Atomike

Yes - MAD is taking a satirical stab with their parody. This is my point exactly. I'll be convinced the Star Trek video is parody when I hear what exactly about Star Trek he's mocking. In the trailer, I didn't see anything other than some changed names. What position does it take? What's it's "stand"? Answer that, and we'll agree. I think the problem is that you're using common sense. Lawyers lack this entirely.

I guess I don't see changing the first letter of someone's name as an automatic parody. If Fox broadcast a show called Dfriends with actors that look just like the "Friends" actors, do you think they wouldn't be sued? People are sued all the time for "borrowing" similar ideas - not exactly copying somone else's work. Lots of major motion pictures are sued for stealing ideas from someone else's screenplays.

I've been thinking more about this. At first I thought, "well, Saturday Night Live makes money by creating parodies". However I did some more research this morning, and now stand behind my original post. For one big reason - I don't think a safety film, while using clear Star Trek references, actually parodies Star Trek. It's simply using ideas. From PubLaw.Com, "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." So, I guess the real question is this: does your video criticize or comment on Star Trek in some way? You could perhaps make the argument that you are commenting on the acting, cheeziness, the state of modern television, etc., but I think it would be a hard sell. As for your bosses encouraging your work - bosses, I've found, are like most everyone else in the world. They think any material can be used in any way any time by anyone. Copyright law is a beast that most people rightly don't care about.

I would personally have avoided this job like the plague - it sounds like you're using copyrighted stuff for a company - which would not fall under educational "fair use" laws. Granted you're not likely to be sued, but it is possible. You'd very literally lose everything you own if that happend. Law allows for "parody" - however "Parody" for a business' safety video sounds like an very obvious violation of copyright law to me. I'm sorry - I know that's not what you want to hear, but it's the truth, unless you live in lawless Asia.

The Episcopal Church was started during the Revolutionary War, since anyone tied to an English Church (the king of England being the leader) would be seen as as traitor-ish. So, by changing the name, all was well. That's what I've heard. I'm a proud Catholic, not Episcopal, but I think that's how it happened.

Daniel - did you ever find that reflective material? I'd sure like to take a look under the hood of that baby. And your lighting rig too. And see what makes 'em tick...

Two points for Fishman. I went back, and looked at my script, and sure enough - fission. So the script (and kids' education) are safe, but I'm a doofus - or at least have a poor memory.

Thank you for the comments, Fishman! I considered hands and feet earlier, but moved away from that for speed of animation purposes. No, it's fusion, not fission. Nuclear plants create power when a neutron is "fused" to a uranium atom which causes it to split and make heat. Hopefully my dude will make it all pretty clear to the students and kids watching. The purpse of the video is to allow a virtual tour of the plant so people can see stuff they can't see in real-life since 9-11.

No criticisms? Isn't anyone going to tell me I'm no good? You could at least make fun of my voice work or something. There has to be something I could do better here...

Exactly right! He's a uranium pellet used in nuclear fusion. He'll be explaining how a nuclear plant works.

Here's a few seconds of my first character and first attempt at lipsync. The mouth is 4 pose-sliders adjusted manually. The voice track is me. Divx Clip

I love it. Very cute. The only thing I would change is inside the mouth. When he opens his beak, you can see hair inside. I can't wait until I can do things like this.

I always thought this forum does exactly what this apprentice thing is supposed to. Am I wrong? I guess I don't think many new users bought AM to work on someone else's project.

I love your expressions!!! I've always had trouble getting my mouths to look right - the 5 point patches and such around mouths always end up looking bumpy and deformed. But the mouth on "greenie" there looks great - very smooth. Good stuff.

The eyes seem a little odd - I wonder if this guy would benefit from more cartoony eyes - i.e. a simple black pupil....

Thank you so much, John! Very, very good stuff.

There's been much discussion about the eyes, but I've been trying to do a mouth with the flexibility your pills exhibit. I don't suppose you could capture a close-up of your mouth CPs sometime? I'd like to see how you avoid the awkward patches I've been forced to use. Thanks

I live in central Nebraska - quite a drive from Denver - but it's probably the closest site for a user-group for me. I doubt many AM folks live in Omaha or Lincoln.

As I understand it, you can pretty much use the characters on the CD however you like (with the likely exceptions of KeeCat and Homer Simpson). People use Shaggy and Thom all the time for their projects. So, I believe lifting Jane's hair is entirely legal.