EFF Sues Barney Producers over Spoof Sites

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.'"

Comments

Barney's got a brand new bag

[Red Flayer]

I sue you
They sue me
We're all part of a
Lawyer-enriching Copyright industry that contributes little to the public good.

Does that rhyme?

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[Anonymous Coward]

Trip Master Monkey, is that you?

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[Tackhead]

> I sue you
> They sue me
> We're all part of a
> Lawyer-enriching Copyright industry that contributes little to the public good.

To the Lyons partners,
Dewey Cheatem, Howe,
Up yours, Barney.
Pay Stu now.

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[hal2814]

With a knick-knack paddy-whack...

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.)

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[voice_of_all_reason]

An excellent riposte, sir.

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[Red Flayer]

Nope. I think TMM picked up his ball and went home because everyone was bashing him for formulaic google-then-wikipedia-link karma-whoring. I could be wrong (and probably am).

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[Pharmboy]

What pisses me off is /. didn't link to the site, and the article didn't link to it either. Either they are all afraid of getting sued, or they don't want me to SEE the actual site and make up my own mind whether the site is "parody" (fair use), "satire" (not fair use) or something else.

I did finally find it at this address and did a whois to make sure the domain is owned by Stuart Frankel. Not much here except some dead links (other threatened sites?) and what appears to be Fair Use to me, but IANAL.

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[PetManimal]

Pet Manimal angry too. Link was submitted to Slashdot in morning (seen on EFF website) but Zonk human stripped it out for unknown reason. Maybe he not parent and no get joke.

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[Anonymous Coward]

I just saw a some sad news on Digg - famous Slashdot poster TripMaster Monkey was found dead in his parents' basement this morning. There were not any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you did not enjoy his work, there is no denying his contributions to the Slashdot subculture (subscription FPs, K'Breel, Zonkbonking, etc.). Truly a geek icon.

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[Goweropolis]

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a big purple dinosaur. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW.. and run off into the hills, or wherever.. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, I wonder: "Did little demons get inside and type it?" I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I do know - when a man like the defendant makes fun of big purple rhyming dinosaurs, then he is entitled to no less than two million years in jail. Thank you.

R.I.P. Phil Hartman, Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[Anonymous Coward]

Netcraft confirms it.

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[CODiNE]

No but this does.

I love sue
Sue happy
Litigatious family

With a great big team
Of lawyers just for you
Don't you say I'm Anti-foo!

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[Fallen Seraph]

I sue you,
You sue me,
We're all part of a
Broken Copyright Industry,
That contributes little to the public good,
So sue them all you know you should.

Does that rhyme?
It does now :)

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[stinerman]

I have half a notion that TMM and WMF are the same person.

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[dartarrow]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think it is perfectly legal to use photos of "famous prominent figures".

Usually that means celebrities, so i don't know how dinos fit in...

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[Pharmboy]

For news or parody yes. For satire, sometimes. Using public figures (president, congressman, etc.) has generally been considered always ok. Using Tom Cruise's face to make fun of Scientology may be fun, and legal, but it will likely get you sued into oblivion simply because they have more money than you do.

Using it to sell your own product, however, is definately a no no. Again, the target or context is what makes it legal or not. The fact that you used the photo doesn't.

Some courts are leaning toward the idea that a celebrities "image" is copyright protected. That gets very borderline, and would not only stop you from using a photo you took on your vacation on your personal webpage, but almost stops NEWS from publishing images as well, without paying royalties.

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[laughingcoyote]

DEAR SIR:

It has recently come to our attention that you have recently published a rhyme to the website "slashdot.org" in a similar cadence to the protected IP of Barney. You are hereby notified that in our informed legal opinion this constitutes infringement of our copyright.

Copyright infringement is a serious matter. If you are found liable in a civil suit you could be liable for damages up to $150,000 per willful infringement. Criminal sanctions are also possible. If you are found guilty of criminal copyright infringement you could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison. In extreme cases you may be sentenced instead to watching one full day of Barney videos.*

We request that you cease immediately utilizing poetry and rhyming, and cease to make offending posts to any websites. If you do not comply we will initiate legal investigation against you.

