South Park, satire, and violation of intellectual property...

[Cardinals.Ken]

So, I just watched the season premiere episode of this year's South Park. The episode went after directly after Disney, and used the "Mickey Mouse" character both by name, and image, throughout the episode.

This isn't the first time that I've noticed a TV show satirizing a high-profile IP. I've seen it done extensively on the Simpsons, and Family Guy as well.

These shows treat large corporate IP's like a baby treats a diaper (not that I disagree with it), but I'm surprised that the courts aren't clogged to Holy Hell with infringement cases.

My question is, does anyone know how they get away with it?

 

[Gaddabout]

The line to cross is whether or not South Park writers intended to show "actual malice." Here's the one case it always comes back to ...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0485_0046_ZS.html

In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. Here, respondent is clearly a "public figure" for First Amendment purposes, and the lower courts' finding that the ad parody was not reasonably believable must be accepted. "Outrageousness" [p47] in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression, and cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages for conduct such as that involved here. Pp. 50-57

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

The line to cross is whether or not South Park writers intended to show "actual malice." Here's the one case it always comes back to ...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0485_0046_ZS.html

LOL...just by reading the text of that which you quoted, I knew that it was the Falwell v. Hustler case.

I'm no lawyer, but I believe the decision you refer to wouldn't apply to the issue that I'm curious about.

Falwell v. Hustler was a libel case, I'm talking about copyright infringement.

For example; it took the NFL a little under 48 hours to issue a cease and desist order against mikebrownsucks.com for it's parody image of the Cincinnati Bengals logo that it was selling on t-shirts. I'm surprised that the same legal action hasn't been brought against any of these TV entities for the, I'm assuming, unauthorized use of their copyrighted material.

 

[azsportsfan01]

You are allowed to use other people's property if it is done as satire and is not malicious. That is why SNL is allowed to impersonate celebrities and politicans and get away with it.

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

You are allowed to use other people's property if it is done as satire and is not malicious. That is why SNL is allowed to impersonate celebrities and politicans and get away with it.

Looks like it's termed as "fair use".

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

It also looks like it's a tad bit of "eye of the beholder" when it comes to the "gray areas" of infringement.

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.

 

[Mrh182]

i thought in that episode they never called him "mickey mouse"... more along the lines of "mr mouse" and drew him slightly different

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

i thought in that episode they never called him "mickey mouse"... more along the lines of "mr mouse" and drew him slightly different

Yeah, he was called "Mickey" and "Mr. Mouse" but he was never called "Mickey Mouse".

You must be registered for see images