Comments on: Matrimonyugh

Question: Matrimonyugh

arcticwoman — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:04:47 -0800

I have a fun idea for a snarky blog, but I have one legality question and one name question.

I was looking through a bridal magazine yesterday with my partner and our combined commentary on the stupid rings, ridiculous dresses, strange poses, and so on, had me laughing so hard I was crying. I would like to make a blog - sort of like Go Fug Yourself - but instead of trashing celebrities we will make fun of stuff we find in wedding magazines.

Obviously, this would require scanning photos from said magazines and commenting on them... is this legal? I am in Canada, and I have some inkling that it would fall under "fair use" laws, but I want to be sure.

If it is legal, what are some witty or punny name suggestions?

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:07:50 -0800

I hope this is legal, because it sounds HYSTERICAL- make sure to post this on Projects if you do it, PLEASE.

By: lisaj32

lisaj32 — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:09:24 -0800

Name: Unbridaled?

By: lisaj32

lisaj32 — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:10:30 -0800

Writing it out as UnBridaled would make the pun more obvious.

By: unixrat

unixrat — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:12:04 -0800

Shotgun
NoOneDeservesWhite
Unhitched
IDosAndDonts (doesn't work well as a domain...)

By: occhiblu

occhiblu — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:12:48 -0800

By: Rumple

Rumple — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:13:34 -0800

veiled insults
weedings
aisle cleanups
bad grooming
vile veils
the vow cow
Dangerfield 3:16

By: arcticwoman

arcticwoman — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:29:55 -0800

I know that the Go Fug Yourself women (who are in the US) had some legal issues with using photos, and I think ended up having to get a license from one photo provider. It may be worth emailing them and asking. (Note: I don't know them, I just read their blogs.)

Check. Just emailed them and I'll you all know if I get a reply.

As for the name suggestions: fantastic! Keep 'em coming.

By: nomad

nomad — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:31:42 -0800

Horse and Carriage: So good you'll wed yourself.

By: nomad

nomad — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:39:17 -0800

Left at the altar

By: willmize

willmize — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:49:29 -0800

As an aside, I think that if you offer to post a link to your source for photos in your entry, you'll have much smoother sailing.
I would also recommend surfing around some of the main bridal websites and looking for alternatives to scanning.

Don't limit your inspiration to snark!

By: travosaurus

travosaurus — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:08:28 -0800

thinlyveiled

By: inging

inging — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:20:06 -0800

Altarcations

By: the shitty Baldwin

the shitty Baldwin — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:24:15 -0800

Slithy Wed

By: Clay201

Clay201 — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:26:28 -0800

Unholy Matrimony?

By: Clay201

Clay201 — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:28:57 -0800

Or maybe... Wedded Diss?

By: nomad

nomad — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:30:33 -0800

Working off the title: Matrimonium

By: mendel

mendel — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:31:00 -0800

"Thinlyveiled" is excellent. Stay away from the "bridezilla" references, and keep in mind that any puns that change a letter or two in a word will end up with your readers going to the wrong domain occasionally.

Keep in mind in your discussions with the Fug people that American fair use and Canadian fair dealing only vaguely resemble each other; while fair use protects use of excerpts for parody or criticism, fair dealing protects the rights to private copying, and fair-dealing defences to publication get mixed results. (See this recent post by Michael Geist for a recent example regarding fair dealing and Conservative party attack ads.)

There's a simpler question you need to think about, though: Regardless of your legal rights, do you have the resources to protect those rights against a publishing company?

(IANAL, TINLA.)

By: WestCoaster

WestCoaster — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:36:38 -0800

Part of the answer may well depend on the quality of the scan and the markings on it. If what you post is full-size, unmarked, then I think you're open to a (successful) lawsuit. On the other hand, if it's quarter-size, or much poorer resolution, or heavily marked up, or you zoom in on only portions of the pictures, then you're a lot closer to "fair use" territory.

I'm not sure if it's directly on point, but this the issue of "fair use" always arises with works that are intended to be (or are argued to be intended to be) parodies.

By: squeak

squeak — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:44:51 -0800

What your looking for is fair dealing, its allows for criticism, research, private study, reviews and news reporting. You don't have to ask for permission to use a work but you do have to provide credit (link tells you what is required by law). Far as I know the bulk of what you write will have to be criticism in order for it to pass muster.

on preview: parody isn't considered a form of criticism in Canada like it is in the USA and fair dealing is faaaar more restrictive than the broader American fair use doctrine.