*We are required to disclose that a pending court case claims that the second criminal sentence may be construed as cruel, unusual, and excessive punishment.

Sincerely yours,

The attorneys of the Barney and Associates law firm.

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[Tablizer]

That is a quick-and-dirty site. Which, gives me an idea. Perhaps if hundreds of us slasdotters made similar porody pages, we would teach the lawyer-happy company a lesson. Let the B@rn3y's Flow!

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[Louisville_Clark]

he put up a new page "revised to include Barney's lawyers. But blaming the attorneys is like blaming the parasite for the host. Sometimes parasites can simulate independent action, and the more short-sighted ones can damage or even kill their host, but the prime mover in this case is no doubt Barney itself." http://dustyfeet.com/evil/parasite.html

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[iced_773]

Don't count on it.

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[stinerman]

I retract my "TMM is WMF" statement and substitute "eldavojohn".

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that rhyme?

No.

But this guy should get in touch with the guy who did the video animations of Barbie getting bent over the (top down) back seat of her BarbieMobile (prolly tm) by Ken. Along with many other hilarious sexual exploits. Barbie's legal bitches went after him, but the judge sided with the maker of the parody videos.

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

['nother poster]

I hate you,
You hate me,
Let's tie Barney to a tree,
With a great big club lets beat him in the head! ... Oopsie daisy, Barneys dead.

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[Nerd4News]

I love you,
You love me,
We're a happy family,
Then a shot rang out and Barney hit the floor,
No more fucking dinosaur.

Re:Barney's got a brand new bag

[code4fun]

Barney is nothing but a big rip off of the Flintstones. After all, Fred's best friend was Barney and that purple lizard is nothing but a bloated Dino.

So will I be sued for my Hulk stuff?

[Hulkster]

I've got a mish-mash of Hulk Stuff up on my site - will these type of people threaten a lawsuit against me ... or just SMASH?!?

P.S. Satire is protected speech - doesn't that apply here in the Barney case?

Re:So will I be sued for my Hulk stuff?

[PRMan]

Marvel Comics doesn't go after fan sites unless they have created software/games including the characters or are selling something.

Your Hulk site should be fine.

Re:So will I be sued for my Hulk stuff?

[VoxCombo]

Satire is protected speech - doesn't that apply here in the Barney case?

Yes, satire is protected, but the use of copyrighted images is not.

In other words: It's ok for you to draw a picture of Barney for satirical use, but you can't copy their drawing of Barney.

Re:So will I be sued for my Hulk stuff?

[Mayhem178]

P.S. Satire is protected speech - doesn't that apply here in the Barney case?

Actually, this is often not the case. Parody has been found to be protected in the majority of fair use cases, which deals primarily with poking fun directly at the copyrighted entity in question; whereas satire is rarely held as fair use, since it uses the copyrighted entity to poke fun at something else.

The real challenge here for the Lyons Partnership will be proving that the Barney Antichrist was satirical in nature. If it was Stuart Frankel's intent all along to make fun of Barney by calling him the Antichrist, then chances are good that he will win the case. Otherwise, he might be in trouble.

Re:So will I be sued for my Hulk stuff?

[Mayhem178]

Double posting. Here's a good reference that criticizes the difference.

Barney...Isnt he dead?

[dontbflat]

I thought I killed that guy in HL2. Maybe I'll get him in HL3

Re:Barney...Isnt he dead?

[__aaclcg7560]

That's the problem with NPC's... they just don't know when to stay dead. I been shooting Barney since the Doom days.

Re:Barney...Isnt he dead?

[sgt scrub]

Who scored this off topic? Is there really someone who hasn't killed Barney or Kenny?

One Line Of Legal Defense

[Steve B]

The parody site contains doctored images of Barney, and claims the purple dinosaur is the Antichrist.

I dunno about copyright infringement, but they should be safe from any defamation charge -- truth is an absolute defense.

Re:One Line Of Legal Defense

[Nesetril]

Barney is not the Antichrist. He is Diablo, Lord of Terror. The difference was explained in a Penny Arcade comic (the second one ever about Fruit F..., iirc). I can't link to it, because their lame advertisements crash Firefox.

