========
Subject: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 21:36:49 GMT

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 
Subject: Unauthorized use of PEANUTS Characters
To: ezekielk@members.gayweb.com
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 15:44:24 -0500

August 27, 1998

Mr. Ezekiel Krahlin


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, ,
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
 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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: salty 
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 21:02:39 +0000

fuck 'em, zeke.
--
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



========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 05:16:17 GMT

On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 21:02:39 +0000, salty 
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.



---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: cubsfan@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman)
Date: 31 Aug 1998 17:56:17 -0500

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.

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

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: "James Doemer" 
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 19:30:43 -0400


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.




========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 05:16:42 GMT

On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 19:30:43 -0400, "James Doemer"
 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!


---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: "James Doemer" 
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 09:32:33 -0400


Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message
<35eb7e9e.4537598@nntp.sj.bigger.net>...
:On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 19:30:43 -0400, "James Doemer"
: 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.






========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: scruffythecat@geocities.com (Scruffy van Piebles)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 10:55:07 GMT

On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 05:16:42 GMT, ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel
Krahlin) wrote:

>
>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.
>

One of the defining features of parody and satire is that there is an
element of humor in them.  Without that, you are left with an
embarrassing and sophomoric (Schitz???) slander of a just man's
character.  The only funny things about this situation are that you
did it because Schultz has not introduced a gay dog (your example)
into his comic strip and that you now claim it was part of a clever
plan on your part to ensnare Schultz in a legal imbroglio.

Very amusing.

Scruffy


========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 23:53:32 GMT

On Thu, 03 Sep 1998 10:55:07 GMT, scruffythecat@geocities.com (Scruffy
van Piebles) wrote:

>One of the defining features of parody and satire is that there is an
>element of humor in them.  

Many people have laughed heartily over my "Pee Nuts" parody. Others,
however, did take offense. Thus is the nature of parody: to offend
some, while amusing others. A successful parody will amuse those kinds
of people whom the artist intends to amuse, and offend those kinds
whom the artist intends to offend.

To update everyone, here is a letter from "RTmark, Corporate
Sabotage"...the group behind the Barbie/Ken doll voice reversal. Their
web site is at:

	http://www.rtmark.com/
  
Their introductory spiel is as follows:

---begin spiel

Since 1991, ®™ark has channelled funds from donors to workers for the
sabotage of corporate products. Among our better known past projects
are the Barbie Liberation Organization's GI Joe™/Barbie™ work,
Deconstructing Beck, and the SimCopter™ hack. 

---end spiel

I figured they'd enjoy my particular form of political action through
parody, and they did:

---begin RTmark letter

Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:26:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: RTMARK
Subject: Re: Charles Schulz's lawyers are after my ass!
Cc: Negativeland

---------------------------------------------------------

Hi Ezekiel,

We've put a link to your Peenuts on our site.

First of all, you probably already know that the cease-and -desist
letter is probably not going to lead to anything else, and that you
shouldn't reply to it.  What you're doing does indeed look like Fair
Use, and I don't think the real Peanuts wants bad publicity....

You might want to talk to Negativland about this if anything else
happens. And we might add a line about this to our next press release,
if you don't mind.

Thanks for writing and letting us know about this.
Take care,
r

http://rtmark.com/
Bringing IT to YOU.

---end RTmark letter

Now, I also received a second e-mailed letter of support from a legal
counsel. First, his letter, then, my response:

---begin counsel's letter

Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 11:15:04 -0500
From: [Attorney1@wherever.net]
Subject: Cartoon
Organization: [Attorney Group]

---------------------------------------------------------

Ezekiel:  Here is another response from another member of the First
Amendment Lawyers Association in New York, [Attorney2]:

>Well, it's copyright infringement AND trademark infringement.

>Whether cartoon characters are trademarks, copyrighted
>material or both was the hot law review topic of the 70's and
>you can do your owen research on that. The pictorial
>characters are more copyright; the name "PEANUTS" is a
>trademark. Hence the (r) in counsel's message.

>The parody case is *Two Live Crew* (the "Pretty Woman" case).
>And the letter is almost right: parody is permissible
>copyright infringement  if it makes fun of the thing being
>parodied. Theoretically, parody would NOT be permissible if
>it merely used protected images to make some point (or
>other). But Clyde's right: that position runs into First
>Amendment problems of its own, especially if the point being
>made is political or otherwise a matter of public interest.
>Here you could argue that the parodist is sending up Charles
>Schultz's alleged insensitivity to gay concerns. Finally, for
>what it's worth, I can't believe that stalwart defender of
>the interests of comic books, my learned colleague Burton
>Joseph, can't find a defender for this guy, NOT TO MENTION
>the Lambda Education and Defense fund, &c., et al. You could
>give Liz McNamara of the Kovner firm here in New York a call.
>She defended a gay group which wanted to use the Pink Panther
>(an image of same) for poster/symbolic purposes, arguing that
>pink is a byword for gay concerns and that "panther" follows
>the tradition of the Black Panthers and the Gray Panthers as
>identifying militant activist groups. She lost. --LS

I hope some of this helps.
[Attorney1]

---end counsel's letter

==============================================

---begin my reply to counsel

On Thu, 03 Sep 1998 11:15:04 [Attorney1] wrote:

>Ezekiel:  Here is another response from another member
>of the First Amendment Lawyers Association in New
>York, [Attorney2]:

Thank you...I appreciate very much these viewpoints...as they
help me establish my case.

>>Well, it's copyright infringement AND trademark 
>>infringement.

>>But Clyde's right: that position runs into First
>>Amendment problems of its own, especially if the
>>point being made is political or otherwise a matter
>>of public interest. Here you could argue that the
>>parodist is sending up Charles Schultz's alleged
>>insensitivity to gay concerns.

My "Pee Nuts" parody is just one among three Sunday comic
strips that I have parodied. I intend to add more, in due
time. My home page at:

   http://members.tripod.com/~ezekielk/

will give you the links to my parody on "Beetle Bailey" and
"Cathy", as well as on the "Peanuts" one.

I am criticizing the lack of visibility of gay characters in
our mainstream Sunday Comics...and daily comics at large. To
me (and probably most everyone else), Schulz's Peanuts series
represents the quintessential Sunday Comic in contemporary
Amerika. (White bread, Protestant, dull, presumably
inoffensive to anyone...geared towards making profits from pap
sentimentality, rather than making statements that might
offend "mainstream" sensibilities.)

In my opinion as a political artist, no other single comic
strip could make that claim, so readily. Thus, obviously, his
strip would clearly be a choice target for my parody.

But, it is not Mr. Schulz's comic strip itself I am singling
out for criticism...it is the Sunday Comics at large that I
parody. So I try to imagine one or another popular Sunday
Comic character as a gay revolutionary ...and I thus come up
with results that are not only criticisms, but hilarious
invocations (by virtue of society's inability to take gay
people seriously).

Imagine that! Charlie brown is a Queer Nation activist, who is
one angry faggot for not having any gay characters in his
world! And Lucy the lesbian couldn't agree with him more! They
are comrades under the skin, for the sake of their common
cause! (I believe in using humor to make a point...thus,
parody is my favorite vehicle.)

I am keeping on a web site, all concerned parties up to date
on my "Pee Nuts" issue, at:

   http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm

or mirror site:

   http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/extra/copyrite.htm

There, you will find the image in question, the letter from
Schulz's legal counsel, and other informative and relevant
material. This includes my short essay, "My Pee Nuts
Agenda"...in which is implied that I created my Peanuts parody
exactly with the hope that I would draw public attention to my
work as a result of legal ramifications...and do this without
violating any law that I know of. Should the pot continue to
get stirred, I hope to be interviewd by some media interest,
or have my say in court (if it comes to that). Using my
Peanuts parody is an attempt to gain a voice with a large
audience of Amerikans. And once I have that voice (if I have
that voice), I will say the following:

-------------------------------------------------------------
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
ezekielk@iname.com

-------------------------------------------------------------

MY PEE NUT 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.

"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.

"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!"

--- end of my rant

That is the essence of the point I want to make; however, I am
still reworking it to make it the best speech possible. So now
we have a more important issue about parody in art: for I am
using a larger canvas than most artists use...as my canvas is
life itself, and my imagination, the brush. So, while the
Peanuts parody may be the focal point of my work, it is but a
small piece of the canvas. The real work of art is the social
reactions to my parody, including the possibility of my
appearance and behavior in court. In effect, I have "painted"
myself into court (possibly)...or at least as an artist, I am
trying my best to! But I will at least try to "paint" myself
into media recognition one way or another, in order to present
"My Pee Nut Agenda" to our citizens.

