Some significant groups of plants evolved during the Permian in the climatic conditions which became progressively drier; these being the Bennettites, Cycads, Ginkgos and Glossopterids.

Paleozoic vascular flora, which appeared in the Middle Ordovician epoch, died out quite a few millions of years before the end of the Paleozoic, in the Kungurian or earlier. In the Guadalupian, the gymnosperm-dominated Mesophytic flora emerges (although Mesophytic type plants go back to the Carboniferous, just as some Paleophytic plants survive even to this day), and this flourishes right up until the middle and later Cretaceous.

While animals were undergoing a change so were plants, with xerophyletic (dry-adapted) species of ferns, seed-ferns, conifers and ginkgos coming into prominence. The Glossopteris flora dominates in Gondwanaland. These new plants mark the transition between the Paleophytic (the old spore-bearing moisture loving coal swamp plants) and the Mesophytic (gymnospermous) era of plant evolution. Significantly, whereas animal life has its big transition at the very end of the Permian, plant life switches over to a more modern flora some ten to twenty million years previous. The same pattern is seen in in the late Mesozoic era, where modern flowering plants appear long before the extinction of the dinosaurs and their contemporaries.

 

"Life on much of the supercontinent Pangea resembled central Asia today: Large inland areas, far from moderating oceans, suffered baking summers and bitter winters. At tropical and subtropical latitudes, summer monsoon rains bathed the continent's east coast. Those conjectures come from a computer model that uses coastlines and topography-plus a few laws of physics, like the equations for air movements and heat transport-to predict the climate 250 million years ago. The idealized, squared-off coastline of this map simplified the calculations done in 1993 by Chicago's Alfred Ziegler and John Kutzbach of the University of Wisconsin-Madison (illustration by Allen Carroll). Rainfall and temperature data determine the biome regions where evolution unfolded, from tundra to tropics. Wind patterns can predict ocean currents like the upwellings that fostered plankton, a clue to today's oil deposits. And comparisons to the actual climate and biome, deduced from fossil and geologic evidence, improve the computer model-refining predictions of future climate change, like global warming."

At the beginning of the Permian Period, ferns and seed-ferns were the dominant plant life. As the climate grew drier, these simpler plants were replaced by more complex plants, such as conifers and ginkgoes.

connections to climate and geography

Test "Title" <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

The flora the researchers discovered mainly consisted of leaf debris and petrified tree stumps belonging to the Dadoxylon genus. For Bourquin, “these conifer-like plants point to well-drained environments in Luang Prabang in the Permian.”

 

For instance, in what climate–doubtless hot and humid–and in which environments did the local flora and fauna live in the Upper Permian? What connections were there between the Indochina and Eurasian plates? Do the Luang Prabang fauna and flora show any resemblance to those discovered in other Permian sites in France, Niger, Morocco, and other countries?

discusses how although there was a faunal "dead zone" at the permo-triassic boundary, pollen and spore samples show life.

 

has graph used in other presentation

mid permian (270ma) maps

world through time: able to stop at each period

The part of this piece that is important is the exploration of “substantiality”, what exactly it means and how it is used in the courts in regards to copyright infringement.  The author explains that there are multiple connotations that “substantiality” takes on in court.  The first connotation of substantiality as a “criterion of infringement involves the ‘ordinary observer’ test.”  Under this test it must “spontaneously and immediately” appear to the average person that the newly created work used or was based on the original.  This test is rough for obvious reasons.  Also, it would be almost impossible to ask the “average person” to tell right away the difference between material that is appropriated and that which is simply similar to the original.  The second connotation involves economics and has no relation to my thesis. The third connotation is almost the opposite of the first and is based on “literary analysis or classification,” or in other words an ‘expert opinion.’  This connotation is helpful in making ‘substantiality’ qualitative rather than quantitative, but not so helpful in that it often leads the court into “abstract literary speculations unrelated to the ends of the copyright law.”  The final connotation is that of ‘substantiality’ as a quantitative test, though this connotation is rejected.  The paper then goes on to show how these connotations of substantiality relate directly to parodies through examples.

My paper/project will be based on a play I wrote called Hotel Bermuda. This short play is based quite heavily on the song "Hotel California" by the Eagles, so heavily that it is probably a copyright issue. It is likely a parody of the song (this is something I will be further researching and attempting to prove). It also quotes it quite often. Earlier I sent this play into a few amateur playwriting companies for publication but none would publish it. Some said their reasoning was that it was a copyright issue. One said it may be a copyright issue, but they didn't seem to be sure. I would like to research and explore the various roles of publishers in dealing with copyright issues, assessing copyright issues and possibly acting as gatekeepers. I will search for any past court case that dealt with parodies and copyright and then use the relevant ones to help form the basis of my research. Furthermore, I would like to possibly explore the idea of tolerated use and how The Eagles could possibly tolerate my use of Hotel California. [NOTE: A few of the tags in this project had explanations that did not fit in the box for one tag, so they are tagged twice with the second paragraph in the second tag.]