Re:One Line Of Legal Defense

[PFI_Optix]

I read PA in FireFox all the time.

Re:One Line Of Legal Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

/>

Re:One Line Of Legal Defense

[uncoveror]

If a parody calling Barney the anitchrist is funny, how about a parody calling him an Al-Qaeda terrorist? I did that, and got a similar nastygram. To publicize these events, I published this and this.

I hope the EFF really lays the smack down on Lyons Partnership.

As a prent of 2 toddlers and an infant...

[SoCalChris]

I've got to know, what's the address of the anti-Barney site???

Re:As a prent of 2 toddlers and an infant...

[System.exit(true)]

The letter: http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/notice.cg i?NoticeID=2476 Link to site found in letter: http://www.dustyfeet.com/evil/enemy.html

Re:As a prent of 2 toddlers and an infant...

[Anonymous Coward]

This may narrow it down for you: What's the address of a non-anti-barney site?

Re:As a prent of 2 toddlers and an infant...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.doomchicken.net/evil/barney.jpg

Re:As a prent of 2 toddlers and an infant...

[Weasel5053]

You need cable.

Re:As a prent of 2 toddlers and an infant...

[dr_dank]

I wonder if this guy is affiliated with the Anti-Barney League textfiles that I'd find on the BBSes back in the day.

Re:As a prent of 2 toddlers and an infant...

[kinglink]

I doubt it. But I remember those.

And Barney Doom?

Hmm.

[ackthpt]

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:Hmm.

[R2.0]

I believe the concept of fair use specifically and clearly covers exactly the situation you describe - modifying a copywrited work for parody or satire. Check the "Wind Done Gone" case.

The doctored photos of Kerry were different - they weren't satire or parody. And the furor over them wasn't about copyright violation - it was over the intent to deceive.

Re:Hmm.

[Danse]

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?

There's a difference between doctoring something and asserting that it's a true image, and doctoring something as parody. As long as the site is using the images as parody, he should be in the clear. Hell, TV shows do it all the time for purposes of parody.

Re:Hmm.

[Pharmboy]

Satire is NOT covered under Fair Use. Parody is covered. (ie: You can use Barney to make fun of Barney, but not to make fun of something else.) This is why many [company]sucks.org websites use parody as a means to protest against a company, as it is a well tested Fair Use exception.

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:Hmm.

[geekoid]

Parody is explicitly protected un the US.
He is making a parody of Barney.

No one will got o the site and think it is an actual Barney site, or confuse that site with an offiial site.

Re:Hmm.

[Aladrin]

Every definition of parody uses the word 'imitate'... Not copy directly. Not doctor a photo of... imitate. That means it is NOT the real thing, or a direct image of the real thing.

Calling something/someone the 'antichrist' is not a parody. It's a statement. Drawing a generic purple dinosaur with big red horns would be a parody.

If you don't believe me, try this on for size: Linux is shit. Haha, I parodied. You can't get angry because it's just a parody.

No? Yeah, doesn't work like that. Everyone with half a brain KNOWS Linux isn't shit, but that's a statement and not a parody, so it makes you angry, even when you know I don't mean it.

Now if I drew a penguin that was crawling across the ground half-dead looking, reaching towards a 4-color window... That's a parody. I didn't name the penguin, the window, or anything in it. But you get the point and I haven't made any actual statements about the items in question. (And I didn't use the real logos for it.)

Re:Hmm.

[lysergic.acid]

Doctoring a photo of someone to make false claims about that person in order to disrepute them is not satire or parody, especially if it's a political campaign presenting itself as being factually based rather than being a creative work.

The case of doctored photos of John Kerry being used in campaign commercials has nothing to do with copyright or trademark infringement.

Did the lawyers read the dmca law?

[tinkertim]

If these guys even glanced at the DMCA laws they would kick themselves in the legal checkbook. Anyone who operates a hosting company , even one on the side knows when the formal DMCA notice arrives, you must yank the site unless the owner can furnish a court ruling allowing it to exist. Depending on your upstream provider, some will go to bat if you can show your client is at least in litigation with the complaining party .. and wait for the outcome, but that's rare. Anyone hosted in infomart (or on level3, cogent, willtell , etc bandwidth) or any other 'cafeteria style' DC is under a yank-first-and-ask-questions-later policy.