So if the courts must evaluate my work of art, as parody or
other...jurors must also consider the essential and entire
work, and not just one part of it. And the essential work is
this real-life, animated diorama that I am creating around a
particular criticism of mine...with possibly lawyers, judges,
jurors, and news media being included in this, my greatest
work to date.

In effect, your kind interest in this matter, puts you on my
canvas, too. For I will have good guys and bad guys in this
diorama...as I am portraying (in my opinion) the classical
struggles between good and evil...in this case, between
corporate self interest and personal liberty...as it deals
with gay artistic activism.

If you have any doubts as to my artistic philosophy of using
life as my canvas...there is a precedent in this matter that I
have already set, with my adventure of "The Somalian Affair",
which you may view at:

   http://www2.fortunecity.com/village/weaver/76/

To date, I consider that my most significant work of art. I
intentionally created controversy (in this case, addressing
our Marines in Somalia as a gay activist), in order to use
life as my canvas...to put together as many of the reactions
as I could, in order to preserve the event. The most
significant aspect of my artwork (using life as canvas) is the
actual string of events that ensue, by the brush of my
imagination. And one can only capture small pieces of that
result, here and there, as a permanent record. So that web
site is the final result...with hopefully, more things to add
should anyone who was *there, add to my accounting of the
event...or anyone who *knows someone who was there.

While my form of artistry may presently not be recognized as a
legitimate medium, I believe some day it will. Life as canvas.
As Shakespeare said, "All the world's a stage..." blah blah
blah.

>>Finally, for what it's worth, I can't believe that
>>stalwart defender of the interests of comic books, my
>>learned colleague Burton Joseph, can't find a
>>defender for this guy, NOT TO MENTION the Lambda
>>Education and Defense fund, &c., et al. You could
>>give Liz McNamara of the Kovner firm here in New York
>>a call.

In my case, money *is an object. While not your romantic
"starving" artist, I am otherwise dirt poor. I live on only my
disability stipend, and have for many years. For me to pay any
legal costs is impossible. So I am hoping to find an attorney
who really is inspired by my approach, and would regard
defending me as a feather in her cap.

I feel that my right to free speech is being threatened with
repression. I see nothing legally wrong with my Pee Nuts
parody...and in fact, everything *important in doing so. In
fact, if at all possible (though I know the idea is a remote
one), I'd like to *sue such corporations that attempt to
suppress the little guy...not because he is wrong for
exercising free speech in the form of parody (which he is
not), but only because the plaintiff is filthy rich, and
therefore operates as a tyrannical force within a supposed
democracy...and that, all too often, money speaks louder than
freedom.

>I hope some of this helps.

Definitely, and thanks again!

I have read the examples of previous "fair use" cases, that
you referred me to...here on the web. I have found the "Law
Journal Extra" to be an excellent resource to save me the
trouble of marching down to a law library. They're at:

   http://www.ljx.com/

Just go to their "Contents" section, to find references to
copyright issues. Scroll down to "Practice Areas", where
you'll find the link to "copyright".

---end my reply to counsel


---

"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

---
Either URL below, will keep you updated with the 
"Peenuts" copyright issue:

http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/extra/copyrite.htm

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: scruffythecat@geocities.com (Scruffy van Piebles)
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 01:45:09 GMT

On Thu, 03 Sep 1998 08:50:38 GMT, ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel
Krahlin) wrote:

>On Thu, 03 Sep 1998 01:58:20 GMT, scruffythecat@geocities.com (Scruffy
>van Piebles) wrote:
>
>>It has been my experience that mediators are able to support both
>>sides of a disagreement, to see both sides of the coin.  You've argued
>>Zeke's side, Niki, now let's see you argue the opposing view.
>
>Let's see you put your money where your mouth is: Argue *my side.
>
>>Practice makes perfect!
>
>Then start practicing.
>

I never said it was my job to be a mediator.  It was your unabashed
apologist who claimed that title.  I can argue both sides of most
issues.  In the past I have argued so convincingly against gay rights
in order to parody and satirize our enemies that my mailbox has been
choked with angry letters from the frailer and less imaginative
members of our breed.

You would have missed that because I am not radical enough to register
on your radar screen.  Whereas you advocate the establishment of a
sovereign gay state (and where would that be; Uranus? A Greek island
south of Lesbos? You'll have to take a number if you want to claim the
Palestine!), I advocate only the execution, after a fair trial, of
those who make their livings by destroying the lives of others.  And
that just might include the money-grubbing running dogs of capitalism
who are after your wallet right now.

If you really want me to press your position, I will.  I'm sure I can
find the same arguments you did at the bottom of a gin bottle.

Scruffy


========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 11:19:59 GMT

On Fri, 04 Sep 1998 01:45:09 GMT, scruffythecat@geocities.com (Scruffy
van Piebles) wrote:

>I never said it was my job to be a mediator.  

I see...but it is anyone else's.

>It was your unabashed apologist who claimed that title.  

I see...anyone who likes some things I say is an unabashed apologist.

>I can argue both sides of most issues.  

Sophistry.

>In the past I have argued so convincingly against gay rights
>in order to parody and satirize our enemies that my mailbox has been
>choked with angry letters from the frailer and less imaginative
>members of our breed.

Really? Let's see the evidence. Scan some of these letters, and upload
them to a web page.

By the way, for several weeks I did a street skit where I as an
"anti-preacher"...ranting and raving on the corner of Castro and
Market, hollering hellfire and brimstone to all homophobes and hetero
perverts. I brandished in my hand what looked to be a bible...and upon
inspection of the bold silver title, it was:  "The Faggot Bible", with
a big pink triangle stuck on it. 

This home-made bible contained original poems I wrote just for this
little free lance piece of street theater. Especially fun was
approaching a real bible thumper in our gay neighborhood, and do my
own anti-preacher revery from 20 feet away...louder than him, I'd
always drown 'em out. One gay employee called the cops on me, because
from a distance (across the street through a plate-glass window), he
though I was just another harassing right-wing bible thumper.

But when he escorted the cop to where I was "anti-preaching", he
really felt embarrassed...and they both had a great laugh, and shook
my hand, telling me to keep up the great work. School children in
school buses would hail me with a thumbs-up, as they drove by. It was
a really cool experience.

>You would have missed that because I am not radical enough to register
>on your radar screen.  

I miss very little. That's why I missed you.

>Whereas you advocate the establishment of a
>sovereign gay state 

Yes, as a final goal in the long run...which may not be won for many
years, maybe centuries. It is the separatist *notion I espouse,
without waiting until we actually have our own geographically
designated nation.

>(and where would that be; Uranus? A Greek island
>south of Lesbos? 

It would be called Athenia. And it will happen as a process of global,
human cultural evolution. Or maybe some strange civil war.

> I advocate only the execution, after a fair trial, of
>those who make their livings by destroying the lives of others.  

I'm against capital punishment, no matter what. The most dangerous
people, I'd have strictly confined, but with as minimal punishment as
possible.

>And that just might include the money-grubbing running dogs of 
>capitalism who are after your wallet right now.

Yes, and they won't get one red cent. I'm a ward of the state, I live
below the poverty level, and my funds are government subsidies.
Furthermore, I have done nothing wrong. I claim my cartoon is
parody...and for Schulz to challenge this, he has no choice but to
take me to court. It will be up to the judge and/or jury to decide
whether or not my work is parody. At worst, they'll judge against
me...but since I have not been in violation of any law, the worst to
happen is I'll have to remove the image in question, from my web site.

I have not sold this design anywhere, to anyone, nor is it on display
anywhere except on my web site. There is nothing they can get me
with...I am perfectly in my legal rights. The design is an obvious
parody to many people...even to those who may not *like the way I
parody. I have witnesses to this: participants in this thread.

Thank you one and all! Can you say "subpoena"?

>If you really want me to press your position, I will.  I'm sure I can
>find the same arguments you did at the bottom of a gin bottle.

Oh, so now you're calling me a drunk? Ha! I'm almost as strict as a
Muslim, when it comes to drinking alcohol: I don't. I don't smoke
tobacco, or mess with hard drugs, either. My health is my wealth.

