Next Question
RSS
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
Helpful Answer?
(7)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_celebrities_on_South_Park
Permalink | Report
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.
Permalink | Report
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
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| March 26, 2009 03:53 AM |
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: |
Helpful Answer?
(7)
(0)
Helpful: ensorceled, mattman4, demanda, pirate, jeffhoard, littleghost, nativenerd
Tip dumblonde for this answerOther Answers (2)
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
Permalink | 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.
Permalink | Report
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
- Arts & Design
- Beauty & Style
- Books & Authors
- Business
- Cars & Transportation
- Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
- Education
- Entertainment
- Environment
- Fitness
- Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
- Health
- History
- Hobbies
- Home & Garden
- How Tos
- Humor
- Jobs
- Legal
- Local
- Love & Relationships
- Mahalo Answers Community
- Money
- Music
- News
- NSFW
- Parenting
- Pets
- Science & Mathematics
- Services
- Shopping
- Social Science
- Society & Culture
- Sports
- Technology & Internet
- Travel
- Video Games
Welcome New Members
- musette, November 29, 2009 11:48 PM
- rufkuts, November 29, 2009 11:45 PM
- nathrongul, November 29, 2009 11:36 PM
- jennyhanger, November 29, 2009 11:35 PM
- lampsbytiffany, November 29, 2009 11:09 PM
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

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.