We Need Your Banner Submission

[EvB]

((((Though many will remember it as simple black and white, the Kansas scenes in The Wizard of Oz were in sepia tone, until Technicolor takes over in the land of Oz.))))

I think that's because so many of us saw it, multiple times, on TV - a BLACK AND WHITE TV.  In fact, that's how I knew it as a child, black and white all the way through (WOZ came on TV long before color TV was perfected - and many people, my parents included - just didn't like how it looked.  My maternal grandparents had one, round tube and all - and I remember not liking it either)

When I grew up and saw a revival on the "big screen"  - I GASPED when Dorothy arrived in OZ.  Sure - I KNEW that was how it was supposed to be, but seeing it was another matter.

[Spikegirl]

I said to my friend:  'I never want to live in a vegetative state, dependent on some machine and fluids from a bottle. If that ever happens, just pull the plug.'

She got up, unplugged my computer, and threw out my wine.

She's such a bitch.....

OMG! Friggin' genius! I love that signature line.

[EvB]

He he-- Actually - it's a shortened version of a joke my landlady sent me by email.

[MV/Liberace!]

you guys have REALLY come through with the banners.  i can't thank you enough.  it has added such a flavor to the aesthetic makeup of this site.

[EvB]

Speaking of flavor:

And BTW - y'all are just a BAD AND EVIL influence!   

[Spikegirl]

Oh, Ev! You didn't so much push the envelope as open it!


You're a gal after Jonathan Swift's heart!

[EvB]

Yeah well - can't say he wasn't on my mind.  But, I tried to be a bit more modest  ;

[Spikegirl]

Yeah well - can't say he wasn't on my mind.  But, I tried to be a bit more modest  ;

Hah!

[EvB]

Like I said - y'all are corrupting me.

.jpg format -- 728 x 90

NOT animated.  Static.

[EvB]

[Spikegirl]

Genius! Another one out of the park!

[EvB]

Genius! Another one out of the park!

You DO realize that you are one of my primary ego-boosts at the moment? 

That could be dangerous.

[Spikegirl]

You DO realize that you are one of my primary ego-boosts at the moment? 

That could be dangerous.

I can be a bad influence, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise!

[Camazotz Automat]

I think that's because so many of us saw it, multiple times, on TV - a BLACK AND WHITE TV. 

Perhaps your generation.

I have never viewed The Wizard of Oz on a black and white television set.  Only in color, as intended when it came out in theatres, when a Coke and popcorn could be had for ten cents and celluloid was KING.

The Emerald City and Yellow Brick road on B&W TV?  A B O M I N A T I O N.

That would be tantamount to listening to Dark Side of the Moon on CD, the nuances of the spiral path negated by the Digital Beast.

~Quick, Watson, the phonograph needle!  I feel a spell coming on.~

CAMAZOTZ  AUTOMAT

[EvB]

First -

B&W or whatever - it was still one of the major holiday treats in our house. Shoot me - I'm old.  I'm also odd.  I was TERRIFIED of movie theaters as a child.  A teenage neighbor took me to see Babes in Toyland when I was 5 or so.  I was dragged shrieking from the theater. I think it had something to do with tin solders. To this day, I feel a little odd when things seem bigger than they ought to.  Get your minds out of the gutter - boys- I mean as in  INHUMANLY HUGE. 

Second - below is not my best work.  But WTF?

[MV/Liberace!]

ev... i have stared at this banner for about 5 minutes now, and i'm at a loss.  what is in the pictures?  i just can't figure it out.  i know i'm going to feel really dumb after you tell me, too.

[EvB]

Milkweed 

And don't feel stupid - the specs we have are small!

[MV/Liberace!]

i NEVER would have guessed that haha... i thought i saw some twigs in there possibly, but still couldn't figure it out.  boy am i a douche.

[EvB]

In all fairness - and full disclosure and all that - it was inspired by a post from MORDRED.

