Star Ballz Trumps Lucas

baby_head_rush writes: "The company that created pr0n cartoon Star Ballz won in court. George Lucas and company lost their first bid to stop its sale. A judge with some common sense. There is 'little likelihood of confusion' between Star Wars and Star Ballz." Not for young eyes.

Comments

Sailor Moon as well

[BoneFlower]

Sailor Moon as Princess Leia..

Re:Parody & IP

[BadDoggie]

Actually, it wouldn't. Had the judge sided with Lucas based on the type of parody, it would have been bitch-slapped down by the appellate courts, based on the bitch-fest between Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell, "Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell", US Supreme Court Case No. 86-1278 back in 1988.

OK, something to see here, but not that much. The US Supreme Court decided this not long enough ago that the current Court could change it easily.

woof.

Yes, the movie was pretty accurate.

"Directed to children"

[Robotech_Master]

What gets me is the "directed to children" bit. Um, what? Where does it say that the parody is directed to children? On the Star Ballz website, where there's a clear "this website contains material unsuitable for those under 18" disclaimer? By watching the thing? (Oh, wait, no, they didn't, did they?)

I know! It's because it's animated, and as everybody knows, animated vids are only for kids, regardless of content! Ha ha, right, all those Mangle Video animes with people getting naked (and peoples' brains getting shot out) that they release instead of getting around to Giant Robo are all to keep the little kiddies entertained!

Bleah. That mindset makes me sick.

Re:"Directed to children"

[Robotech_Master]

No, it's a quite clearly-written sentence. There are no dangling or misplaced modifiers; it quite clearly conveys a message. I read it over several times before I posted; there can be no mistaking. (Whether she misspoke and meant to say that Star Wars was directed to children, I'm not qualified to say--but the experience that I have had, as an anime fan, with the "anime is kiddie stuff" prejudice leads me to believe that she meant every word she said.)

The article says (emphases mine) "a pornographic use of someone else's intellectual property, especially when that use is directed to children." The word "use" is used only once in the sentence prior to "that use," thus, "that use" modifies "a pornographic use".

If she'd said "when that property is directed to children," she could have been referring to Lucas's IP, which is to say, Star Wars. But it is grammatically quite clear that she is referring to the pornographic use--the Star Ballz anime--as having been directed to children. That is to say, made with children as a target audience.

Which is clearly quite stupid, but apparently there are still people out there who believe that anything animated is meant for kids. And unfortunately, some of them are even judges.