By: furiousthought

furiousthought — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:46:48 -0800

There's a blog called "Veiled Conceit" that's devoted to making fun of the New York Times wedding announcements. So a) there's a name that's taken, and b) there's someone else you can contact about the ins and outs of using photos and stuff.

By: designbot

designbot — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:48:09 -0800

It's probably not entirely legal, but tons of major blogs (Gawker, Gizmodo, etc.) repurpose images from all over the place without attribution.

By: spilon

spilon — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:37:16 -0800

Satire is fair use, and it sounds like that's what you'd be doing. And hey, if you get sued, it'll be great publicity and you'll probably get a book deal or something out of it. Go forth and snark, my friend....

By: rob511

rob511 — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:25:03 -0800

AisleAlwaysLoveYou
EyeDoo
ForeverHoldYourPeas
RenoNorth
Shotgun
Elaine!

By: vanoakenfold

vanoakenfold — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:58:55 -0800

Hitching Posts
Rolling In The Aisle
Stitches On Hitches
Hookup Put Downs
Til Dumb Do We Part
Awfully Wedded
Tied The.. NOT
Not Just Hurling Bouquets
R(eject).S.V.P
I Now Renounce You
Cut the Cheesecake
Sin-terpieces
Oppose A Toast
In Sipid and In Dearth
Flatular Party

By: squeak

squeak — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 13:04:13 -0800

Found this link in my bookmarks that talks specifically about blogs, Canadian copyright and what you can and can't do in a nice readable format.

Satire is fair use

Not always. A recent example of this is when Royal Canadian Air Farce wanted to use clips from the federal debates but were unable to do so because of restrictions when the networks got the rights to record and broadcast the debates. The contract covered news reporting (under the fair dealing provision of the copyright act) but not criticism (parody/satire). As a consequence The Rick Mercer Report, This Hour Has 22 Minutes and Royal Canadian Air Farce couldn't use the debate footage for satire/parody.

By: magwich

magwich — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:23:36 -0800

Where you host the blog also makes a difference - if you host your blog on a service like blogger, the fact that you are Canadian is not going to have any impact on a DMCA takedown notice.

By: disillusioned

disillusioned — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:42:38 -0800

It's probably not entirely legal, but tons of major blogs (Gawker, Gizmodo, etc.) repurpose images from all over the place without attribution.

When I was writing for Gizmodo, we'd frequently use the image hosted on whatever site we were linking to. They were happy enough to get the traffic.

And there were more than a fair share of graphics I whipped up that quickly made their way around the blogosphere.

Most of these pictures weren't explicitly copyrighted in the same manner that something in a magazine might be, however.

By: i love cheese

i love cheese — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:54:36 -0800

If you decide to do this, here are some similar sites for inspiration:
uglydress.com
The Cavalcade of Bridal Fashion
and this previous metafilter thread.

By: planetthoughtful

planetthoughtful — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:07:03 -0800

Register somethingtasteless.com (it's available) and then either call the blog:

"Something Borrowed, Something Tasteless" or

"Something Tasteless This Way Comes"

By: planetthoughtful

planetthoughtful — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:15:12 -0800

Or even, thinking about it, simply "Something Tasteless".

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:48:42 -0800

"Altared States"

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:54:59 -0800

"Aisle of the Damned"

By: nomad

nomad — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:52:19 -0800

Here comes Mr. Hyde

By: nomad

nomad — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:53:51 -0800

I wouldn't be caught WED in that.

Ok I have to stop.

By: Frank Grimes

Frank Grimes — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:11:57 -0800

Veiled Conceit makes fun on New York Times wedding announcements. Not exactly the same, but worth a look.

By: rob511

rob511 — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:17:10 -0800

Aisle Love (Loosely)

By: anildash

anildash — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 02:47:04 -0800

Arctic, if you're still curious, you can feel free to get in touch (anil at dashes dot com) -- I work for the company that hosts Go Fug Yourself and a bunch of other similar, popular blogs, and I can talk a bit about the experiences we've had with people requesting that content be taken down, etc.

By: arcticwoman

arcticwoman — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 13:23:31 -0800

I got an email back from the people who run Go Fug Yourself and they told me about some of the legal problems that they have had. They DO have to pay for every photo they use. Anil, thanks for the offer, but I think my interest in this was much more casual than this project looks like it would be. If anyone wants to use this idea - and has the time and determination to do so - go right ahead. Make sure you post it to Mefi projects.