‘The People’s Joker’ and the Perils of Playing With a Studio’s Copyright; The New York Times, April 1, 2024

 Eric Grode, The New York Times; ‘The People’s Joker’ and the Perils of Playing With a Studio’s Copyright

"The Joker may be the purview of DC Comics, not Marvel, but the fear of running afoul of copyright laws was no less of a concern.

“I kept myself very informed legally in terms of what qualifies as a parody and what fair use really is,” said Drew, referring to the legal doctrine that allows artists to use copyrighted material without permission or consequence depending on the circumstances. The “People’s Joker” poster calls it “A Fair Use Film by Vera Drew.”

Rebecca Tushnet, a professor at Harvard Law School and an expert in fair use, said artistic works find themselves on safer legal ground when they comment on the original material in a transformative way.

“Favored use is critical in that it performs an interpretation,” said Tushnet, who has not seen the film but was willing to discuss it in the abstract. “A parody is the classic example, but it doesn’t have to be funny. If the metaphor that the Joker represents here is a different metaphor, then it might well fall under the category of transformative fair use."”

Why Carol Burnett Sued Family Guy (& What Happened Next); ScreenRant, July 25, 2023

MATTHEW MOORE, ScreenRant; Why Carol Burnett Sued Family Guy (& What Happened Next)

"Carol Burnett sued Family Guy for portraying her iconic sketch series without permission, wanting to protect her comedy legacy. 

The lawsuit stemmed from an episode where Peter jokes about Burnett working as a janitor, using her famous character the Charwoman. 

The lawsuit was dismissed, with the judge ruling that Family Guy had the right to create parodies, maintaining the reputation of both parties."

Mattel once sued over the ‘Barbie Girl’ song — before learning to love it; The Washington Post, June 23, 2023

 Jennifer Hassan, The Washington Post; Mattel once sued over the ‘Barbie Girl’ song — before learning to love it

"“Mattel lost all those cases and got the message,” Tushnet said. “These were important precedents protecting commentary at a time when the internet was just allowing people to reach larger audiences without traditional gatekeepers. Then the ‘Barbie Girl’ case confirmed that traditional, commercial media also had the freedom to parody and comment on well-known trademarks.”"

Trademark Infringement Is No Joking Matter: Supreme Court Reevaluates Parody Fair Use Exception and First Amendment’s Place in Trademark Infringement; Lexology, June 12, 2023

Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo, Lexology ; Trademark Infringement Is No Joking Matter: Supreme Court Reevaluates Parody Fair Use Exception and First Amendment’s Place in Trademark Infringement

"In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when a junior trademark user uses a parody of a famous trademark as an indicia of source for its own goods, the junior user cannot rely on the First Amendment to shield it from liability for trademark infringement for artistic or so-called “expressive works,” nor the parody exception to trademark dilution claims under the Lanham Act.

The Supreme Court’s June 8, 2023, decision in Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products vacated an earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit, which had ruled in favor of the junior trademark user that was selling a dog toy—“Bad Spaniels”— that parodied a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle. In ruling that the Rogers test, previously used to protect First Amendment interests and “fair use” in the trademark context, is not applicable when an infringer uses such mark as a source identifier—i.e., as a trademark—for its own goods, the Court clarified a significant point of contention in trademark law."

Jack Daniel's tells Supreme Court its brand is harmed by dog toy Bad Spaniels; NPR, March 22, 2023

Nina Totenberg, NPR ; Jack Daniel's tells Supreme Court its brand is harmed by dog toy Bad Spaniels

"This case involves the federal trademark statutes and whether and when parody is protected speech. The whiskey company claims that the imitation Bad Spaniels bottle has appropriated the iconic Jack Daniel's design for just one purpose, to sell a chewy dog toy. And by doing that, the company claims, Jack's property rights have been infringed, even if the chewy dog toy is expressive."

Bad Spaniel's: barking the line between permitted parody and trademark infringement; Reuters, February 15, 2023

Deirdre M. Wells, William H. Milliken, and Kristina Caggiano Kelly, Reuters; Bad Spaniel's: barking the line between permitted parody and trademark infringement

"The 9th Circuit ultimately vacated the district court's judgment on trademark infringement, based on the two-part Rogers test. The Rogers test was established in the 1989 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Rogers v. Grimaldi, and balances trademark and free speech rights. Under this test, a trademark can be used without authorization as long as it meets a minimal level of artistic expression and does not explicitly mislead consumers.