So, here are but *some of the poems from my "Faggot Bible" (keep in
mind my name before 1996, was Gene Catalano):


===========================================================

THE DOVE CYCLE (June 1-30, 1992)
================================

(c) 1992 by Gene Catalano


For the entire month of Holy June,
Each and every bless-ed day,
I disperse (by star or moon),
Poetic gifts to brothers/sisters,
Lesbian and Gay.

Thirty poems in bars, cafes,
     and on the street
Shall suffice and shall complete
This cycle I have named "The Dove"...
For like the wing-ed spirit of Peace,
From my heart's cages I release
Messages of same-sex love.

Magic Memos stuck with glue
Are meant for any one of you
To pluck from wall or vending stall
And place inside a special book
To meditate or take a look.

For once this cycle runs its course
I shall flee on a silver horse,
To celebrate July The First
(My one-and-only day of birth),

And those with wisdom to collect
My poems for their introspect,
Shall also have a life of mirth,
As priceless items these shall be
In a year, or two, or three.

===========================================================

PRAYER TO ARTEMIS
=================

(c) 1992 by Gene Catalano


Oh Artemis, Brave Artemis, Goddess of
The Sacred Hunt, and Savior of Apollo
(For whom Your life was sacrificed
With others soon to follow)!

Perseus had wrought a silver belt made
From Medusa's Snake, for You to wear
Around Your waist to grant complete
     protection
From blow or slash of club or sword,
     or any other weapon.

In Armageddon You did fight battle after
     battle:
Chaste, courageous in Your might,
Standing strong within the light...
Unstained, unslain, unharmed, and
     undefeated.

Yet the final skirmish had not been
     played
When Apollo lay wounded, dying, flayed,
Blood streaming from His valiant chest--
For the Beast of Lies had done his best
To doom the God of Healing to dark,
     eternal rest!

Unswerving in Your heart with courage
     like no other,
You gird the silver belt around Your
     dearest brother.
Upon that act You were suddenly flung
Beneath the hooves of Satan's steed,
And died...unnoticed, unshrouded,
     unsung.

Apollo rose to conquer all,
In this, the last, and greatest,
     war.

To honor You, a sister true, each eve He
     prays and faces west,
The direction in which You died.
Tears do grace His handsome face as He
     looks up to the sky:

Your blood now stains the sunset with
     virgin red-rose hues,
Spilled across the battlefield of deep
     azures and crystal blues!


===========================================================

DADDY
=====

(c) 1992 by Gene Catalano

Daddy loves to have me sit upon his lap,
And feel his cock turn to rock.

Daddy Daddy Daddy Daddy Daddy Daddy.

Daddy loves to show me just how well he's hung,
And clean me naked with his tongue.

Daddy Daddy Daddy Daddy Daddy Daddy.

Daddy loves to raise his legs
So I can hunt for Easter Eggs.

Daddy Daddy Daddy Daddy Daddy Daddy.

Daddy loves to rest my head upon his chest,
To hear his heart beat:  "You're the best!"

Daddy Daddy Daddy Daddy Daddy Daddy.

Daddy loves me like a Man, Daddy loves me like a Boy;
Daddy does me all He can, Daddy fills my ass with joy.

Daddy Daddy Daddy Daddy Daddy Daddy.

I love my Daddy 'cause He's my Man,
And I do all for Him I can.
He made the Earth, He made the Sky,
He made me never want to die.

My Daddy's very good to me.
If yours is not, then set him free.

Daddy Daddy Daddy Daddy Daddy Daddy.

Daddy.

===========================================================

ESSO ESS
========
(c) 1992 by Gene Catalano

This is one of the most difficult
battles of Armageddon!  I can't beat
those demons myself!  I need a faithful
comrade fighting by my side!  I am in
the front line, condition red:  We need
more troops!  We need loyal comrades,
armored with the purest weapons of Love,
Patience, Long-Suffering, Kindness, and
SexyBodies!  Please, hear my call; we
cannot win without a full, striking
force!  No men who are half-hearted,
either!  Send me the best:  the
sweetest, most devoted, most sexy, most
passionate, warriors!  (...STATIC,
communications interrupt!).  Do you hear
me?  Are your antennae receiving?  O,
Belerephon, the first horse of the
Apocalypse, let me mount you so we can
lead the armies to the battlefield! Rear
your head with pride, sexy steed, as we
forge through the dark flanks of Satan's
cohorts, counting a victory for each
head we anoint!  (And all shall be
anointed!)  Our love is the victory!
Celebrate now, for the weapons we bare
are Arms of Joy, Arms of Devotion, Arms
of Humor, Arms of Flowers, Arms of
Smiles, and Armfuls and Armfuls of
Boys...and they are all invincible!  And
best of all, I get to lick the Good
Humor Man's humongous popsicle, as long
as my little heart desires!  And He
always keeps a full supply in the
freezer, so I can thaw them out with my
tongue, and roll the vanilla ice cream
in my mouth before gulping it down!

============================================================

ODE TO A FIREMAN'S HOSE
or
BABY, UNLIGHT MY FIRE!
=======================

(c) 1992 by Gene Catalano


Oh whip it out, hard-helmeted brute,
Turn that nozzle and shoot, shoot, shoot!

Oh uniformed man in sacrifice-red,
Free me from my burning bed,
Rescue me from passion's fire,
Quench my ardent heart's desire!

Fling your ladder against the wall,
Elope with me to City Hall!
Carry me away from sirens' alarm
Safe from pyromaniac harm
In those strong, those kind, heroic arms!

Lay me on a wedding bed
Of curbside grass or sidewalk stone;
Sweetly kiss my lips un-red
To wake me from the land of dead...

And from my breath these words shall flow:
"Please take me home, I love you so."

    (Let's nuzzle up like hand-in-glove
    In gay dalmation puppy love.)


MARVIN QUEER, DON'T TREAD ON MOI!
=================================

(c) 1992 by Gene Catalano

THE CURRENT LOGO OF A STREET PATROL
Was stolen by one Marvin Queer.
This pea-brain dodo must have no soul
To rip it off from a brother peer,

FOR THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF SAID DESIGN
Patroled with Marvin two years ago,
Wearing the art on jacketed spine,
In the spirit of gay-pride-soul.

WHEN CHALLENGED IN THE HOMO PRESS,
Marvin squawked:  "Public Domain!
Contact my lawyer; this is duress!
I'll piss him a golden rain!"

WELL, QUEER MARVIN, YOU CAN SHOUT
     and you can pout,
Till your pinched little face is blue,
But the truth will out, I shall win
     this bout,
For you must give credit where
     credit is due,
Or your soul is the devil's tool!

COPYRIGHT LAW STATES THAT YOU CAN TAKE
Two or more symbols from public domain,
Combine them in a novel way,
Then declare it as your own.

THIS I DID, WITH TRIANGLE AND SNAKE
("Don't Tread On Moi" for the name)
Long before you saw the piece
And made your illegal claim.

LYING AND STEALING ARE IMMATURE TRICKS
For toddlers and brats, for kicks.
A final warning to avert your mourning:
My copyright number is one-eight-seven
     dash
       SIX-SIX-SIX

============================================================

GAY FUNGUS AMONG US
===================

(c) 1992 by Gene Catalano

SATAN IS ALIVE AND WELL, DWELLING
     IN THE CASTRO DEAR;
Has naught to do with "straight" or
     "queer,"
But those who claim to worship him
(Converting and perverting souls
They then farm out for hire).

LUCY SHALL ROUND UP THESE TROLLS,
And cast them in The Lake Of Fire!
For in His heart He serves but One:
Jehovah\Krishna\Buddha\Zeus,
(Or, in Egypt, "The Great Aton").

  WHEN HE SEDUCED GAY-JESUS IN THE
   DESERT VOID AND SERE,
Satan held this Urgent\Heartfelt-
     \Sacred\Prayer:
"Do not yield to my phallic tongue
   (Wicked\PuffedUp\HeavyHung).
This is a test; you must be the
     best."

FOR MORE THAN PER CENT 21 OF OUR
     COMMUNITY QUEER
Is part of a Demonic Cult plying
     gossip, slander,
Hard drugs, cold cocks, and a
     crock o' phony tears:
  Acid reign of Suppression\Terror
     \Pain\Deception\Fear!

ISOLATE THE GRAIN FROM CHAFF,
(Rope enough to bind a noose)!
The meek inherit the final laugh
When Satan, The Beast, lets loose!

