30 replies to this topic

[Rusty]

Its not a parody, its just the character in a different scenario. If I opened a burger store called Super Bario Burger with a mustachioed plumber as our mascost, would that be ok?

I apologize, I never noticed Ronald McDonald's name was actually Ronald McBaggens. McDonalds should be ashamed of their continued mistake. I've also never noticed him pointing an AK towards all the kids that entered the restaurant.

Also, your burger store would not be legal as you are using the image of a copyrighted character in a serious context without consent, using a copyrighted character for advertisement without consent, and using a copyrighted character for financial gain without consent. Your burger place is screwed. You can still use the name though.

Edit:
You may also want to take note of:

The point of the game is for comedy

Parodies are legal, selling parodies are legal. If they weren't then Weird Al would have starved to death by now.

Edited by Rusty, 04 December 2011 - 05:27 PM.

[chance]

You may also want to take note of:

The point of the game is for comedy

Parodies are legal, selling parodies are legal. If they weren't then Weird Al would have starved to death by now.

Being comedy doesn't make it "parody" . Parody usually mocks or ridicules the original idea. It has a target. That's key here. Often, parody starts with the original work, then uses extreme exaggeration to mock it. Like the way Stephen Colbert makes a parody of ultra-conservative ideas by exaggerating them, for example.

For example, a parody of Ronald might be:

1. having him interact with kids in a hamburger joint, but doing something outlandish -- like leering at them lewdly.
2. or having Ronald show up at a children's hospital to comfort sick kids, but scaring the crap out of them instead.

But in this case (Silvess' game), the character isn't really parody of Ronald. It's just a lookalike character in a comedic setting.

.

Edited by chance, 04 December 2011 - 10:26 PM.

[NakedPaulToast]

You don't have to use the entirety of content to claim parody.

A parody is an imitation of a song, character, person, etc to the effect of comedy or ridicule. In this case, the character of Ronald McDonald is being parodied, not the McDonalds brand. It's all legal.

From the US Copyright Fair Use:

use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied;

Is this game a parody? No, although it does contain some.
Note what it says. You may use some of the content in your parody of the work being parodied.

If they weren't then Weird Al would have starved to death by now

Weird Al stays within the confines of Parody as per the fair use exception.

For example Weird Al's Eat it is a parody of Michael Jacson's Beat it, therefore he can use the Beat it's musical score.
And for what it's worth, Weird Al gets the permission of the copyright holder.

You seem to think that you just have to claim a portion of your work is a parody and you can therefore avoid copyright issues. That is not the case. Your work has to be a parody and it can only use content from the work being parodied.

EG
Dr. Suess Enterprises v. Penguin Books

Penguin Books released The Cat NOT in the Hat, by Dr. Juice. A book Parodying the OJ Simpson trial. The book mimicked the style of Dr. Suess, but since the book was parodying OJ Simpson's Trial and not Dr. Suess it was in violation of Dr. Suess Enterprises' copyright.

[twelveways]

Its not a parody, its just the character in a different scenario. If I opened a burger store called Super Bario Burger with a mustachioed plumber as our mascost, would that be ok?

I apologize, I never noticed Ronald McDonald's name was actually Ronald McBaggens. McDonalds should be ashamed of their continued mistake. I've also never noticed him pointing an AK towards all the kids that entered the restaurant.

Also, your burger store would not be legal as you are using the image of a copyrighted character in a serious context without consent, using a copyrighted character for advertisement without consent, and using a copyrighted character for financial gain without consent. Your burger place is screwed. You can still use the name though.

So any plumber with a moustache is breaking copyright?

[DMEISTER]

Its not a parody, its just the character in a different scenario. If I opened a burger store called Super Bario Burger with a mustachioed plumber as our mascost, would that be ok?

I apologize, I never noticed Ronald McDonald's name was actually Ronald McBaggens. McDonalds should be ashamed of their continued mistake. I've also never noticed him pointing an AK towards all the kids that entered the restaurant.

Also, your burger store would not be legal as you are using the image of a copyrighted character in a serious context without consent, using a copyrighted character for advertisement without consent, and using a copyrighted character for financial gain without consent. Your burger place is screwed. You can still use the name though.

So any plumber with a moustache is breaking copyright?

Don't be silly.

[Rusty]

Okay... I'm going to show you guys something that is clearly going to blow minds.



Family Guy used the Ronald McDonald character, named him Ronald McDonald and copied his appearance. They took him and put him in a different situation and sold it alongside other episodes doing the same thing to other characters on DVD. Nobody sued them. They didn't parody the McDonald's brand, just Ronald, they didn't place him anywhere even remotely McDonald's related, instead he's in a completely new made up scene.

Why did nobody sue them? Because this is classed as a parody, as is this game.

