Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dragonbird t1_j5ypwht wrote

Reply to comment by homkono22 in Black Eyed Peas Label Sues Maker of Pooping Unicorn Toy by theizzz

If the toy company is a commercial operation, then it probably isn't (and shouldn't be) covered by parody "fair use". They're using someone else's intellectual property to make a profit, so they should pay to use it. The judgement, whatever it is, wouldn't be setting a precedent, each case should be judged on its own merits.

5

homkono22 t1_j5zbcks wrote

Commercial operation shouldn't matter, what if a comedian does a parody of something for their standup show and then sell a DVD as well of it.

What about comedy skits parodying certain movies? There's legitimate cases where you should be able to parody things and get money from it. Toys included. Remember the garbage pail kids lawsuit? Or Uri Geller going after the Pokemon company because of Kadabra's spoon bending.

Lawsuits like it limit things and is not good from a consumer standpoint, we've had no new Kadabra cards ever since because of that.

It is fair use regardless of what ends up getting ruled. It's one thing to flat out steal something, it's another to be transformative for the sake of comedy, which is exactly what's happening here, even if that comedy is in poor taste.

4

dragonbird t1_j60ys3c wrote

But it does matter. The key thing here is that the law is designed to protect both intellectual property AND free speech rights, and in general it does a good job at it. So any individual lawsuit, like this one, shouldn't be condemned for a precedent reason, it should be judged on its own merits. It doesn't in itself damage future scenarios.

The Garbage Pail Kids lawsuit was for trademark violation, not copyright, which means different laws applies. Parody didn't enter into it, it was a straight commercial issue. Uri Geller lost in California, I believe, and the decision made by Nintendo was to avoid possibly losing in other countries. It may or may not have been a "good" decision, but it didn't set precedent.

Comedians doing a parody would probably be safe under fair use, even if it was commercial. Comedy skits parodying movies would definitely be safe because they're transformative - it's a totally different kind of parody. So yes, there are legitimate cases where you can make money off it.

If the courts decide it was sufficiently transformative, then Black Eyes Peas will lose. Leave it to them to decide.

0

Metalhippy666 t1_j62z675 wrote

So you think weird al Yankovic should be sued for making a living from his parody songs?

1

dragonbird t1_j63n4mp wrote

Firstly, it's a bad example. He asked permission, and he paid royalties.

Secondly, I'm not saying anyone should be sued. I'm simply saying, repeatedly, that it's up to the courts to decide on a case by case basis, and whatever the decision is in this case, it doesn't affect other parodies. I really don't understand why anyone should be upset or worried about some imagined knock-on effect. The law hasn't changed. Some win these cases, some lose.

0

s_decoy t1_j5z2lcr wrote

Reminds me of the Moshi Monsters song getting sued by Lady Gaga for using a parody character of her as a mascot - she won that lawsuit.

3