To overcome VIP's First Amendment right to humorous expression, Jack Daniel's was required to show that VIP's use of its trademarks is either (1) not artistically relevant to the underlying work, or (2) explicitly misleads consumers as to the source or content of the work. The trial court did not apply the Rogers test as part of its analysis...

The 9th Circuit's application of the Rogers test — which has traditionally been used for expressive works like movies, music, and books — to the commercial setting has garnered the attention of attorneys and brand owners alike. The outcome of this case has far-reaching implications for gag gifts, novelty T-shirts, and even subtler fashion products."

May ‘Bad Spaniels’ Mock Jack Daniel’s? The Supreme Court Will Decide.; The New York Times, December 5, 2022

  Adam Liptak, The New York Times; May ‘Bad Spaniels’ Mock Jack Daniel’s? The Supreme Court Will Decide.

"The justices agreed last month to decide the fate of the Bad Spaniels Silly Squeaker dog toy, which looks a lot like a bottle of Jack Daniel’s but with, as an appeals court judge put it, “lighthearted, dog-related alterations.”

The jokes are scatological. The words “Old No. 7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” on the bottle are replaced on the toy by “the Old No. 2, on your Tennessee carpet.” Where Jack Daniel’s says its product is 40 percent alcohol by volume, Bad Spaniels’s is said to be “43 percent poo.”

A tag attached to the toy says it is “not affiliated with Jack Daniel Distillery.”

Trademark cases generally turn on whether the public is likely to be confused about a product’s source. In the Bad Spaniels case, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, said the First Amendment requires a more demanding test when the challenged product is expressing an idea or point of view."

'Weird Al' Yankovic wants to 'bring sexy back' to the accordion; Fresh Air, NPR, November 16, 2022

Terry Gross, Fresh Air, NPR; 'Weird Al' Yankovic wants to 'bring sexy back' to the accordion

"GROSS: What kind of permissions do you legally need now to do a song parody, the kind that you do where often it's, like, musically note for note from the original recording but, you know, the lyrics are different? So, you know, you're satirizing the lyric, but the music isn't really - the instrumentation isn't really a satire. It's the thing. It's the - sounds like the original thing.

YANKOVIC: It's a gray area in terms of legally what I need to do especially in cases like "Smells Like Nirvana" because, again, that's satire. And that's considered free speech and fair use. And if push came to shove, if it went to the courts, generally, that's - you know, the courts rule in favor of the parody artist. But I - you know, I don't go by just what's legal. I go for what I think is right. And what's right to me is always getting permission from the original songwriters and get their blessing. Because if an artist doesn't want me to do their song, I will back off. I mean, no matter what, you know, the courts or the law says, it's like, I just want to, you know, do good by them because I respect artists. And I don't ever want them to feel like I'm, you know, stepping on their toes."

‘Star Trek,’ Dr. Seuss Mashup Dispute Ends After 5-Year Legal Journey; The Hollywood Reporter, October 5, 2021

Eriq Gardner, The Hollywood Reporter ; ‘Star Trek,’ Dr. Seuss Mashup Dispute Ends After 5-Year Legal Journey

"On Tuesday, that final frontier known as intellectual property was charted when, after five long years in court, a legally adventurous dispute over a Star Trek-Dr. Seuss mashup concluded in a settlement. As a result of a deal, the crowdfunded “Oh, the Places You’ll Boldly Go!” will be going away."

American Girl Walks Back Threat to Sue 'Karen' Doll Parody Meme; Comic Book Resources, July 8, 2020

Kelvin Childs, Comic Book Resources; American Girl Walks Back Threat to Sue 'Karen' Doll Parody Meme

"American Girl has walked back its previous assertion that it would take legal action against a spoof ad for a "Karen 2020 Girl of the Year" doll.

On Twitter, the company said, "American Girl has no intention of censoring this parody meme and anything shared to the contrary was in error. We apologize for any misunderstanding.""

The Copyright Lawsuit in Tiger King Is an Outrage; Slate, May 7, 2020

Joshua Lamel, Slate; The Copyright Lawsuit in Tiger King Is an Outrage

"Copyright is the perfect vehicle for SLAPP suits. First of all, copyright is a government-granted, exclusive right to speech. There is no better way to prevent someone from publicly criticizing you than to use copyright law. Copyright lawsuits are expensive and place enormous costs on defendants. Fair use has to be raised once you are sued, so defendants will likely have to spend more. The potential damages are extreme: For every violation of a copyright, you can get $150,000 in statutory damages. Additionally, copyright law has injunctive relief—you can actually stop the speech from happening.