============================================================

SATAN CLAWS IS COMING TO TOWN
=============================

(c) 1992 by Gene Catalano

(Sung to the tune of "Santa Claus is Coming to Town:)

You better come out, you better not lie,
You better not doubt, so open your fly:
Satan Claws is coming to town!

She knows when you are fucking,
She knows when you dump a heap,
She knows if you are straight or gay,
So be queer or take a leap!
  Oh, Satan Claws is coming to town!

She's gettin' real pissed,
Nails ready to slice,
Gonna scratch out the hetero lice!
  Oh, Satan Claws is coming to town!

She knows how you are voting,
She knows when you bash a fag,
She knows if you hate homos
(And to Hell you shall be dragged)!
  Oh, Satan Claws is coming to town!

She's ready to hiss,
She's ready to strike,
Gonna show who she hates or she likes,
  Oh, Satan Claws is coming to town!

She knows what you are thinking,
She knows what is in your heart,
And if you are a homophobe
She'll rip your lungs apart!
  Oh, Satan Claws is coming to town!

She's flickin' her wrist
Straight into your hearts,
Gonna wipe out you hetero farts!
  Oh, Satan Claws is coming to town!

============================================================

ST. GENIE SLAYS THE DRAGON-QUILT
================================

(c) 1992 by Gene Catalano


LIKE MADAME DEFARGE IN TALE OF TWO CITIES
(Or a witch 'side her cauldron, mumbl-ing ditties),
Names-Prophet weavers crouch over their quilt
In reverence/worship/adulation of death,
And AIDS blood spilt.

LIKE OCTO-COLOSSUS 2,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA
(Or black-widow web that is spun between eaves),
Maya's Quilt ensnares souls (not fish or butterfly),
With the allure of her glitter, her fabric, her dyes.

IS NOT SACRED LIFE WORTH MORE GLORY THAN DEATH?  YET...
Who receives such marvelous art while still in
      good health, good breath?
(Were this the case for every one, we would live forever
      in love 'neath Apollo's bright sun!)

SO THIS BEATIFIC DRAGON OF RICHLY COLORED FLUFF
I must slay with the sword of my pen,
Before she grows larger, and large enough
     to smother the world...
And to ensure (as I do adjure), that
       this shall never, ever happen
     again.

=========================================================

APOLLO SEDUCING EROS
====================
(c) 1992 by Gene Catalano

APOLLO TEASES:
It sure is swell to be with you again,
O Randy-Eros! I am the only one you never
thought to seduce, yet I am the most
seduced! While you weren't looking, I
swiped your arrows. Hope you're not angry
with me! I hid the arrows in a private
dimension no one has access to except me.
If you'd like an arrow, you'll have to come
with me to my private dimension, and an
arrow will appear in your hand for each
time we make love. Yes, I know you have an
infinite supply--I just want to find out
for myself, big boy! Let's just see who
really does have the right stuff!

But we have a secret that I'll now tell
you:  no thing in this universe can resist
the seduction of Genie-Apollo, who has
already liberated many demons to Olympia!
No thing at all, except one: Eros, Seducer
of seducers! So Apollo, the fire of Zeus's
sperm, can only bide his lonely time till
he receives the Gracious Light of Love
Eternal which is, of course, the Aura of
Eros!

APOLLO PLEADS:
I have most humbly rebore myself on earth
through each human generation, to demon-
strate my love for you, Eros Most Beauti-
ful! Have I not been sacrificed many times
in the name of Our Father, to prove my
constant faith in all that is Good and
True, O Bearer of Love's Cup? Have I not
followed you through every dark path you
walked, and always found my way back to
Olympia, because of my faith in you?  O
Enslaver of Broken Wings, isn't there any-
one else who can seduce you?  If I knew of
someone else, I would bring him hither to
your feet and offer him unto you, Most
Handsome--for I love you that much!

APOLLO DESPAIRS:
Eros, your persistance in resistance is
attracting devils into your force field,
and affecting Randy...I'm only telling you
this for your own good! If there were some
other way to get them out, I'd tell you,
but the Army Seduction Field Handbook says
that, in this circumstance, "The Demons
you'll fling, when to Apollo your heart
will sing!"

APOLLO WEARIES:
Look, this is no more in my control than it
is in yours. Yes, I know it came from
energy that I created, but why did I create
it?  From a deeper energy that is Our
Father's own finger! You think I can change
his plans?  Yeah, I know I did, once, but
that was before I grew hair on my body.

EROS YAWNS, SHRUGS HIS SHOULDERS, AND
DEPARTS TO FIND HIS FUCK-BUDDY, JOSE-
HERMES

============================================================

MEDITATION ON LOVE, CHRISTMAS 1986
==================================

(c) 1992 by Gene Catalano)


Love is not choice,
but calling,
When the net of compassion keeps two
from falling.

Love is the seed of miracles,
Gift of the Elfin Folke.
(What few know to be true treasure,
Most perceive as a joke!)

It is the negation of fact
apparent
Into the realm of mystery
transparent.

Love is the heart on wings
(And also the thorn that stings).

It is the whisper between War
And the anguish between Peace,
The Battle of Armageddon
Against the Ego Beast.

Love is the brother
Whose hand is far-reaching enough
To touch the heart of another.

===========================================================




---
Right-wing queers are all it takes
To fill gay rights with rattlesnakes.
---
My website kicks (but never licks) butt!
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com
---
Either URL below, will keep you updated 
with my "Pee Nuts" copyright issue:
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/copyrite.htm
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: sheroux@europa.nospam.com (RavensHeart)
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 15:26:45 GMT

On Sat, 05 Sep 1998 10:24:44 GMT, scruffythecat@geocities.com (Scruffy
van Piebles) wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Sep 1998 10:49:27 GMT, ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel
>Krahlin) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Sep 1998 01:45:09 GMT, scruffythecat@geocities.com (Scruffy
>>van Piebles) wrote:
>>
>>>I never said it was my job to be a mediator.  
>>
>>I see...but it is anyone else's.
>>
>
>Is it Attention Deficit Disorder you suffer from?  I get the feeling
>that you're not really participating in this conversation.
>
No, Scruff, here's why you have difficulty conversing with 'zekiel:

>On 8/23/98 at 5:28am, exekieljk@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.




========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 22:46:52 GMT

On Sat, 05 Sep 1998 15:26:45 GMT, sheroux@europa.nospam.com
(RavensHeart) wrote:

>No, Scruff, here's why you have difficulty conversing with 'zekiel:
>
>>On 8/23/98 at 5:28am, exekieljk@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. 

I always enjoy it when those who hate me, nevertheless distribute my
writings free of charge...thus turning my enemies into my most
dedicated messengers. God, I'm good!


---
Pennsylvania Dutch Gay Jesus says:
"Throw the hetero over the fence some hay."
---
My website kicks (but never licks) butt!
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com
---
Charles Schulz's lawyers are after my ass!
To find out why, choose either URL below:
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/extra/copyrite.htm

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: sheroux@europa.nospam.com (RavensHeart)
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 00:40:10 GMT

On Sat, 05 Sep 1998 22:46:52 GMT, ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel
Krahlin) wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Sep 1998 15:26:45 GMT, sheroux@europa.nospam.com
>(RavensHeart) wrote:
>
>>No, Scruff, here's why you have difficulty conversing with 'zekiel:
>>
>>>On 8/23/98 at 5:28am, exekieljk@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. 
>
>I always enjoy it when those who hate me, nevertheless distribute my
>writings free of charge...thus turning my enemies into my most
>dedicated messengers. God, I'm good!
>


Yeah,,,,yeah...that's it....my messengers.....




========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 22:03:04 GMT

On Sun, 06 Sep 1998 00:40:10 GMT, sheroux@europa.nospam.com
(RavensHeart) wrote:

>
>
>Yeah,,,,yeah...that's it....my messengers.....

As I will be your messenger...should you ever make statements worth
sharing.


---
Charles Schulz's lawyers are after my ass
for my gay-rights parody of Peanuts!
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm
---
My website kicks (but never licks) butt!
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: scruffythecat@geocities.com (Scruffy van Piebles)
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 15:11:05 GMT

On Sat, 05 Sep 1998 15:26:45 GMT, sheroux@europa.nospam.com
(Zeke's Messenger) wrote:

>>
>No, Scruff, here's why you have difficulty conversing with 'zekiel:
>
>>On 8/23/98 at 5:28am, exekieljk@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.
>

I am struck by the incredible similarity between the argumentation and
posting styles of Zeke and Buddy Beau.  Either these posters are the
same man playing some sort of game, two men sharing the same "angelic
spirit" or multiple personalities in the same person who surface
according to which medication he's run out of.