That being said, such a court ruling would almost be automatic. Parody sites are protected, I helped one of my clients stand up against the big bad e-bay and they won. I'd post a link, but .. well I don't feel like going to the DC with a fire extinguisher to put out the nic :)

I've never, ever seen someone threaten to go to the isp *last* .. how did this feeble gray matter manage to cook up something that took over children's television for years?

At this point their lawyers saying anything other than "Duh!" would be almost as comical as the parody itself.

What a world.

Re:Did the lawyers read the dmca law?

[jafiwam]

I was under the impression it was a "take it down till the site operator tells the host they are taking care of it".

Basically, forcing the host to be a pass through of information or just to take it down. Effectively removing the host as a protector of the site. (I.e. "we just host it, you need to contact the webmaster" while the webmaster has no available contacts and is trying to remain anonymous.)

The operator does NOT need to show proof of anything other than that they are aware of the notice the host recieved and that they are contesting it. So "no, it's not a violation, put it back." is good enough.

At that point, the host is out of it and it's between the operator and the person or company that is complaining. Otherwise, you are asking the host to act as an agent of the court, or to BE the court.

Re:Did the lawyers read the dmca law?

[cmdr_beeftaco]

National Assoication of Media Lawyers of America or NAMBLA posted several articles what they deem the correct procedure for executing DMCA enforcement under a wide range of circumstances including unresponsive ISPs.

Re:Did the lawyers read the dmca law?

[tinkertim]

The host is never out of it. You're using their IP and bandwidth, for which the pay their upstream provider or data center. I get a half dozen ofthese a week folks, trust me on this one :

We have to yank until there has been a court ruling in favor of the site in question, 99.9% of the time.

Sometimes, upstream providers if they feel the DMCA complaint is foundless will allow it to stay on-line, but if the ruling goes the other way said upstream provider is then in the can to get sued for damages too, which has happened.

DMCA / Copyright is the silliest thing in the world, I agree.. and there really is no clear cut leigislation regarding it or at what point a site should be taken down, or even if. It seems like the carriers (ones I mentioned like Level3 / Verio / etc) kind of just made this accepted procedure and nobody questioned it.

Goes to show that its still kind of a legal 'wild west' , and that we need people in congress who aren't out of touch with all of this to give us some more difinitive guidelines. I , and others I'm sure wish we could just cite legislation to our clients when these things come in so they don't see us as the bad guys too. "Hey man, its the law sorry I had no choice" goes over a lot better than "Well, we have to wait and see what the mindless legal drone at sprint says ... "

I hope this gets enough publicity to call some attention and criticisim on all of these 'sketchy' areas of the dmca laws.

On a final note .. I and many people here helped to build what our kids now call The Internet. I don't think this crap was what any of us had in mind when we were first getting the bugs out of uucp & store and forward.

Shame on that annoying purple bastard.

Re:Did the lawyers read the dmca law?

[wfberg]

If they DIDN'T send a DMCA notice to the host. That pretty much tells you they KNOW they have no case.

(Apparently they don't want to sign a DMCA "under penalty of perjury" notification, even though they'd only be certifying that they represent a client and that the client claims something or other - that's a pretty low standard there. But if they won't even sign that..)

Ean St Eane

[pottymouth]

I thought people would learn not to mess with Barney when he had Ean St Eane kneecapped.... Geez, I wouldn't want to get on his bad side.

Re:Ean St Eane

[Anonymous Coward]

That is perhaps the most obscure Bob & Tom reference I've ever seen. I swear to god it is.

Hey do you want to buy my boat?

Donnie Baker

Re:Ean St Eane

[pottymouth]

I'm not even a big fan. I just happened to be listening one day and heard the bit. Pretty funny though.....

Doctored Kerry photo.

[krell]

"during a poltical campaign, some photograph of Kerry giving a speech years ago is doctored. I think there is some precedent there"

I doctored it, and then I undoctored it.

Let's back up from this a bit....