One would think that Congress would recognize this and specifically include copyright in federal anti-SLAPP efforts. But that is not happening anytime soon. Instead, thanks to their lobbying and fundraising, copyright holders have been successful in convincing senior members of Congress in both parties to exclude copyright. These members have told federal anti-SLAPP advocates that they need to be willing to give up copyright for a chance of being successful. There is not a single good policy argument to exclude copyright. Copyright litigation abuse is exactly what anti-SLAPP legislation should be designed to prevent. This type of abuse is the reason we need a federal fix.

In my dream world, the saturation of Joe Exotic’s story will help everyday Americans understand the relevance of copyright law in our daily lives—maybe even spur federal lawmakers to introduce and pass anti-SLAPP law without a special carve-out for copyright."

Lawyers Rally to Save ‘McMansion Hell’ from Zillow’s Copyright Claim; Fortune, June 27, 2017

Jeff John Roberts, Fortune; Lawyers Rally to Save ‘McMansion Hell’ from Zillow’s Copyright Claim

"A Zillow spokesperson has sent the following statement to media outlets:

"We are asking this blogger to take down the photos that are protected by copyright rules, but we did not demand she shut down her blog and hope she can find a way to continue her work," the statement reads.

The McMansion Hell controversy is likely to end with Wagner's site going back online, and with Zillow becoming the latest victim of what is known as "the Streisand effect"—a phenomenon in which an attempt to use dubious legal tactics to smother an issue on the Internet results in even more publicity for that issue. (Ironically, the original Streisand effect case—named for Barbara Streisand—also turned on mansions)."

Public Knowledge Launches Copyright Educational Video Based on Frozen’s “Let it Go”; Public Knowledge, February 22, 2017

Shiva Stella, Public Knowledge; 

Public Knowledge Launches Copyright Educational Video Based on Frozen’s “Let it Go”

"Today, Public Knowledge proudly released its new copyright educational video entitled, “Let Them Go.” The video is a parody of the well-known Disney song “Let It Go,” with revised lyrics that educate viewers on important topics in copyright, namely copyright term extension, intermediary liability, and fair use. Clips throughout the video also illustrate numerous fair uses and other adaptations of “Let It Go.”"

Was ‘Weird Al’ the real star all along?; Washington Post, February 16, 2017

Geoff Edgers, Washington Post; Was ‘Weird Al’ the real star all along?

"As his friend Miranda has reminded him, he doesn’t have to get permission from artists. Parody is protected by the First Amendment. But Yankovic has built his reputation on respecting artists’ wishes.

“I don’t want to hurt anybody’s feelings,” Yankovic says. “I don’t want to be embroiled in any nastiness. That’s not how I live my life. I like everybody to be in on the joke and be happy for my success. I take pains not to burn bridges.”

Prince never agreed to let him parody one of his songs, so he didn’t. Paul McCartney dissuaded Yankovic from turning “Live and Let Die” into “Chicken Pot Pie.” The former Beatle, a vegetarian and animal rights activist, suggested “Tofu Pot Pie.” Somehow, that didn’t have the same ring to it."

Dr. Seuss Enterprises Suing Over 'Star Trek' Mashup; Hollywood Reporter, 11/14/16

Eriq Gardner, Hollywood Reporter; Dr. Seuss Enterprises Suing Over 'Star Trek' Mashup:

"The lawsuit isn't catching defendants completely off-guard.

According to the complaint, in a section on its Kickstarter page presenting the "risks and challenges" to the project, the defendants proclaimed, "While we firmly believe that our parody, created with love and affection, fully falls within the boundary of fair use, there may be some people who believe that this might be in violation of their intellectual property rights. And we may have to spend time and money proving it to people in black robes. And we may even lose that."

Copyright infringement or fair use?

Here's the complaint from Dr. Seuss

One side will win

And one side will lose."

YouTuber Faces $300,000 Fine Over Donald Trump Parody; Digital Music News, 11/14/16

Paul Resnikoff, Digital Music News; YouTuber Faces $300,000 Fine Over Donald Trump Parody:

[Kip Currier: Interesting fact pattern but misleading clickbait headline and incomplete/inaccurate statements in some areas regarding the potential damages, i.e. the maximum amount for an instance of willful copyright infringement is $150,000. But the range of that damages continuum is $750 - $150,000. Under the U.S. Copyright Act, § 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits sets out under the Statutory Damages provision that: "(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200."]

[Paul Resnikoff writes here that:]"Perhaps more importantly, the cost for infringing on copyright is $150,000 per work. At two license violations, that comes to $300,000. Atkins may face that penalty if a judge rules against him. [In that last sentence, "...may face that penalty...", is an important nuance.]

