EFF Sues Barney Producers over Spoof Sites 154
PetManimal writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation is suing the company that produces 'Barney and Friends' for harassing the creator of a Barney parody Web site. Barney producers Lyons Partnership has threatened lawsuits over the past few years against Stuart Frankel and his parody site, actions which the EFF says violates freedom of speech and fair use laws. The parody site contains doctored images of Barney, and claims the purple dinosaur is the Antichrist. From the article: 'Lyons Partnership has sent multiple cease-and-desist letters to Frankel for a Web page that includes a depiction of the fuzzy purple dinosaur as Satan. In an October letter, Lyons demands that Frankel immediately take down copyrighted images of Barney. The company threatens to take legal action or contact Frankel's Internet service provider if he doesn't comply.'"
Hmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the legal standing of taking someone else's photographs and modifying them, even for Satire or Parody?
I'd suggest Frankel make up his own costume and photograph it.
We're quick to take issue when, during a poltical campaign, some photograph of Kerry giving a speech years ago is doctored. I think there is some precedent there. Doesn't it apply equally to what Frankel is doing?
Re:Barney's got a brand new bag (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait, that's the wrong song.
So Barney, who has spent his entire career putting new words to very old songs, is suing someone for parodying his work? That would be like Puff Daddy suing over someone parodying "I'll be Missing You." (And yes I realize that the big purple dinosaur is not really doing the suing but it's more amusing to think of it that way.)
Let's back up from this a bit.... (Score:5, Insightful)
seriously, isn't life a little too short for this?
Barney Protected, Teletubbies Less So (Score:2, Insightful)
SLAP worse than smash. (Score:5, Insightful)
will these type of people threaten a lawsuit against me ... or just SMASH?!?
You might think the whole affair is funny, but the ability to use popular culture icons to make a point is what's being defended.
That depends on who you piss off and how many people notice. If both are true, you might get slapped [wikipedia.org], which makes this kind of harassment worse than it looks at first.
The regulation of broadcast has given tremendous power to those who control it. They have had the ability to mold and use popular culture for a long time. Your inability to use their images and sounds as shortcuts to make a point put you at a disadvantage when you want to argue a point with the public. Cable and the internet has diminished broadcast influence, but there's plenty of concentrated power left as this Barney case illustrates. Ultimately, free culture will level the playing field. An EFF victory here will make others easier.
At stake is your ability to use your culture for your own ends. That ability is only in doubt because copyright law is out of control.
Re:SLAP worse than smash. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not necessarily. If we reach a point [slashdot.org] where the Internet is not a level field [slashdot.org], then we will be right back where we were twenty years ago: Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. Given that the people in the US with the money and power are directly threatened by free competition, that the people who benefit most from it (We The People) are predominately ignorant of what is happening, and that even those who do know what is happening are too comfortable to make real sacrifices (eg: jail, bodily harm, death) to defend it, how long do you think the free Internet is going to last?
Re:Hmm. (Score:3, Insightful)
Using the images of the copyright holder is considered Fair Use if it does not reduce their ability to make a profit (ie: you are giving away an image they charge for) or cause confusion about the intent of what you are doing (reasonable person wouldn't think that it is BARNEY who is saying he is the antichrist).
Changing the image of the copyright holder for the parody, or simply mocking up your own image based on their trademark or copyright is better/safer. The more of the copyrighted material you use in the parody, the closer you get to infringement. The fine line between parody and libel is sometimes up to courts to decide.
IANAL, but deal with this enough, and while there are exceptions, and anyone can sue you even when you are in the right, this is a rough guideline.
Re:Parody v. Satire? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now pretend you and I use the same song "Bad" to make fun of George Bush, or IBM, or Microsoft or something EXCEPT the original song/artist/concept itself. That is satire. The song "Bad" is no longer the thing we are making fun of, we are just using it for another purpose. This is NOT fair use.
The difference is the target, not the vehicle. And yes, sometimes it gets cloudy, and what it is your are making fun of may not always be clear. Whether Wikipedia sees it this way, in a court of law (from my limited experience) this is how it is defined.
Or to make it shorter: It is Fair Use to use a copyrighted item to make fun the of the same copyrighted item (parody), but not Fair Use to use a copyrighted item to make fun of something else (satire).
Re:Let's back up from this a bit.... (Score:2, Insightful)
That should be "between copyright owners of a show, and a website that makes fun of the show."
People should be allowed to make fun of anything they please. The target should have every right to be enraged, of course, but they should have no right to lawsuit the said fun-makers out of existence, or even threaten with that. Both sides have their rights, you know.
It just happens that in this case, there's purple dinosaurs involved.