Scruffy


========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 22:03:28 GMT

On Sun, 06 Sep 1998 15:11:05 GMT, scruffythecat@geocities.com (Scruffy
van Piebles) wrote:

>I am struck by the incredible similarity between the argumentation and
>posting styles of Zeke and Buddy Beau.  Either these posters are the
>same man playing some sort of game, two men sharing the same "angelic
>spirit" or multiple personalities in the same person who surface
>according to which medication he's run out of.

I love urban myth. (Or I guess in this case: Usenet myth.)


---
Charles Schulz's lawyers are after my ass
for my gay-rights parody of Peanuts!
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm
---
My website kicks (but never licks) butt!
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 05:16:26 GMT

On 31 Aug 1998 17:56:17 -0500, cubsfan@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman)
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.


---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: Faunus Christophorou 
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 23:08:41 GMT

Secondly, it's quite offensive.  I'm gay and I'm offended by it.

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 
> Subject: Unauthorized use of PEANUTS Characters
> To: ezekielk@members.gayweb.com
> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 15:44:24 -0500
>
> August 27, 1998
>
> Mr. Ezekiel Krahlin
> 
>
> 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, ,
> 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
>  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/
> GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com




========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: cubsfan@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman)
Date: 31 Aug 1998 20:31:01 -0500

In article <35EB2C09.1505DD87@bellsouth.net>, lebete@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.

Any lawyers out there?

-- 
Mike Silverman  --  cubsfan at turnleft.com  --  Lawrence, KS
http://www.turnleft.com/personal

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: Tom Hawk 
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 01:07:17 -0400

Mike Silverman wrote:
> 
> 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

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 08:19:32 GMT

On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 01:07:17 -0400, Tom Hawk 
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.


---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: jmnorthw@gte.uce_is_icky.net (J. Northwood)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 09:16:06 GMT

On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 08:19:32 GMT, ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel
Krahlin) wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 01:07:17 -0400, Tom Hawk 
>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?

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 17:33:59 GMT

On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 09:16:06 GMT, jmnorthw@gte.uce_is_icky.net (J.
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!


---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: desalvo@monitor.net (John De Salvio)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 18:08:16 -0700

In article <6sge15$g2d$2@news-1.news.gte.net>,
jmnorthw@gte.uce_is_icky.net (J. Northwood) wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 08:19:32 GMT, ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel
> Krahlin) wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 01:07:17 -0400, Tom Hawk 
> >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

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 05:29:26 GMT

On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 18:08:16 -0700, desalvo@monitor.net (John De
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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: Nicole Lasher 
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 12:28:52 +0300

 

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


========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: "James Doemer" 
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 09:55:36 -0400


Nicole Lasher wrote in message <35EBBE54.84FB9132@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
: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
:



========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 17:34:06 GMT

On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 09:55:36 -0400, "James Doemer" 
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.



---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ogod@my-dejanews.com
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 04:43:20 GMT

In article <35ec17bc.2558825@nntp.sj.bigger.net>,
  ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 09:55:36 -0400, "James Doemer" 
> 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.

Oh come on! Don't be an idiot. Not only did you deliberately mis-spelt
his name and thus avoid giving him credit for HIS work, but on top of
that you virtually call the man an arse hole using his own work to
discredit him. An you expect him to give you permission to use his
work?

The other works that are being refereed to are political satires which
use his works in order to take a poke at OTHER people. Your work would
have been valid if you had referred to the sunday comics in general.
However, your work not only directly criticizes him, but also
deliberately insults the man. He has spent decades creating these
characters, and it is perfectly reasonable that he should have a say
in how they are used.

> >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.

Very good Ezekiel. However, you have already admitted that you did
not create these characters. Well, when someone uses another person's
work, calls it their own and then refuses to acknowledge the rights
of the creator, we name those people PLAGIARISTS. After that, all work
that that person submits becomes suspect.

Derivative works are different from copied and modified works. We know
you can produce good original work Ezekiel, don't let yourself fall
into this trap.

--
"...there is sometimes little to choose between
        the reality of illusion and the illusion of reality."
                Patrick White, The Aunt's Story , 1948

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 17:34:02 GMT

On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 12:28:52 +0300, Nicole Lasher
 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.


---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 05:16:57 GMT

On 31 Aug 1998 20:31:01 -0500, cubsfan@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.

>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.


---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: "James Doemer" 
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:35:11 -0400


Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message
<35eb7fd4.4847686@nntp.sj.bigger.net>...
:On 31 Aug 1998 20:31:01 -0500, cubsfan@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
: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.
:




========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 17:34:11 GMT

On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:35:11 -0400, "James Doemer" 
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?



---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: "James Doemer" 
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 15:19:40 -0400


Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message
<35ec18a3.2789616@nntp.sj.bigger.net>...
:On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:35:11 -0400, "James Doemer" 
: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.





========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 05:29:31 GMT

On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 15:19:40 -0400, "James Doemer" 
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.


---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: "James Doemer" 
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 06:36:38 -0400


Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message <35ecbe3e.2546977@nntp.sj.bigger.net>...
>On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 15:19:40 -0400, "James Doemer" 
>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?



========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: Nicole Lasher 
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 14:57:42 +0300

 

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


========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: "James Doemer" 
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:22:42 -0400


Nicole Lasher wrote in message <35ED32B6.6B2A1BFC@netvision.net.il>...
:
:
: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
:

??  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.



========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 18:35:40 GMT

On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 14:57:42 +0300, Nicole Lasher
 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.


---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 18:35:25 GMT

On Wed, 2 Sep 1998 06:36:38 -0400, "James Doemer" 
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!



---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: "June Cleaver" 
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:15:11 -0700

Dear:

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 <35ed8d34.4245107@nntp.sj.bigger.net>...
>On Wed, 2 Sep 1998 06:36:38 -0400, "James Doemer" 
>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!
>
>
>
>---
>
>"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/
>GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com



========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 21:41:19 GMT

On Wed, 2 Sep 1998 12:15:11 -0700, "June Cleaver" 
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!


---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: jmnorthw@gte.uce_is_icky.net (J. Northwood)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 00:59:10 GMT

On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 21:41:19 GMT, ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel
Krahlin) wrote:

>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.

Oh.

_That's_ why you have Sarge from Beetle Bailey screaming "FUCK ME"?

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 04:08:28 GMT

On Thu, 03 Sep 1998 00:59:10 GMT, jmnorthw@gte.uce_is_icky.net (J.
Northwood) wrote:

>_That's_ why you have Sarge from Beetle Bailey screaming "FUCK ME"?

I would hardly put Beetle Bailey in the same classification as
Peanuts. I would not suggest that the author of Beetle Bailey include
gays in any way but dignified. However, my own parody in this case is
of an adult nature, and appears on my web site, not in the Sunday
Comics. I am all for an adult version of Gay Sunday Comics, as well as
a children's one.

I thought we were discussing how gay characters should appear in the
Peanuts Strip, anyway.


---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: Nicole Lasher 
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 12:36:38 +0300

 

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


========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: "James Doemer" 
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:41:27 -0400


Nicole Lasher wrote in message <35EBC026.A24A2537@netvision.net.il>...
:
:
: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
:

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.



========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 17:34:17 GMT

On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:41:27 -0400, "James Doemer" 
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.



---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ogod@my-dejanews.com
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 05:48:01 GMT

In article <35ec2ee8.8491800@nntp.sj.bigger.net>,
  ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 	http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/extra/treadmoi.htm

I looked it over Ezekiel. My conclusion is that you are a hypocrite.

--
...there is sometimes little to choose between
        the reality of illusion and the illusion of reality."
                Patrick White, The Aunt's Story , 1948

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: volein@hotmail.com (Volein)
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 11:38:44 GMT

x-no-archive: yes
~ In article <35ec2ee8.8491800@nntp.sj.bigger.net>,
~   ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com wrote:
~ > 
~ > 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.
~ > 
~ > 	http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/extra/treadmoi.htm
~ 


~ I looked it over Ezekiel. My conclusion is that you are a hypocrite.