[Note: This is the second part to the first tag of this article. This is the part that didn't fit in the original box.]

 

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

The main use of this article for my thesis is the exploration of tolerated use as it would apply to The Eagles and potential play publishers. The article highlights various reasons the copyright owner (The Eagles in this case) may practice tolerated use in respect to the possible infringer (me, in this case).  It seems that my play is a small and insignificant one that even if published by one of the amateur playwright companies, would be read by few and most likely never bring in any form of revenue.  In this sense it offers no harm towards The Eagles or their song Hotel California.  In fact, if my play were published and acted out, those producing the play would need to purchase a copy of Hotel California, which in theory would increase sales for The Eagles.  This is a clear example of what is explained in the article and would be a reason why The Eagles might potentially tolerate my use of their song and its lyrics.  This article is also helpful in understanding why the publishers act as they do in their roles as gatekeepers in regards to the fuzzy line between tolerated use and fair use. 

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

This paper defines tolerated use and discusses the reasons it exists.  Tolerated use is defined as “infringing usage of a copyrighted work of which the copyright owner

may be aware, yet does nothing about.”  There are many different reasons, why this may be.  Some examples include “simple laziness or enforcement costs, a desire to create goodwill, or a calculation that the infringement creates an economic complement the copyrighted work -- it actually benefits the owner.”  Tolerated use is compared to implicitly licensed use as well as fair use.  It explains how the difference between tolerated use and implicitly licensed use is legal, whereas the difference between tolerated use and fair use is fuzzy.  This is because of a lack of fair use trials against casual mass infringements that leaves fair use not completely “mapped out.” 

[Note: this is the second part to the first tag of this article that didn't fit in the original box]

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> The substantiality argument is relevant to my thesis because the question of substantiality is one of the least clear points in determining whether or not my play is fair use.  I can explore the different connotations of substantiality explained in this paper in relation to my play, particularly the first and third connotations.  Initially it seems that the first connotation would reject fair use and the third would accept it in this case, but further exploration is necessary to determine for sure. 

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

While much of this document is useful for my thesis in a peripheral sense, the section of most interest discusses parody.  It defines parody as something that is not just humorous, but critical.  It goes on to explain that “specifically, it is parody's criticism of the expression of the original that makes parody eligible for protection as fair use.”  Important to note is that satire and parody are not interchangeable, and the document offers the court case of Rogers v. Koons as an example of a time when the court failed to make this distinction and it changed the outcome of the case. This example shows how important it is to make such a distinction.

 

This document will be helpful for my thesis in defining my play as a parody.  First of all it explains how important it is to formulate a clear definition.  Furthermore it provides the tools necessary to make that distinction.  It clearly defines exactly what a parody is, and goes on to make the specific distinction between parody and satire, something I can model my argument off of.  The document also offers an example of defining a parody based on the four points of the fair use test which can also be helpful in defining my play as a parody that is protected by fair use.

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

This document includes Clause 8 as it exists in the U.S. Constitution along with a discussion.  It states that “Congress shall have power to promote the progress of sciences and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”  The document goes on to discuss the scope of Congress’ power as well as the power held in the courts, between which an interesting balance is formed. 

 

This Clause and document are clearly connected to the thesis as they form and discuss the entire basis of copyright law and who has the power to enforce it. It is important to remember and realize that much power does lie in the hands of the government as opposed to the view that the power rests in the gatekeepers, copyright owners and infringers.  In a sense, this document complicates my thesis in that much of my thesis is focused on the idea that most copyright law is handled below the government.

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

In this article, Weird Al offers some advice for successful parodying.  He speaks of 1) good writing that can sustain a gag, 2) humor that endures, even to those who don’t know the original work, and 3) video details that mimic the original well.

 

Although he focuses on songs and videos, the tips can easily be extrapolated to forming a parody in the form of a play.  I attempted to use these tips while creating my parody of Hotel California, though since I am an amateur I was clearly nowhere near as successful as he.  I feel that tips from Weird Al can be important as he is mostly a successful parody creator in that he evades copyright issues on a large scale (though not all the time, of course).  In other words, these are skills that can be used to create a good parody that is most likely not a copyright infringement.

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

This document, the Fair Use Act, outlines the ways to defend the use of a piece of copyrighted material in a new piece.  It lists some examples that pass as fair use, such as “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching…scholarship, or research.”  It goes on to list and briefly explain the four points to test a possible fair use case with.  They are the purpose and character of the use, nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect of the use on the potential market for the original work. 