[StressGuy]

We are mobilizing armies of lawyers for a legal battle between a show about a stuffed purple dinosaur and a website that makes fun of the stuffed purple dinosaur.

seriously, isn't life a little too short for this?

Re:Let's back up from this a bit....

[baomike]

>

It is, until it's your speach than someone wants to stop.

Nothing wrong with a little censorship as long as I am the censor.

Re:Let's back up from this a bit....

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this is serious. The issue is use of content for a parody, which is supposed to be regarded as fair use. Lose that right, and you lose the right to do many things. Suppose you criticize McDonald's. Remember, their name and logos are their property. With no fair use rights, you could be sued for using any of them, even for legitimate criticism or parody. So, how exactly do you criticize McDonald's when you could be sued for simply mentioning their name in your criticism?

Remember, copyright was never intended to be a blanket protection of a work. Unfortunately, many people either don't know that, or they try to prevent others from knowing it, but it's true. Criticism and parody are legitimate reasons to use a copyrighted work. Without the ability to do that, it will be extremely difficult to hold corporations and their works up for public scrutiny.

Re:Let's back up from this a bit....

[shadowbearer]

[Carlin] No wonder nobody in this world takes our country seriously... [/Carlin] :-)

  I have nothing to say, really, except that your comment is absolutely on target. Kudos.

SB

Re:Let's back up from this a bit....

[WWWWolf]

We are mobilizing armies of lawyers for a legal battle between a show about a stuffed purple dinosaur and a website that makes fun of the stuffed purple dinosaur.

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.

Better take down my Steve Ballmer parody site!

[pandrijeczko]

...because on there I've mentioned about him having a long golden mane of hair, being a lover of fine antique chairs and being a wonderfully agile dancer, equal in agility to Nureyev.

Better take it down quick before Microsoft come after me!

Do you think they'll let me keep up the bit about him saying "Linux is like a cute little Golden Retriever puppy that everyone wants to cuddle forever"?

Re:Better take down my Steve Ballmer parody site!

[Anonymous Coward]

Be careful what you ask for...

The address

[Harmonious Botch]

http://dustyfeet.com/evil/enemy.html

Re:Slashdot ALWAYS Rejects my Articles!

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm because this is not a tree hugger website.. WTF does polar bears have to do with news for nerds?

Barney Protected, Teletubbies Less So

[Dunx]

This is good news, but it's a shame that the EFF couldn't have stepped in years ago when the producers of the Teletubbies shut down all of those parody sites. The difference may have been to do with variations in national laws (no explicit free speech rights in the UK, AFAIR) - I hope it's not just time.

There is a correlation

[neonprimetime]

WTF does polar bears have to do with news for nerds?

If you read the article he linked to, then I think you would see a logical correlation between polar bears and most /. users (myself excluded).

SLAP worse than smash.

[twitter]

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, 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.

[Bob9113]

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.

Not necessarily. If we reach a point where the Internet is not a level field, 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:SLAP worse than smash.

[Anonymous Coward]

You make a good point about copyright law, because in fact they have no case otherwise. There was a Supreme court decision on a public figure paraody case. Shoot what was that called.... on yeah Hustler vs. Falwell
  They have no case.

Re:SLAP worse than smash.

[pipingguy]

Barney Must Die! (an appropriate death).

Nah. More likely it's the professional "Barney Marketing People" raising a media kerfuffle desperately trying to generate some publicity. Kids' stuff doesn't last as long these days so they have to squeeze every last bit out of a concept.

My son loved that purple thing when he was two, three, *maybe* four, but now "Barney" is seen by pre-teens as a euphemism for juvenile interests and this sort of notion filters down to the younger kids via memes.

In my day, kids' heroes didn't have huge marketing campaigns attached to them, so they tended to last longer because the hype didn't exist. Uphill both ways, snow, etc.

[Cue the cries of "misogynist GI Joe!" and "self-image-warping Barbie!".]

Re:Slashdot ALWAYS Rejects my Articles!

[__aaclcg7560]

Polar Bears drink Coke. They should be drinking Pepsi. Go figure.

