. The choice of song is necessary, which would justify protection.
Common misconception. As Philip points out, Al is only covered if he's making fun of the original song. "Smells like Nirvana" is a good example of a parody that didn't need approval (but Weird Al did anyway cuz he's a nice guy)
> Al is only covered if he's making fun of the original song
My only nitpick is to remove the word "only" because there is at least one other possibility where he's "covered" in the sense of not legally needing permission: whenever his work falls short of copying the words and/or melody of the original song. If he modifies the melody enough (there's no specific threshold, but let's say he avoids a run of 4+ notes with intervals identical to the original work) and also doesn't copy lyrics or any other copyrightable aspects, then he's covered. It's very possible to achieve a song that makes your audience know exactly what you're going for, without copying any of the copyrightable aspects: you can take the chords, rhythms, instrumentation, accent, etc.
In the case of Smells Like Nirvana, he takes the copyrighted melody, which would require permission but for the exception you pointed out.
If he is not including a SPAM logo or a Pentium logo on his products, then it's not trademark usage. These names are not themselves marks when spoken/written/etc. even if marks exist that contain these names.
If he is printing such marks on his products, then it comes down to the "likelihood of confusion" test: will a consumer be misled to believe that the SKU Al is selling contains the official meat or silicon? That would be trademark infringement. In TFA, the natural gas trademarks are merely listed as "featured partners" so there's not much likelihood of confusion where a consumer would be misled into thinking that they'll get genuine natural gas from this unauthorized merchant, in my estimation.
And specifically with respect to the law, breaking a law and claiming you didn't know you did anything wrong as an individual is not considered a valid defense in our justice system. This same type of standard should apply even more to trained law enforcement, not less, otherwise it becomes a double standard.
No this is breaking the law by saying this looked like one of the situations where I already know the law doesn't apply. If Google had looked at the actual image and said it was child porn instead of just saying it was similar to some image that is child porn this would be 100% legal as the courts have already said. That difference is subtle enough that I can see how someone would get it wrong (and in fact I would expect other courts to rule differently)
> Based on the data collected, the staff report said many companies assert that there are no children on their platforms because their services were not directed to children or did not allow children to create accounts.
Funny how they have advertising cohorts drilled into every niche interest or happening, but they just can't perfect the technology to determine if someone is a child. Very elusive tech they've definitely been working day and night to implement for years.
Almost like they benefit from acting blissfully ignorant.
>they just can't perfect the technology to determine if someone is a child
Oh they do. It's a very valuable demo and doubtlessly they worked day and night for years to perfect it. They want to shape the malleable minds of lifetime consumers. They have, with great success, for nearly a century.
Yes, this is a great idea. I grew up with a similar pattern where streets are mostly east-west and avenues are mostly north-south. But whenever I have explored new cities there always seems to be hidden patterns unique to that place, or at least new to me. And figuring out what they are sometimes takes more time than a short visit.
An example that bit me once, before smartphones and widespread gps, is that numbered streets and avenues in Phoenix both run north-south. The numbering gets higher in both directions as you move away from Central Ave, so the smaller numbered streets/aves are relatively close to one another. Very simple pattern indeed, but it was very surprising the first time I encountered it, didn't match my expectations I guess.
Except in this example she lives in Phoenix, so yes sometimes it absolutely does. At times the overnight low temp in the summer doesn't go below 90 degrees.