The teardown and lawsuit is raising fresh questions about whether parody is indeed protected by copyright law. Or, whether substantial uses of copyrighted material constitute grounds for a complete rip-down. The ‘Clockwork Trump’ YouTube clip employs plenty of snippets from A Clockwork Orange, though it also borrows heavily from Carlos’ version of William Tell Overture.

Atkin is obviously arguing that this isn’t infringement, though his parody makes no mention of the music itself.

Update: 5:30 am PT: Looks like another version of the Donald Trump video is back up, though we’re not sure if this is the original upload. We’re still determining if this is because the counter-notification was indeed granted.

The teardown comes at a tense moment between YouTube and the music industry. Outspoken critics like manager Irving Azoff have blasted YouTube for failing to compensate artists properly, while YouTube says its takedown system is effective. Now, it appears that copyright owners are taking matters into their own hands."

This ‘Stranger Things’ / ‘A Charlie Brown Christmas’ Mashup Is — Wait, Come Back, It’s Actually Really Good; Comics Alliance, 10/28/16

Chris Sims, Comics Alliance; This ‘Stranger Things’ / ‘A Charlie Brown Christmas’ Mashup Is — Wait, Come Back, It’s Actually Really Good:

"Listen, I’m as tired of stuff that mashes up two things that nerds like into one chimera of presumed awesomeness as everyone else is, but every now and then, that rare thing comes along that’s just really, really well done and well worth seeing. Today, we have one of those: Leigh Lahev and Oren Mendez’s Merry Christmas, Will Byers.

The animated short is, of course, a mashup that parodies Stranger Things and the classic A Charlie Brown Christmas, but what sets it apart from your average It’s Two Things project (aside from not being a t-shirt) is that it’s really, really well done, and also builds to a pretty great punchline. Take three minutes and give it a watch!"

DONALD TRUMP BECOMES A MARVEL SUPERVILLAIN IN "SPIDER-GWEN"; Comic Book Resources, 7/2/16

Kevin Melrose, Comic Book Resources; DONALD TRUMP BECOMES A MARVEL SUPERVILLAIN IN "SPIDER-GWEN" :

"In an alternate Marvel Universe where Gwen Stacy, not Peter Parker, was bitten by a radioactive spider, and Samantha Wilson is Captain America, the classic supervillain M.O.D.O.K. resembles a certain real estate mogul turned reality TV star turned presidential candidate: Donald J. Trump.

In this week's "Spider-Gwen Annual" #1, writer Jason Latour and "an awesome assemblage of artists" offer a tour of Earth-65 with a collection of short stories that includes She-Hulk as a pro wrestler, the origin of Koala Kommander, and an all-too brief showdown between Captain America and M.O.D.O.K. -- wait, make that M.O.D.A.A.K. (Mental Organism Designed As America's King)."

You Will Never Unsee This Wondrously Strange Fake Japanese Advertisement for Donald Trump; Slate, 6/16/16

Katy Waldman, Slate; You Will Never Unsee This Wondrously Strange Fake Japanese Advertisement for Donald Trump:

"Mike Diva is, per his Facebook page, a “MAKER OF VIDEOS/MUSIC/MEMES/DREAMS” and he has bequeathed the pre-apocalyptic world its eighth wonder, a dizzying, sorbet-hued phantasmagoria that gestures toward the coming end times. It is called “Japanese Donald Trump Commercial”...

We could not resist getting Diva, whose real name is Mike Dahlquist, on the phone...

How long did it take you to make the video?

Dahlquist: All told, about a month and a half. I’m really lucky my friends are talented and willing to work for free, because of course we had zero budget. The actress was a friend of mine, perfect for the part—her hair was already like that and everything."

Artist Says Brazilian Protesters Copied His Giant Rubber Duck; New York Times, 4/1/16

Christopher Merle, New York Times; Artist Says Brazilian Protesters Copied His Giant Rubber Duck:

"The duck used in the demonstrations has X’s in place of its eyes and a Portuguese slogan across its chest that says: “We won’t pay for what is not our fault anymore.” But representatives for the Dutch artist, Florentijn Hofman, who is known for his outsize creations depicting animals, say they saw too many similarities between his rubber duck and the one used in Brazil — and they are not amused...

A spokeswoman for Mr. Hofman, Kim Engbers, said in an email: “Of course we want to emphasize that it is a shame that this parody is used for propaganda. Our project is meant to be nonpolitical.”

She added: “It is a positive work and has healing functions.”

Ms. Engbers, however, stopped short of calling the Brazilians’ use of the rubber duck a copyright infringement."