They're bouncy pouncey trouncey bouncy fun fun fun fun fun fun!

my bad I will fix it

Yeah. ~~35~~ ~~70~~ 70+?! years after the creator’s death. That extension brought to you by the Disney company.

Sure parody is a defence to copyright infringement. At the end of the day, it's not my job to say it's protected by parody. That's your job as the Defendant. I only have to prove that you infringed onto my copyrights.

Even if it is clear parody, I can quietly withdraw or settle my claim against you to prevent others from even thinking about it. It's why SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) legislation has to exist.

Copyright violations are not dependent on profit. Profit just makes it easier to calculate damages.

Ehhh....sort of.

You're right to the extent that it's not a straight "copyright infringement requires that the infringer profit", but in US copyright law:

First, the copyright holder can take profits that are made by the infringer:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504

(b) Actual Damages and Profits.—

The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer’s profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer’s gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.

Second, some forms of fair use -- which permit use of copyrighted material -- do take into account whether someone was aiming to make money from it (though it's not a "all noncommercial use is fair game" sort of thing):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

I've got bad news for you about much of the history of human creative work.

You know that most of Disney's stuff that they profit from is characters created by other people, right?

Why not?

No reason to fight this. Everything is a remix of something else. That's just how creativity works.

Looking at the Venus de Milo

“I mean, it’s great and all, but it’s so derivative.”

But you are using characters you didn't invent to communicate this, without paying someone. Invent your own alphabet!

Dude just binned The Bible.

These down votes are lame. I disagree with you completely, but your opinion is still valid. I think after the original author is long dead, I'd like to see new perspectives breathing new life into old fictional characters. Otherwise, are you saying we can't make new stories about Hercules, Odysseus, Jesus, etc?

The original work becoming public domain, sure, but write your own characters.

I don't understand what you're suggesting here. How would you reconcile the original work being public domain with still wanting to restrict the use of its characters?

Although I don't share your point of view, I respect and would like to know more, would you care to elaborate on the reasons that led to or justify your opinion ?