DITTO!


========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: Nicole Lasher 
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 14:51:11 +0300

 

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


========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 08:51:04 GMT

On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 14:51:11 +0300, Nicole Lasher
 wrote:

>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.

Now, I share with our audience some quotes from legal web sites, that
will enlighten us on the issues of copyright infringement vs. fair
use...and which directly relate to my "Peenuts" parody:

=============================

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Moral Majority, Inc., 769 F.2d 12148 (9th
Circuit 1986).

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/hustler.html

---begin quote

See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886, 910 (1982)
("Speech does not lose its protected character . . . simply because it
may embarrass others or coerce them into action"). And, as we stated
in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978):

"[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient
reason for sup pressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion
that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it
constitutional protection. [56] For it is a central tenet of the First
Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace
of ideas." Id., at 745-746.

See also Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576, 592 (1969) ("It is firmly
settled that . . . the public expression of ideas may not be
prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some
of their hearers")....

At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the
fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on
matters of public interest and concern. "The [51] freedom to speak
one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty--and thus a
good unto itself--but also is essential to the common quest for truth
and the vitality of society as a whole." Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union
of United States, Inc., 466 U. S. 485, 503-504 (1984). We have
therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual
expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed
sanctions. The First Amendment recognizes no such thing as a "false"
idea.

---end quote

=======================================

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 114 S. Ct. 1164, 510 U.S. 569, 127
L. Ed. 2d 500 (1994) - United States Supreme Court

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS.html


---begin quote

Held: 2 Live Crew's commercial parody may be a fair use within the
meaning of §107. Pp. 4-25.

(a) Section 107, which provides that "the fair use of a copyrighted
work . . . for purposes such as criticism [or] comment . . . is not an
infringement . . . ," continues the common law tradition of fair use
adjudication and requires case by case analysis rather than bright
line rules. The statutory examples of permissible uses provide only
general guidance....

(b) Parody, like other comment and criticism, may claim fair use.
Under the first of the four §107 factors, "the purpose andcharacter of
the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature . . . ,"
the enquiry focuses on whether the new work merely supersedes the
objects of the original creation, or whether and to what extent it is
"transformative," altering the original with new expression, meaning,
or message....

(d) The second §107 factor, "the nature of the copyrighted work," is
not much help in resolving this and other parody cases, since parodies
almost invariably copy publicly known, expressive works...

As to parody pure and simple, it is unlikely that the work will act as
a substitute for the original, since the two works usually serve
different market functions.

=======================================

Some quotes from "Works of Parody:  Walking the Fine Line", 
by Leonard M. Marks and Robert P. Mulvey,
The New York Law Journal
March 10, 1997:

http://www.ljx.com/copyright/0310parody.html

---begin quote

Fair Use Factors

When a fair use defense is raised, the district court will not be
faced with the issues paramount in most copyright infringement actions
-- access, substantial similarity and copying. Rather, fair use
presupposes that the defendant used copyrighted material but that the
use falls within one of the recognized exceptions to infringement,
including parody.

The judge-made fair use doctrine is now codified in §107 of the
Copyright Act of 1976. In determining fair use, the district courts
are required, at a minimum, to consider the statutorily itemized
factors, including:

(a) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(b) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(c) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(d) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work.

The list is not intended to be exhaustive, and the courts have
considered other factors including the good or bad faith of the
parodists.

While works of parody are clearly within the fair use doctrine, the
analysis is further complicated by the absence of a legal definition
of parody and by the need for the courts to determine if the work is a
parody without making subjective judgments about artistic worth....

[A]ny work of sufficient notoriety to be the object of parody has
already secured for its proprietor considerable financial benefit.
According that proprietor further protection against parody does
little to promote creativity, but it places a substantial inhibition
upon the creativity of authors adept at using parody to entertain,
inform, or stir public consciousness....

The third fair use factor analyzes the qualitative and quantitative
portion of the copyrighted material used, to determine whether the
parody has taken more than necessary to conjure up the original such
that it has supplanted or superseded demand for the original....

Provided the transformative effect is realized, parodies should be,
and have been, given wide latitude to use substantial portions of the
original.

---end quote

=======================================






---

"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

---
Either URL below, will keep you updated with the 
"Peenuts" copyright issue:

http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/extra/copyrite.htm

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 17:34:13 GMT

On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 12:36:38 +0300, Nicole Lasher
 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?


---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: wstewart@hi.net (Ward Stewart)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 00:50:02 GMT

On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 21:48:47 GMT, jmnorthw@gte.uce_is_icky.net (J.
Northwood) wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 17:34:13 GMT, ezekieljk@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
     *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: jmnorthw@gte.uce_is_icky.net (J. Northwood)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 02:20:55 GMT

On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 00:50:02 GMT, wstewart@hi.net (Ward Stewart)
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?

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ogod@my-dejanews.com
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 05:35:32 GMT

In article <35EBC026.A24A2537@netvision.net.il>,
  Nicole Lasher  wrote:
> 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.

No. The work can be regarded as defamatory. Would you let someone use your
work to defame you? Besides, Ezekiel simply didn't do enough work for a
parody. The work is not original. He has copied.

My impression of Eziekiel of of a person obsessed with homophobia. I would
never want to shut him up, because some of what he says is quite valid,
some of it is quite original, and I believe that our society as a whole
is all the richer for the diversity of viewpoints that we have. However,
sometimes Ezekiel is just plain wrong, and sometimes Ezekiel is just plain
stupid. *sigh*

I prefer to believe that none of this is real. Ezekiel knows this is wrong,
but is using the debate to call attention to the issues. "Gand Standing."
Well Ezekiel, I don't care. I am offended when a person is not given due
credit for their work, and that is what you have done to Mr Shultz.
--
...there is sometimes little to choose between
        the reality of illusion and the illusion of reality."
                Patrick White, The Aunt's Story , 1948

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 08:33:04 GMT

On Mon, 07 Sep 1998 05:35:32 GMT, ogod@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>Well Ezekiel, I don't care. I am offended when a person is not given due
>credit for their work, and that is what you have done to Mr Shultz.

He is no sacred cow.


---
Charles Schulz's lawyers are after my ass
for my gay-rights parody of Peanuts!
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm
---
My website kicks (but never licks) butt!
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: "J. David Eisenberg" 
Date: 7 Sep 1998 17:03:14 GMT

In alt.politics.homosexuality Ezekiel Krahlin  wrote:
: On Mon, 07 Sep 1998 05:35:32 GMT, ogod@my-dejanews.com wrote:

:>Well Ezekiel, I don't care. I am offended when a person is not given due
:>credit for their work, and that is what you have done to Mr Shultz.

: He is no sacred cow.

Perhaps not, but your approach is what leaves me utterly cold.
It seems to be along the lines of a strident demand: 

   "Put gay people in the comics, whether or not it
   advances the plot line, whether or not it fits into the tone of
   the strip."

In a strip like "For Better or For Worse," the introduction of a gay
character was absolutely appropriate for the tone of the strip.
Others where a gay character might fit in as a natural part of the
sequence:

   Luann, Judge Parker, Mary Worth, Brenda Starr, Rex Morgan MD,
   Sally Forth, maybe even Dilbert.

To be honest, I can't imagine how a gay character fits into Peanuts,
which has, of late, become a universe completely unto itself, only
infrequently touching upon the everyday world.

Think about the last time you had to do something because it was
demanded of you. Were you happy about it or resentful? Yes, a
demand will get action, but it will not create good will. We are
not talking about evil people who hate gays no matter how much one
appeals to reason. We are talking about creative people who will
probably react better to an appeal to their creativity:

  "have you thought of how you might introduce a gay character
  and bring a new dimension to your strip"

rather than to the mean-spirited:

  "put a gay character in, dammit, and here's an incredibly 
  insulting knockoff of your work just to show you I mean business"

: ---
: Charles Schulz's lawyers are after my ass
: for my gay-rights parody of Peanuts!
: http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm

   ... as well they should be, IMHO.
-- 
J. David Eisenberg    http://www.best.com/~nessus

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 21:26:47 GMT

On 7 Sep 1998 17:03:14 GMT, "J. David Eisenberg"
 wrote:

>  "put a gay character in, dammit, and here's an incredibly 
>  insulting knockoff of your work just to show you I mean business"

I do not find in any way, my parody to be "incredibly insulting". In
fact, I think it's quite the opposite: "incredibly complimentary".
However, we are all free to interpret a controversial work in any way
we want. Some people, of course, just don't get it.

