Ask questions via twitter! Message any question to @answers on twitter. We'll publish the question and send you a reply each time there's a new answer.
Next Question

Answered Question

 
M$5 March 26, 2009 03:18 AM

How did Comedy Central not get sued by Disney (or ABC) for the South Park episode "The Ring"?

This episode prominently used Mickey Mouse, The Disney Corporation, The Jonas Brothers, and Michael Eisner
Interesting Question?  Yes (1)   No (0)   

Interesting: dumblonde

RSS
 
 

Best Answer  Chosen by Asker

 
March 26, 2009 03:53 AM
Because it's a parody. Parody is protected by the First Amendment, qualifies as fair use and thus is not considered an infringement of copyright.
The Supreme Court decided this in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994). And it's pretty much stuck to precedent. The most recent parody related lawsuit I remember is when Mattel sued the band Aqua for copyright infringement for the song Barbie Girl. The case was dismissed.

Black's Law Dictionary definition of parody:

"A transformative use of a well-known work for purposes of satirizing, ridiculing, critiquing, or commenting on the original work, as opposed to merely alluding to the original to draw attention to the later work. • In constitutional law, a parody is protected as free speech. In copyright law, a work must meet the definition of a parody and be a fair use of the copyrighted material, or else it may constitute infringement.
"Trademark parodies, even when offensive, do convey a message. The message may be simply that business and product images need not always be taken too seriously; a trademark parody reminds us that we are free to laugh at the images and associations linked with the mark." L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 1987) (per Bownes, J.).
"We do not, of course, suggest that a parody may not harm the market at all, but when a parody, like a scathing theater review, kills demand for the original, it does not produce a harm cognizable under the Copyright Act. Because 'parody may quite legitimately aim at garroting the original, destroying it commercially as well as artistically,' the role of the courts is to distinguish between 'biting criticism that merely suppresses demand and copyright infringement, which usurps it.' " Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 591, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 1178 (1994) (Souter, J.) (citations omitted).
Source(s):
http://www.publaw.com/parody.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie_Girl#Mattel.27s_lawsuit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody
Black's Law Dictionary

Asker's Rating:

Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 

Other Answers (2)

Sort By
 
March 26, 2009 05:09 AM
South Park has a long history of using celebrity personas without permission. They inform the watcher is the warning at the beginning of the show that all celebrities are impersonated. The combination of this disclaimer and good lawyers have protected them in the past.

Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_celebrities_on_South_Park


Helpful Answer?  (1)   (1)   

Helpful: pirate

Unhelpful: dumblonde

Tip mahall for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 
 
March 26, 2009 01:17 PM - Fact Refuted
Disclaimers have very little weight in court if they aren't backed by actual law. That disclaimer is more of a joke anyway.
The real reason is because the courts have been very adamant about protecting parody.

And if you notice in the episodes they never really infringe. The don't use the actual songs, logos, anything. They know how far they can push it.

It's almost like SP is saying. we dare you to sue us! because they know the law is on their side.
To my knowledge, they've only pulled one episode off the air and that was the Scientology episode.

But it wasn't because Tom Cruise was going to sue but because Viacom, Comedy Central's parent company also owns Paramount, the movie studio that was distributing Cruise's films at the time. So it was more internal office politics.

Report
 
 
 
March 26, 2009 07:53 AM
I'm not an expert, but in a nutshell, since South Park is clearly a satire/parody, they are protected under the free speech clause of the First Amendment. You're allowed to mock/satirize things in the public view; that's part of your constitutional rights.

Certain democracies in Asia, such as Singapore, don't have such clauses. As a result, politicians sue anybody who they think slanders them and dissent is far less prevalent.

Helpful Answer?  (1)   (0)   

Helpful: dumblonde

Tip alexeymk for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 

Answer this Question

How tips and payments work

This question has already been resolved. You may add an answer to it but you will not be eligible to win best answer or any associated tips.

Ask a Question


140 characters left
Top of Page
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal

Top Members

This Week All Time
  • buddawiggi
    buddawiggi
    2nd Degree Black Belt
    27808 Points
    M$799.16 Earned
  • opher
    opher
    Purple Belt
    4473 Points
    M$196.22 Earned
  • annelisle
    annelisle
    Purple Belt
    3110 Points
    M$95.22 Earned
   See All
 

Most Popular Tags

mahalo(1625)
iphone(466)
music(462)
google(358)
food(321)
online(296)
beer(279)
money(262)
movies(259)
apple(251)
aotd(235)
health(220)
video(208)
free(205)
dog(205)
   See All
 

Categories

Welcome New Members


 
 
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.

Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.

Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More

 
 

Please log in to use this function.