Why the LA Times stopped carrying Dixon Diaz

[Hawkmoon]

http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-la-times-stopped-carrying.html

Some humorous (if they weren't so true) cartoons in this. For example:








Not so sure about the source, however ... Some of the other "articles" are more than a bit strange.

[Angel Eyes]

Since the artwork is an obvious ripoff of The Boondocks, did Diaz get into some legal trouble?  Or is he protected by labeling it "parody"?

[Regolith]

Or is he protected by labeling it "parody"?

Probably not. Generally, the parody must be at least partially lampooning or critiquing the original work. You can't just go and rip off someone's artwork for your own, unrelated purposes and just label it parody, like this seems to.

[makattak]

Probably not. Generally, the parody must be at least partially lampooning or critiquing the original work. You can't just go and rip off someone's artwork for your own, unrelated purposes and just label it parody, like this seems to.

My guess is it survives the same way "Truesbury" does, as a parody that literally takes the same frames but shows the opposite side of the political spectrum.

[Pb]

He should draw his own art.

[Balog]

I can't find any evidence Dixon Diaz was ever carried by the LA Times. Anyone have a credible source for that?

[Jocassee]

Pretty sure this is a fake article.