Then  you also have those who are just plain *jealous, and will
attempt to  deride the author of the parody, and do everything else
they can come up with, to belittle and ruin him.

The human race has not changed one iota since 5,000 B.C.  Ho-hum.


---
Charles Schulz's lawyers are after my ass
for my gay-rights parody of Peanuts!
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm
---
My website kicks (but never licks) butt!
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: Nicole Lasher 
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 13:43:52 +0200

 

ogod@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> I prefer to believe that none of this is real. Ezekiel knows this is wrong,
> but is using the debate to call attention to the issues. "Gand Standing."
> Well Ezekiel, I don't care. I am offended when a person is not given due
> credit for their work, and that is what you have done to Mr Shultz.

If there were anyone left on the internet who didn't know who Charlie Brown was, and
who created him, this would be a valid argument.
Charlie Brown's image itself is "due credit" to Charles Shultz.
The problem, of course, is not Charles Shultz wanting credit for his work...The
credit is the work itself.  Charlie Brown is like Mickey Mouse.  If you saw Mickey
Mouse, you'd immediately think of Disney.  Well, when people see Charlie Brown, they
think of Charles Shultz.
The problem is that an agency, not Charles Shultz himself, wrote Ezekiel, likely,
because they are either homophobic, and/or don't want their piece of the pie taken
away by what they think might be a growing trend of gay parody of Charlie Brown.
It's mostly a money thing, but it could also be a fear thing.
The idea that Pee Nuts takes away or does any damage to the money machine behind
Peanuts is ludicrous.

~Niki


========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 21:27:06 GMT

On Mon, 07 Sep 1998 13:43:52 +0200, Nicole Lasher
 wrote:

>The problem is that an agency, not Charles Shultz himself, wrote Ezekiel, likely,
>because they are either homophobic, and/or don't want their piece of the pie taken
>away by what they think might be a growing trend of gay parody of Charlie Brown.

This is why I felt Peanuts was a most apt target for parody. Peanuts
has become a sacred cow of white-bread Amerika...and has set itself up
to be toppled. Good fuckin' grief!

From the judgment of "HUSTLER MAGAZINE, INC. V. MORAL MAJORITY, INC.",
documented at:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/hustler.html :

---begin quote

"[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a
sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the
speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a
reason for according it constitutional protection. [56] For it
is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government
must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas." Id., at
745-746.

See also Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576, 592 (1969) ("It is
firmly settled that . . . the public expression of ideas may
not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves
offensive to some of their hearers")....

At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the
fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions
on matters of public interest and concern. "The [51] freedom
to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual
liberty--and thus a good unto itself--but also is essential to
the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a
whole." Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.,
466 U. S. 485, 503-504 (1984). We have therefore been
particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of
ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions. The
First Amendment recognizes no such thing as a "false" idea.

---end quote

I now quote from the judgment of "CAMPBELL V. ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC, INC.",
documented at:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS.html :

---begin quote

(b) Parody, like other comment and criticism, may claim fair
use. Under the first of the four §107 factors, "the purpose
andcharacter of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature . . . ," the enquiry focuses on whether the
new work merely supersedes the objects of the original
creation, or whether and to what extent it is
"transformative," altering the original with new expression,
meaning, or message....

---end quote

>It's mostly a money thing, but it could also be a fear thing.
>The idea that Pee Nuts takes away or does any damage to the money machine behind
>Peanuts is ludicrous.

Some relevant quotes from "WORKS OF PARODY:  WALKING THE FINE LINE"
by Leonard M. Marks and Robert P. Mulvey (URL:
http://www.ljx.com/copyright/0310parody.html ):

---begin quote

[A]ny work of sufficient notoriety to be the object of parody
has already secured for its proprietor considerable financial
benefit. According that proprietor further protection against
parody does little to promote creativity, but it places a
substantial inhibition upon the creativity of authors adept at
using parody to entertain, inform, or stir public
consciousness....

Provided the transformative effect is realized, parodies
should be, and have been, given wide latitude to use
substantial portions of the original.

---end quote



---
Charles Schulz's lawyers are after my ass
for my gay-rights parody of Peanuts!
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm
---
My website kicks (but never licks) butt!
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 05:16:51 GMT

On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 23:08:41 GMT, Faunus Christophorou
 wrote:

>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!)


---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
To: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: MyKill 
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 20:47:28 -0700

(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.

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)



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 
> Subject: Unauthorized use of PEANUTS Characters
> To: ezekielk@members.gayweb.com
> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 15:44:24 -0500
> 
> August 27, 1998
> 
> Mr. Ezekiel Krahlin
> 
> 
> 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, ,
> 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
>  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/
> GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 05:17:13 GMT

On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 20:47:28 -0700, MyKill
 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.


---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: wstewart@hi.net (Ward Stewart)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 05:18:12 GMT

On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 20:47:28 -0700, MyKill
 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!!


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
-------------------------------------------------

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 08:19:36 GMT

On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 05:18:12 GMT, wstewart@hi.net (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.

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.



---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: Nicole Lasher 
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 12:19:00 +0300

 

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


========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 17:34:19 GMT

On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 12:19:00 +0300, Nicole Lasher
 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".)



---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 06:04:28 GMT

I have just posted my orginal article that started this thread, to the
following legal-related newsgroups:

law.school.copyright
misc.legal
misc.legal.moderated



---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 06:13:19 GMT

On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 20:47:28 -0700, MyKill
 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/ikons.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/


---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 07:16:44 GMT

On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 20:47:28 -0700, MyKill
 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

---
My website kicks (but never licks) butt!
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: "James Doemer" 
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:53:50 -0400


Great, I will be interested in seeing the responses....

Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message
<35eb9de1.6115383@nntp.sj.bigger.net>...
:On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 20:47:28 -0700, MyKill
: 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
:
:---
:My website kicks (but never licks) butt!
:http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
:GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com



========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 19:49:07 GMT

On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:53:50 -0400, "James Doemer" 
wrote:

>Great, I will be interested in seeing the responses....

EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) just contacted me:

---begin message

From: Gilbert Rankin 
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


---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: "James Doemer" 
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 16:40:03 -0400


Hmmm... Hope you have better luck from the other contacts...

Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message <35ec4ec3.16647228@nntp.sj.bigger.net>...
>On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:53:50 -0400, "James Doemer" 
>wrote:
>
>>Great, I will be interested in seeing the responses....
>
>EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) just contacted me:
>
>---begin message
>
>From: Gilbert Rankin 
>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
>
>
>---
>
>"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/
>GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com



========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 05:29:43 GMT

On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 16:40:03 -0400, "James Doemer" 
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



---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 20:12:17 GMT

On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 16:40:03 -0400, "James Doemer" 
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]" <[attorney1@legal.net]>
Subject: (no subject)
Organization: [lawyers' group]
To: ezekielk@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



---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 20:55:26 GMT

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 

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 

	members.tripod.com/~ezekielk/

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! 


---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: sheroux@europa.nospam.com (RavensHeart)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 05:24:08 GMT

On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 20:55:26 GMT, ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel
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 
>


>
>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, exekieljk@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.




========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: jmnorthw@gte.uce_is_icky.net (J. Northwood)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 05:49:08 GMT

On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 05:24:08 GMT, sheroux@europa.nospam.com
(RavensHeart) wrote:

< snip >

>Let's hope he doesn't view this one:

< snip >

Actually, I rather hope he _does_.

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 07:30:56 GMT

On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 05:24:08 GMT, sheroux@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.)



---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: sheroux@europa.nospam.com (RavensHeart)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 08:27:50 GMT

On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 07:30:56 GMT, ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel
Krahlin) wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 05:24:08 GMT, sheroux@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.

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 18:35:51 GMT

On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 08:27:50 GMT, sheroux@europa.nospam.com
(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?


---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 20:32:45 GMT

On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 08:27:50 GMT, sheroux@europa.nospam.com
(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
ezekielk@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




---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: sheroux@europa.nospam.com (RavensHeart)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 03:11:30 GMT

On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 18:35:51 GMT, ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel
Krahlin) wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 08:27:50 GMT, sheroux@europa.nospam.com
>(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?
>
>
Well then, let me re-phrase it:  I just can't be bothered.  