[hpapillon]

Why did nobody sue them?

Because they're not idiots and they got permission first?

A quick websearch turns up articles with McFarlane talking about how he did get permission from Lucas to do a Star Wars spoof on the show but hadn't yet managed to get Paramount to agree to let him use Star Trek. (at least at the time - I don't watch the show, I don't know if he did later)

Unless you know for a *fact* that they did not ask, don't assume.

[NakedPaulToast]

There is also no question that Family Guy is a Parody.

Parody: Fair Use or Copyright Infringement

However, the fair-use defense if successful will only be successful when the newly created work that purports itself to be parody is a valid parody.

The game that generated this discussion is NOT a parady.

[DMEISTER]

Why did nobody sue them?

Because they're not idiots and they got permission first?

A quick websearch turns up articles with McFarlane talking about how he did get permission from Lucas to do a Star Wars spoof on the show but hadn't yet managed to get Paramount to agree to let him use Star Trek. (at least at the time - I don't watch the show, I don't know if he did later)

Unless you know for a *fact* that they did not ask, don't assume.

Looks like they don't always get permission

Source: Wikipedia

Lawsuits
In March 2007 comedian Carol Burnett filed a $6 million lawsuit against 20th Century Fox, claiming that her charwoman character had been portrayed on the show without her permission. She stated it was a trademark infringement, and that Fox violated her publicity rights.[69][70][71] On June 4, 2007, United States District Judge Dean D. Pregerson rejected the lawsuit, stating that the parody was protected under the First Amendment, citing Hustler Magazine v. Falwell as a precedent.[72]

On October 3, 2007, Bourne Co. Music Publishers filed a lawsuit accusing the show of infringing its copyright on the song "When You Wish upon a Star", through a parody song entitled "I Need a Jew" appearing in the episode "When You Wish Upon a Weinstein". Bourne Co., the sole United States copyright owner of the song, alleged the parody pairs a "thinly veiled" copy of their music with antisemitic lyrics. Named in the suit were 20th Century Fox Film Corp., Fox Broadcasting Co., Cartoon Network, MacFarlane, and Murphy; the suit sought to stop the program's distribution and asked for unspecified damages.[73] Bourne argued that "I Need a Jew" uses the copyrighted melody of "When You Wish Upon a Star" without commenting on that song, and that it was therefore not a First Amendment-protected parody per the ruling in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.[74][75] On March 16, 2009, United States District Judge Deborah Batts held that Family Guy did not infringe on Bourne's copyright when it transformed the song for comical use in an episode.[76]

In December 2007, Family Guy was again accused of copyright infringement when actor Art Metrano filed a lawsuit regarding a scene in Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story, in which Jesus performs Metrano's signature "magic" act involving absurd "faux" magical hand gestures while humming the distinctive tune "Fine and Dandy".[77] 20th Century Fox, MacFarlane, Callaghan, and Borstein were all named in the suit.[78] In July 2009 a federal district court judge rejected Fox's motion to dismiss, saying that the first three fair use factors involved—"purpose and character of the use", "nature of the infringed work", and "amount and substantiality of the taking"—counted in Metrano's favor, while the fourth—"economic impact"—had to await more fact-finding. In denying the dismissal, the court held that the reference in the scene made light of Jesus and his followers—not Metrano or his act.

[Rusty]

Unless you know for a *fact* that they did not ask, don't assume.

A quick websearch shows many results for attempted lawsuits against Family Guy for using content without consent. Seth only asked permission for Star Wars and Star Trek because he has some respect for the said series, copyright law does not protect Star Wars or Star Trek from parody. I am in no way assuming anything.

My personal favourite is:
When You Wish Upon a Star, Lawsuit

There is also no question that Family Guy is a Parody.

The game that generated this discussion is NOT a parady.

Family Guy is a comedy that uses parodies, not a parody itself. Neither Peter or his family are re-representations of any characters, fictional or otherwise. The game may not be a parody in itself but it does use a parodied version of Ronald McDonald, which is, of course, classed as a parody.

Edit:
I should really read all the posts before replying in the future... DMEISTER seemed to have gotten round to this already...

Edited by Rusty, 05 December 2011 - 05:57 PM.

[chance]

Family Guy is a comedy that uses parodies, not a parody itself. Neither Peter or his family are re-representations of any characters, fictional or otherwise.

Family Guy parodies "family life" and American culture itself. Not any particular characters. So I'd definitely classify the show itself as parody.

But we're getting down in the weeds here.

Suffice it to say, what constitutes "fair use" can be complex. As the examples cited here show, it's often decided case-by-case. If anything, it demonstrates that claiming "fair use" in parody isn't an automatic pass to avoid copyright/trademark infringement.

In this particular game, I think claiming "fair use" is a BIG stretch.