[EvB]

This thread is getting REALLY Looooooooooooooooooooong.  And I imagine, sooner or later - it will need to be archived.  Before that happens - I want to put static version of the banners you've used up in place of the animated ones (just in my posts - you have the anies)  and start using my "bad girl" domain name of this stuff. 

The U just gave me access to a private server -- which, given that they do a lot of AI research - is a BIG FREAKING DEAL. So I gotta be good - Dammit.

[danDNA]

here is my first banner attempt, hope you like

[EvB]

MMMmmwahahahahaaaaaaaaaa! 

Great job!

[MV/Liberace!]

it's great, dan.  one problem...

it's the pictures.  i'm afraid putting actual pictures of the actual people in the banners is going to get me into some image misappropriation problems.

i'm not sure what you could replace the carr/dannheiser/galanti pictures with.  however, for the snoory pic, camazotz automat has been using pictures of people who merely resemble snoors.  for instance, the bigfoot banner features an image of now deceased drug lord Jamiel Chagra.

like i said, i'm not sure what to suggest for the other 3 guys tho since they don't really look like anybody.

i do love the banner tho, i'm just afraid to use it as it is.

addendum:  i must clarify what could be perceived as an inconsistency on my part regarding this policy.  upon review, we have two banners employing actual images of snoor's face... the starving children banner and the horse's ass ghost banner.  the reason i let the starving children banner slide was because he has what appears to be a dead baby obscuring half of his face.  HAHA!!  i let the horse's ass ghost slide because, frankly, the image distortion/position/context etc. causes it not to look 100% like snoors.  i just wanted to be sure you weren't thinking i was operating with complete inconsistency on this.  i wish we didn't have to worry about this legal bilge.

addendum 2:  disregard what i've said here.  after reading evb's post on fair use/parody/criticism, i have re-grown a pair.  from time to time, i start to puss out and i need someone to come along and remind me to "man up."  thx, evb.  we are moving full steam ahead.

dan... could you make a couple small aesthetic changes to the banner for me?  instead of a comma after the first few names, how about if you just extend the names across the banner for each of the respective pictures without commas?  in other words, less sentence-like.  it will flow much better, imo.  otherwise, it's an outside-the-park home run.

[EvB]

Ummmmm . . . Michael?  I just KNOW this is gonna give you a complex but -- that's a DEAD KITTEN!

[EvB]

Here is the re-do of the "blows" banner - the milkweed was being mistaken for any number of things.  I think the dandelions are a bit more obvious.

[EvB]

it's great, dan.  one problem...

addendum:  i must clarify what could be perceived as an inconsistency on my part regarding this policy.  upon review, we have two banners employing actual images of snoor's face... the starving children banner and the horse's ass ghost banner.  the reason i let the starving children banner slide was because he has what appears to be a dead baby obscuring half of his face.  HAHA!!  i let the horse's ass ghost slide because, frankly, the image distortion/position/context etc. causes it not to look 100% like snoors.  i just wanted to be sure you weren't thinking i was operating with complete inconsistency on this.  i wish we didn't have to worry about this legal bilge.

Errrr -- that's Snoorz on the Snooltz banner too.  I've been a Baaaaaad girl.   I'm gonna hafta go lookin' for this drug lord person.

[EvB]

Just as an FYI - and maybe something that will make you feel better about this picture thing - the original I used to do the "Staving Children" thing was - quite obviously GEORGE W. BUSH! And labeled "the meanest person in the world."

This is a parody pic that is all over the web.  Just Google "George Bush Eats Kitten" and you'll find it dozens of places.

[EvB]

Parody as Cultural Critique

Here are some excerpts for on online source for the Fair Use Doctrine.  While fair use is often successfully used in court, it is not a RIGHT - but a LEGALLY DEFENDABLE POSITION (IOW - you are not automatically right or wrong - it depends.)