========
To: James Doemer 
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: trumbull@earthlink.net
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 02:37:03 -0400

James Doemer wrote:
> 
> Great, I will be interested in seeing the responses....
> 
> Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message
> <35eb9de1.6115383@nntp.sj.bigger.net>...
> :On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 20:47:28 -0700, MyKill
> : 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
> :
> :---
> :My website kicks (but never licks) butt!
> :http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
> :GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com
try taking poison.

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 08:51:12 GMT

On Thu, 03 Sep 1998 02:37:03 -0400, trumbull@earthlink.net wrote:

>try taking poison.

One man's poison is another man's meat.


---

"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

---
Either URL below, will keep you updated with the 
"Peenuts" copyright issue:

http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/extra/copyrite.htm

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: Frank Martinez Lester 
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 12:32:15 -0700

[[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."

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.




========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: wstewart@hi.net (Ward Stewart)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 00:49:56 GMT

On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 12:32:15 -0700, Frank Martinez Lester
 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.

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
     *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 05:30:17 GMT

On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 00:49:56 GMT, wstewart@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?

>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.)


---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: Bill Lindemann 
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 23:18:29 +0000

Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 00:49:56 GMT, wstewart@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



========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 07:31:05 GMT

On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 23:18:29 +0000, Bill Lindemann 
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.


---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: Bill Lindemann 
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 12:41:14 +0000

Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 23:18:29 +0000, Bill Lindemann 
> 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



========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 21:41:22 GMT

On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 12:41:14 +0000, Bill Lindemann 
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!



---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: Bill Lindemann 
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 16:05:48 +0000

Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 12:41:14 +0000, Bill Lindemann 
> 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!

You deliberately misunderstand me, sir.  I was comparing sexual
violence with anti-gay violence, by way of comparing Charles Schultz's
failure to address either in Peanuts.

-Bill



========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 04:08:45 GMT

On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 16:05:48 +0000, Bill Lindemann 
wrote:

>You deliberately misunderstand me, sir.  

No, it's not deliberate at all. Those are the examples you gave.

>I was comparing sexual violence with anti-gay violence, by 
>way of comparing Charles Schultz's failure to address 
>either in Peanuts.

I would leave the more serious aspects of gay rights to more adult
style comics. As for Peanuts and other comics children look at--as
well as grown-ups--we should include some gay people along with all
the other (presumably hetero) characters. For the main reason this
should be done, is to defuse the potential of children to grow up into
adults who are ignorant and fearful of gays. If they had some friendly
role models in their favorite comics, this would go a long way to
educating children to not be homophobic.

The issues of gay violence I would reserve for educational textbooks
that deal with social issues of discrimination...which usually are not
presented earlier than the seventh grade. We could include magazines
with comic-style characters addressing these more serious
issues...aimed at the adolescent and post-adolescent youth.



---

"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/
GodHatesBreeders@HetBeGone.com

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: Jim Drew 
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 23:48:58 +0100

Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
> 
> I would leave the more serious aspects of gay rights to more adult
> style comics. As for Peanuts and other comics children look at--as
> well as grown-ups--we should include some gay people along with all
> the other (presumably hetero) characters.

Right.  Seven year old gay characters.  Uh-huh.

(More seriously: don't you read Snoopy and Woodstock as a gay couple?  Why not?)

Jim

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 09:53:46 GMT

On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 23:48:58 +0100, Jim Drew 
wrote:

>> well as grown-ups--we should include some gay people along with all
>> the other (presumably hetero) characters.
>
>Right.  Seven year old gay characters.  Uh-huh.

Well, children march in gay pride parades, with their older siblings,
relatives, or parents.  Do the Peanuts characters live in some sort of
social vacuum?



---

"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

---
Either URL below, will keep you updated with the 
"Peenuts" copyright issue:

http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/extra/copyrite.htm

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: Bill Lindemann 
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 05:37:55 +0000

Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 23:48:58 +0100, Jim Drew 
> wrote:
>
> >> well as grown-ups--we should include some gay people along with all
> >> the other (presumably hetero) characters.
> >
> >Right.  Seven year old gay characters.  Uh-huh.
>
> Well, children march in gay pride parades, with their older siblings,
> relatives, or parents.  Do the Peanuts characters live in some sort of
> social vacuum?

Exactly.  What would you consider a world that includes no post-pubescent
siblings, relatives, or adults, if not a social vacuum?  That IS the world
Peanuts characters live in.

-Bill



========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: "James Doemer" 
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 08:27:51 -0400


Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message
<35ee6640.26878001@nntp.sj.bigger.net>...
:On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 23:48:58 +0100, Jim Drew 
:wrote:
:
:>> well as grown-ups--we should include some gay people along with all
:>> the other (presumably hetero) characters.
:>
:>Right.  Seven year old gay characters.  Uh-huh.
:
:Well, children march in gay pride parades, with their older siblings,
:relatives, or parents.  Do the Peanuts characters live in some sort of
:social vacuum?
:
:
:

In a sense, yes, have you ever seen a teen or older than teen sibling
characterized in Peanuts?    Parents??



========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: ezekieljk@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel Krahlin)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 23:53:49 GMT

On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 08:27:51 -0400, "James Doemer" 
wrote:

>In a sense, yes, have you ever seen a teen or older than teen sibling
>characterized in Peanuts?    Parents??

Again, James, you fail to absorb what you read...as I clearly
suggested that some Peanuts characters could *talk about the gay pride
march, or a gay friend or sister. You could have (as our "June
Cleaver" suggested) Peppermint Patty as a psuedo-lesbian character.
She could be marching up and down the street with a gay rainbow flag,
because she was invited to the march by an older sibling. How about
Peanuts and his bird friends doing their own march? How about Linus
finding a rainbow flag a more desirable security blanket than his old,
bland one?

There are all sorts of possibilites that could be used in Peanuts, to
educate children against gay bigotry...without *ever bringing up the
topic of sex. Just as we teach young children about hetero couples. 

But I already explained this. Please use your brain pan a little more.


---

"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

---
Either URL below, will keep you updated with the 
"Peenuts" copyright issue:

http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/extra/copyrite.htm

========
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright infringement!
From: orlando@MyXgay-rig.killspam.us.com
Date: 3 Sep 1998 15:24:47 GMT

In article <35ee0736.2544529@nntp.sj.bigger.net>,
Ezekiel Krahlin  wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 16:05:48 +0000, Bill Lindemann 
>wrote:
>
>
>I would leave the more serious aspects of gay rights to more adult
>style comics. As for Peanuts and other comics children look at--as
>well as grown-ups--we should include some gay people along with all
>the other (presumably hetero) characters. For the main reason this
>should be done, is to defuse the potential of children to grow up into
>adults who are ignorant and fearful of gays. If they had some friendly
>role models in their favorite comics, this would go a long way to
>educating children to not be homophobic.
>
>The issues of gay violence I would reserve for educational textbooks
>that deal with social issues of discrimination...which usually are not
>presented earlier than the seventh grade. We could include magazines
>with comic-style characters addressing these more serious
>issues...aimed at the adolescent and post-adolescent youth.

as long as gay media clings to its shallow and unsightful ideas of
"jounalism" and "community", gay youth will be subjected to marketing
blitzes of pretty-white-males-who-can-climb-mountains-after-taking-their
-near-lethal-aids-medication and whining males who really have no clue
as to what civil rights really are, such as you.

your cartoon would be more effective if you'd stop the armchair activism
and say something intelligent rather than regurgitating tired rally
chants that have become fodder for mainstream parodies. 

i thank charles schulz for his comic strip peanuts. i saw myself as
a combination of all the characters and admired them for being the
best they could be.  at the time i was reading the whole collection
of books in english and spanish, i had no idea i was gay. and when
i heard about gay rights marches and anita bryant in the seventies,
i couldn't comprehend what was going on at all. schulz did emphasize
the tangible, such as adding black children to the experience and
that made me feel that those of us who were not white could fit
in with the rest of the world. 

this whole thing about schulz being homophobic is pure bullshit
and your time could be better spent doing other productive things
for a lot of people.  your asking for money for a cheap-parody
that says nothing is offensive and anyone sending you money is
out of their minds.

orlando


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Orlando Cordero, Internet Tools, Symantec Corp.  orlando@rahul.net
http://www.rahul.net/orlando ICQ: 3826405
"I had no reason to be over-optimistic, but somehow when you smile I can
brave bad weather." --Pete Townshend			ASGTPR #84
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~