False.
First clause: true, and directly contradicting your previous assertion. Second clause: personal opinion stated as if it were fact or patently obvious common sense, but it is neither.
Very true! You don’t have a clue what copyright violation is.
Again, this your opinion presented as fact. It is also irrelevant: subjective value of a work is not a determining factor in the determination of whether a work meets the conditions of fair use doctrine.
False twice!
That’s nice. It’s not the law, though, so that doesn’t matter.
Demonstrably untrue and a very sad straw man. The work under discussion is not Ctrl-C, Cntrl-V. New drawings, new words, new work.
The imaginary version of copyright law that you advocate would stifle creativity and prevent any dynamic and impactful work that uses prior work as inspiration to create something new and amazing. Ovid stole a Babylonian origin myth to write “Pyramus and Thisbe”. Boccaccio stole from Ovid for the Decameron. Masuccio Salernitano stole from Boccaccio to write the short story “Mariotto and Ganozza”. Luigi da Porto stole from Salernitano to write the novella “Historia novellamente ritrovata di due nobili amanti”. Shakespeare stole from da Porto to write “Romeo and Juliet”. Your imaginary version of copyright law would mean not only that Shakespeare wouldn’t have been allowed to produce “Romeo and Juliet”, but also that we would never have had “West Side Story”. And – even if this were the point, but it’s not – “West Side Story” never impacted the financial success of William Shakespeare, because, spoilers, he’s dead, as are, spoilers, both Roddenberry and Geisel.
Your imaginary version of copyright law sucks, so it’s a good thing it’s not real.