 

This document is useful to my project in determining whether or not my project is a case of fair use or not.  Important to note is that this act does not necessarily make it legal for me to use the copyrighted work, but rather to defend myself in court.  I can use the four points to test each aspect of my play. Although more detailed research would be needed to completely defend my work, a brief possible overview of the points would be as follows: 1) to parody the song Hotel California in an interesting way through a play, 2) a creative, fictional work [though it has been shown in previous court cases that this point is not important when considering parodies], 3) a good amount is used, but it is arguable whether or not it is an amount necessary to “conjure up” the original work, 4) there is little to no effect on the original work’s market as plays and songs are generally considered separate markets.

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

This document lists some frequently asked questions concerning copyright law and provides the answers. The following is a summary of the provided information relevant to my thesis.  In order to use someone’s copyrighted work you must ask permission. If you do not know who owns the work you can either look it up in the U.S. Copyright Office records or pay $150 per hour to have someone look it up for you if it’s part of the pre-1978 records.  If it is post-1978 the records are available online.  Permission must then be obtained from the copyright owner.  It is also “permissible to use limited portions of a work” under the fair use doctrine without obtaining permission from the copyright owner.  The “Copyright Office recommends that permission be obtained” when in doubt, as one can be brought to court to defend fair use which can sometimes be even more costly than buying the rights.  Sometimes a business may refuse to copy something or partake in possible copyright infringements because it views it as a risk. The policy “established by a shop is a business decision and risk assessment that the business is entitled to make, because the business may face liability if they reproduce a work even if they did not know the work was copyrighted.”

 

This document has a quite clear and important connection to my thesis and project.  Using this document I’ve learned exactly how to avoid paying large amounts of money in order to produce or defend my project.  Since I am not willing to pay anything for this play I would take its advice and check to see if my play falls under the fair use doctrine.  This document is also contributory to my thesis in helping to explain the reaction I received from the publishing companies.  It explains that they are allowed to reject a work on the basis that it “may be a copyright infringement” and why they would.

This is another court case focusing on parodies as they fit under fair use.  Air Pirates was sued by Walt Disney Productions for creating "a rather bawdy depiction of the Disney characters as active members of a free thinking, promiscuous, drug ingesting counterculture."  Walt Disney Productions won.  One of the points that added heavily to the decision was that “the defendants here could have expressed their theme without copying Disney's protected expression.”  The importance of this point is further discussed in the following paragraph.

 

The aspect of this case that is most important to focus on is the actual subject of the parody.  In other words, this case highlighted the importance of clarifying whether or not the newly created work actually parodied the original, or used the original to parody something else.  This could be used to argue that my work is a parody that fits under fair use definition.  Since the lyrics to Hotel California are used in my play Hotel Bermuda to create a parody of the song Hotel California rather than just to use the song as a medium for creating something funny parodying something else, it would be considered a ‘fair use’ parody. 

 

The section of this paper that relates to my thesis explains how copyright law has virtually relied on the gatekeeper system until recent years when the internet began to break it down.  It explains that gatekeepers “prevent evasion of the law by blocking the opportunity to buy an infringing product in the first place.”  Since it is almost impossible to enforce copyright law on every individual infringement, especially the small scale ones, gatekeepers become the necessary tool.  Publishers are one example of such gatekeepers. 

 

This relates strongly to my thesis by helping to explain the importance of gatekeepers. My thesis explores the role of publishers (publishers of plays, specifically) as gatekeepers.  This exploration would not be warranted without first explaining the importance, which is as an additional line of copyright enforcement.

 

In Fisher v. Dees, Rick Dees is sued for using portions of Marvin Fisher and Jack Segal’s song “When Sunny Gets Blue” in his song “When Sonny Sniffs Glue.” It is upheld that Dees’ version is a parody which is defendable under Fair Use.  In arguing this case it was noted that the labeling of a work as a ‘parody’ does not single-handedly defend it and that it “must be considered individually, in light of the statutory factors, reason, experience, and, of course, the general principles developed in past cases.”  The main arguments against Dees in this case included the subject of the parody, the propriety of Dees’ conduct, the purpose and character of the use, the economic effect of the use and the amount and substantiality of the taking.  All of the previous arguments were rejected with sufficient reasoning and the court decided Dees’ song “is a parody deserving of fair-use protection as a matter of law.”

 

This is relevant to my thesis in determining whether or not my work is a parody that falls under Fair Use.  The arguments used in Fisher v. Dees can be applied to my work to help in the decision.  Fisher v. Dees is most often cited as an example of a case where the economic issue was important, specifically in respect to whether or not the newly created work “fulfills the demand for the original.”  It presents this as one of the more important factors involved with regards to parodies.  Using this argument would support a claim that my work is a parody that is protected by fair use as my work (a play) does not “fulfill the demand for the original (a song).”