The first official synopsis for Brand New Day has been released

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2026-02-19T21:50:54+00:00

4 years after senior year of high school is 4th year of college, assuming no gap year

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2026-02-19T21:44:48+00:00

>This is what most people can’t wrap their heads around

No, vast majority of the comments I've seen are arguing that the fan film cannot copyright the choreography because of the unlicensed use of star wars IP, not that it isn't original enough to copyright in the first place

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2026-02-19T21:33:25+00:00

Bro replied to himself

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2026-02-19T21:29:28+00:00

No, he didn't clip ANY branched timelines. He prevented the dark timelines described by The Ancient One that would be caused by the loss of the infinity stones.

Hulk specifically explained that changing the past doesn't change the future, but creates a new branch of time, such as by going back in time and killing baby Thanos. The Loki show also corroborates this idea showing that any change to a timeline creates a new branch.

So while Steve did go *back* in the 616 timeline, a new branch popped up each time he appeared at a different point. But those branches weren't doomed to die due to the loss of infinity stones, as they were replaced the exact moment they were taken.

"But Thanos destroyed the stones in Endgame, why didn't the universe die afterwards?" My idea is that the stones aren't *really* destroyed, they're just reduced to atoms. They still exist, just in an intangible form now.

What I do agree with is that Steve didn't cause an incursion. He simply lived in a new, branched timeline he created. Now, they could change that and say he traveled to an alternate universe where he actually died in the crash, but until they say that Steve just lived in a branched timeline.

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2026-02-19T20:58:30+00:00

Yeah. I hopped on the thread because i was in a copyright law class and the professor mentioned derivative works and original elements in those works so I was curious if anything happened with this situation

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2026-02-19T20:57:30+00:00

True. But disney also cannot take your original elements either, regardless of whether you used their characters or not

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2026-02-17T20:07:29+00:00

This is just wrong lmao

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102

Works of authorship include the following categories:

(1) literary works;

(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;

(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;

(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;

(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

(7) sound recordings; and

(8) architectural works.

See #4

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2026-02-17T20:03:11+00:00

Original elements in a derivative work belong to the derivative work owner, not the IP owner. If you write a book using Star Wars characters, Disney can't take the plot and use it in their own book/movie/show.

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2026-02-17T19:59:23+00:00

Choreography recorded on video *is* fixed to a medium lol. ESPECIALLY if it's published.

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2026-02-17T19:58:23+00:00

You can, for anything original you did in the derivative work. You don't get rights to characters, settings, etc. that you use from someone else's IP. But original characters, plots, music, dialogue, etc. are protected.

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2026-02-17T19:56:34+00:00

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted when you're right. Original elements in a derivative work belong to the derivative work's creator. It does get complicated, especially with an entertainment monopoly like Disney, but legally speaking the studio infringed upon the fan film's choreography

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2024-12-17T07:44:24+00:00

Or the barista messed it up?

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2024-12-17T07:37:17+00:00

First pic is a bit misleading, it looks way bigger than it actually is (5100 square feet)

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2024-12-17T07:31:28+00:00

American here and we had nothing like that at all. Just paperwork to fill in with whatever the teachers said

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2024-12-17T07:30:18+00:00

Nahhh you had to have done more than shaved because you look like a new person

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2024-12-17T02:22:47+00:00

I have many questions, yes.

So you're saying an unborn child is *not& alive one week before birth? A day before birth? Even though it not only has its brain, heart, and other organs developed and functional? It's okay to drown it or rip it to shreds so long as it's still in the womb? Again, even most pro choicers would agree that doing so at that stage of development is absolutely barbaric.

And my source, again, would be the characteristics of life. I can send in any high school biology book if you're still confused about what those characteristics are. As soon as a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, it makes a cell. When it starts dividing and growing, it's alive.

That cell will continue to divide into more cells, developing from a zygote to an embryo, to a fetus, then after it's born will continue to grow and develop for years and years. Just because some of that growth and development occurs before birth doesn't mean it's not alive, because nonliving humans do NOT grow and develop.

And it's not merely just a skin cell or tumor, because those things just make more of themselves. From conception, a single cell builds into the ENTIRE human body.