True Story

[StressGuy]

Years ago, I worked as a civilian contractor at an Army Guard base. One of the secretaries there was a bit heavyset and a bit "top-heavy" as well. One day, she comes in wearing a purple sweater and somebody makes an obligitory Barney reference, at which point, she flips him off

Would that be considered fair use?

Re:True Story

[Anonymous Coward]

reminds me of high school being in the marching band. Our color guard was a little on the large side and one year their outfits were purple spandex. Being the rational level headed highschoolers that we were we showed the utmost restraint...I only had one tooth chipped by a flag being wielded by a purple dinosaur.

Revised Re:The address

[AlgoRhythm]

That's the original site, the current is here for the intro, and here for the current saga.

Stuart may relate this on his page (it's been a while since I read it), but from talking to him it basically has escalated, and they chose to sue, because despite an order to only contact him through his lawyers at the EFF, Barney's folks have continued to mail him nastygrams directly.

Re:Revised Re:The address

[Anonymous Coward]

Stuart may relate this on his page (it's been a while since I read it), but from talking to him it basically has escalated, and they chose to sue, because despite an order to only contact him through his lawyers at the EFF, Barney's folks have continued to mail him nastygrams directly.

Awesome. Good for him. That sounds like a clear case of harasment. "Leave me the *&$% alone and talk to my lawyers."

Re:Revised Re:The address

[geckoFeet]

Stuart (me) says:

As of this writing nobody has heard back from the Barney lawyers. This is scary because their letters were obviously sent automatically, and when the computers finally do take over, it's not going to be by controlling the power grid but by sending out legal notices. So the process may have started at Lyons' lawyers. Either that or they're all pod people.

And, yes, it's unethical for the lawyers to contact me directly after I have an attorney of record in the case and, yes, we've filed an ethics complaint about that.

And, yes, the whole thing is ridiculous, which is why I put a little explanation on my home page, namely:

" This is my little corner of the web, and the bullies can't have it. There's nothing more to it than that. "

And that's all there is to it.

Stuart Frankel

---
i have a very small website
http://dustyfeet.com/

Whaaaa?

[MikeyTheK]

If you're the EFF, and you're looking to pick a fight, why would you pick THIS fight over THIS character?

The EFF is fighting for mindshare and clout among American households. So...they...choose...to...sue...to...uphold...some one's...right...to...mock...and...deride...a...bel oved...children's...character?!?!?!?! Why would you risk alienating families? There has got to be more than this than "We can be more ACLU than YOU"

Re:Whaaaa?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because this is so blatantly open-and-shut for the parody site that it's a non issue.
And the reprocussions of the suit being upheld would be horrid (bye bye freedom of parody).

Re:Whaaaa?

[FooAtWFU]

It's a pity, but sometimes I guess that the only people who will stand up and fight for this sort of thing are the kind that (I personally) would be least interested in protecting. The people who make nice fluffy happy friendly good stuff don't seem to (as a gross generalization) possess the same sort of element that will make them either a) create things like that or b) fight so hard to keep what they have created.

I remember reading some Libertarian magazine (Reason) about Disney's war against the counterculture. They have all sorts of points, but the thing is, when people look at this Counterculture stuff, it's not something they're going to sympathize with and it probably isn't helping The Cause or anything like that.

Re:Whaaaa?

[Grech]

Barney, the beloved purple dinosaur, is a myth, or at least only true for a certain value of beloved.

Said saurian is essentially an oversized stuffed animal who delivers age-appropriate pablum to small children without any of the redeeming wit of a Sesame Street, which at least recognizes that parents often wind up parked in front of this stuff too, or at least exposed to it indirectly.

In short, beloved perhaps by children, but not so much by their elders.

Re:Slashdot ALWAYS Rejects my Articles!

[Burlap]

or cause this news is BLOODY OLD!!!

HR Pufnstuf never dreamed of this...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is good news, but it's a shame that the EFF couldn't have stepped in years ago when the producers of the Teletubbies shut down all of those parody sites.

I guess everyone has seen this by now?

How about Purple Dinosaur Massacre?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone remember that stress relief Dos game?

I needed it at one time, but I am better now!