If I were you - here is how I'd play it (I'M NOT A LAWYER! she said, shrilly)

Use the banners you feel comfortable with HERE - be a bit more picky what you put out as ads on other sites.  IF you get a ration of shit - claim parody, social commentary, entertainment, (as opposed to news) and free speech.  If they still fuss (It's unlikely you'll get automatically get dragged into court - courts don't seem to like that) then decide where you want to cut your losses (and the "loss" at this point, seems to amount to being bitched out by fussy people who want to scare you and maybe having to take down the banner - in some cases - you may get a bruise to your reputation, but damn - in this case that "bruise" can only serve to highlight your purpose - you know?)

George is a PUBLIC FIGURE.  This crap goes with the territory. The louder his people yell - the more attention they draw to people who want to make fun of him.  It seems to me that that puts him at the greater disadvantage.  Why do you think all those features like "When will this downward spiraling diva die?" just go on and on - without contest?

Anyway - here is the short version from people who do know what they are talking about - the URL for the whole ball of wax is at the bottom.

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

It has been a long-standing practice to poke fun at our cultural icons, symbols, public figures and celebrities. A parody exists when one imitates a serious piece of work, such as literature, music or artwork, for a humorous or satirical effect. Parody, as a method of criticism, has been a very popular means for authors, entertainers and advertisers to communicate a particular message or point of view to the public.

A parody, because it is a method of criticism, must inevitably make use of another creative work. This inherently creates a conflict between the creator of the work that is being parodied (as no one likes to be criticized, made fun of or ridiculed) and the creator of the parody. It is also highly unlikely that a copyright owner will grant permission or a license to a parodist to use their copyright protected work in creating a parody.

it may be necessary for the parodist to rely on the fair-use defense to forestall any liability for copyright infringement. However, the fair-use defense if successful will only be successful when the newly created work that purports itself to be parody is a valid parody.

Another line of defense that may be available for parodists are the free speech principles incorporated in the First Amendment. Historically courts have been sensitive to the interaction between parody as a means of entertainment and as a form of social commentary and criticism and First Amendment values.

The courts have continually struggled with parody cases when ascertaining whether a particular parody falls within the parameters of fair use or is instead copyright infringement. The fair use section of the Copyright Act specifically enumerates criticism as one of the purposes for which the fair use defense was contemplated

The United States Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) stated in no uncertain terms that a parody as a form of criticism or comment could be fair use of a copyrighted work. Oh, Pretty Woman is a rock ballad written by Roy Orbison and William Dees. Luther Campbell and his musical rapper group, 2 Live Crew, wrote a rap song entitled Pretty Woman that had substantial similarities to the Orbison/Dees song. 2 Live Crew attempted to obtain permission for their parody from Acuff-Rose, the publisher of Oh, Pretty Woman, but were refused permission. 2 Live Crew then proceeded without permission to release their rap song and accorded Orbison/Dees with authorial credit and listed Acuff-Rose as the publisher. Acuff-Rose then brought a lawsuit, which at the trial court level ruled in favor of 2 Live Crew based upon its fair use parody defense. This decision was reversed on appeal when the Sixth Circuit ruled against the fair use parody defense because of the commercial nature of the 2 Live Crew rendition and the presumption of market harm that the rap rendition might cause for the Orbison/Dees song. The Sixth Circuit's decision was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court accepted 2 Live Crew's song as a parody because the rap song mimicked the original to achieve its message and because it "reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original [Oh, Pretty Woman] or criticizing it, to some degree." The Court then had to decide whether a parody such as Pretty Woman could claim protection from copyright infringement liability under the scope of the fair use doctrine

http://www.publaw.com/parody.html

[MV/Liberace!]

Ummmmm . . . Michael?  I just KNOW this is gonna give you a complex but -- that's a DEAD KITTEN!

christ, am i batting zero or what?  if ONLY people knew of the cluelessness on my part as exhibited in a series of PM's.

[MV/Liberace!]

dan... i have placed a SECOND addendum on my post above.  please take a look.

and evb... the new banner is great.  it's also very pleasing on the eyes, aside from its comedic value.