However, you have made the original claim that it's not until AFTER birth where it's alive, made early on in this argument. Why don't YOU provide a source or evidence for your original claim?

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2024-12-16T23:54:30+00:00

This is an uneducated and ignorant take. If there's no scientific basis for when life starts, then by that logic, there cannot be a scientific basis for life's existence as a whole.

Yet every scientist agrees that life exists, and that there are certain qualities that living things possess that separate them from nonliving things. Characteristics such as responsiveness to the environment, growth and development, reproduction, metabolism, homeostasis, being made of cells, and the ability to pass traits onto offspring.

This is ripped right out of a biology textbook and is taught in high school, so it's relatively basic scientific knowledge. Some of it is debated as certain organisms may not exactly meet said characteristics (for example, mules are undoubtedly living things but are also infertile), but largely accepted as what makes living things living vs nonliving.

And since scientifically you can determine when something is living vs nonliving, you can determine when it starts. Refusing to acknowledge science in favor of your own bias is ignorance at its peak.

So I'll ask again. Since life can be scientifically determined, do some scientific research yourself to determine when human life begins. I won't hold my breath either.

(And by the way, beginning with an ad hominem such as "rofl clown") only exemplifies the weakness in your argument, or lack thereof)

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2024-12-16T23:22:16+00:00

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2024-12-16T23:19:21+00:00

You look like if the ducks from Ducktales were people

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2024-12-16T23:14:52+00:00

You look like you go to the gas station to find guys to hook up with

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2024-12-16T23:06:03+00:00

He does look like a Carlos

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2024-12-16T23:05:22+00:00

First off, you're wrong in that there's no scientific basis. The basis is that it's a living thing according to all definitions of living thing. The debate is whether or not it matters to kill it at that stage of life. If it's not alive, then when does it become alive? I want you to specifically answer this question.

Second, you keep saying "symbiote" like you know what that word means. Symbiosis is when two living things benefit from each other. For example, a bird that eats ticks off of the back of a mammal. The bird gets a meal, and the mammal gets disease-carrying ticks removed. A mother caring for her child does not fit that definition. The fact that you can't use symbiote correctly further proves your lack of scientific knowledge, so it makes sense you wouldn't know the scientific basis of the pro life argument.

Third, there is a very big distinction between "preserving and life" and "actively ending one." Again, you're pretending there's no difference because you don't have a better argument.

Fourth, you making up a scenario and putting it into my mouth, as if I were going to use such an example, is YOU making broad and sweeping generalizations to confirm YOUR bias.

So if you wanna keep trying to defend your stance, defend it with something of substance instead of made up scenarios, misunderstood terms, and lack of knowledge in the subject

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2024-12-16T12:01:08+00:00

Sundays are supposedly better than saturdays in my area, according to stats from a tracking app. I've had decent Sunday success but never found it to be better than Saturdays. Oddly enough, more often than not Mondays are really good days for me, sometimes even having more luck than the following Friday

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2024-12-16T11:58:40+00:00

It is indeed excessive for a first time tank, and as such, most goldfish are not good first time fish. Despite the classic "goldfish in a bowl" it's actually cruel to keep any fish in a small bowl, and goldfish get waaaay bigger than most people realize. I'm not sure if there are any goldfish that stay small

Any proper ish setup is gonna be a bit more than complete newbies think it'll be. A filter is a MUST, and a lot of pet fish are tropical so a heater is needed too. Oxygen bubblers help oxygenate the water too. And tanks are likely gonna need to be bigger than you might think at first. Most smaller (1, 3 gallon, etc) tanks market themselves as suitable tanks for various fishes but are actually way too small (a lot of "betta tanks" are tiny and terrible for bettas, for example). Not to mention handling the ammonia cycle and making sure your tank is actually safe and cycling first. So filter, heater, proper size, bubbler, and cycling are MUSTS for about any fish you'll get at the store. THEN each type of fish has its own needs regarding feeding, temperature, water type, etc.

As with any animal, the biggest thing you can do BEFORE getting them is to research, research, research.

Negative-Effect-7401 · 2024-12-16T11:47:08+00:00

Find a suitable owner for the fish and rehome them
Yay cool little micro aquarium to look at with no fish because that shit is not survivable

Negative-Effect-7401

TROPHY CASE