| >> |
02/26/11(Sat)04:09 No.23820498
File1298711358.png-(662 KB, 844x792, 1298016273264.png)
 >>23820387
the issue isn't so much what is strictly legal or not, it's more about what can be twisted or spun and to what degree.
scenario, lauren faust breaks down and reads, say, ponies discover /co/. she has a laugh and a d'aww, but is particularly inspired by some passage or something, and puts something AKIN to it into the show.
from here, several things can happen
1) nothing, nobody notices the reference or scene re-telling
2) people notice but are very positive about it, the author of the work is honored
3) the author, for whatever reason, pursues legal action. Constructing a case based on similarities between his work and the show, and presenting a plausible case that lauren faust COULD HAVE read it. by some aligning of the fucking stars, the judge doesn't throw the case out immediately and eventually the author sues hasbro for damages
the fact that the third option CAN HAPPEN AT ALL, NO MATTER HOW RIDICULOUS, gives them pause enough to tack it onto lauren's contract. Copyright law is so mind blowingly opening ended and fucking stupid that this is standard practice.
tl;dr hasbro is dumb because they think they might get sued once in a blue moon |