1st Amendment and Parody

[Stranger4U]

The US Court System has previously ruled (need a reference here) that parody is protected under the First Amendment. That's how people like Weird Al get away with what they do. I doubt that the website seriously considers Barney to be either Satan or the Antichrist, so it's a parody, it's protect, no lawsuit.

I'm sure all the lawyers know this and were just trying to bully the website into closing, knowing they couldn't win a trial.

Re:1st Amendment and Parody

[ePhil_One]

That's how people like Weird Al get away with what they do

You mean people should call and ask permission like Weird Al does?

The concert only stuff is called "concert only" for a reason. Either Al had a brief idea and the joke wouldn't survive a full length song, or permission was denied or never attempted.

Re:1st Amendment and Parody

[Vellmont]

You mean people should call and ask permission like Weird Al does?

Weird Al asks permission because he doesn't want to make any enemies, especially among the gangsta rappers. I don't know much about the music industry, but I'm guessing it's relatively small. If you start pissing off powerful people in it, you might not have a career for very long.

Re:1st Amendment and Parody

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird Al asks permission because he doesn't want to make any enemies, especially among the gangsta rappers.

He was asking permission long before there were "gangsta rappers"; Prince has always refused to grant permission, so he paradied his videos, because video images have much weaker protections. Parady is not a magic wand that protects everything you do in its name...

Re:1st Amendment and Parody

[Vellmont]

He was asking permission long before there were "gangsta rappers"; Prince has always refused to grant permission, so he paradied his videos, because video images have much weaker protections. Parady is not a magic wand that protects everything you do in its name..

No it's not, but it's also very clear that what Weird Al does IS protected by fair use. It's probbably not a lot of fun being sued all the time, even though you know you'll win the suit.

Re:1st Amendment and Parody

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's not, but it's also very clear that what Weird Al does IS protected by fair use.

I think the underlying issue is while the Lyrics are parody, the music is copied more or less intact. He most likely would win a court case, especially given his now well known reputation, but its not a sure enough thing that he is willing to risk upsetting Prince who could bring nasty lawyers down on him. If he & his lawyers weren't so sure, why parady Prince in video form w/o his permission but not risk Audio parady? INAL, but I think this is teh best evidence that its not that clear cut a case.

Shrinkage

[NotQuiteReal]

LOL

They missed the obvious cause of the problem. IT IS COLD THERE.

As George Costanza would say; "I was in the pool!"

Re:Shrinkage

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad at least one /. reader got a laugh out of it. The rest must've been offended.

They should settle it by ...

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Why cant they settle it by a game of Rock Paper and Scissors?

Hope the judge follows the precedence set by another federal judge, as he ordered here.

Re:They should settle it by ...

[Rob T Firefly]

Why cant they settle it by a game of Rock Paper and Scissors?

Because Barney doesn't have enough fingers to make Scissors.

Re:They should settle it by ...

[mrchaotica]

So it's an easy win for the EFF (hint: choose paper)! And the downside is...?

Speaking about the Antichrist angle...

[T_ConX]

I found this on Wikipedia...

1. Barney is well-described with the following phrase:
CUTE PURPLE DINOSAUR
2. The old Latin alphabet used the letter 'V' in place of 'U', therefore the above phrase is modified to:
CVTE PVRPLE DINOSAVR
3. Letters that do not represent Roman numerals are removed:
CV-- -V--L- DI----V-
4. Add up the Roman numerals of the remaining letters:
C + V + V + L + D + I + V
100 + 5 + 5 + 50 + 500 + 1 + 5 = 666, which is the Number of the Beast.
5. Therefore, Barney is considered Satan.

HA! Because Numerology is TOTALY admisable in court!

Re:Speaking about the Antichrist angle...

[clear_thought_05]

Step 3 seems totally arbritrary. Yes, I understand it is humor, but I could just as well say "Letters that I don't like are removed" and derive some other meaning.

Re:Speaking about the Antichrist angle...

[SanityInAnarchy]

Step 3 is not arbitrary, because Step 4 is to add them up as roman numerals. I'd say it's the sum of steps 3 and 4 that are arbitrary -- after all, when it's BILLGATES3 that you want to be evil, you add up the ASCII codes. Basically, numerology is the art of taking statement X and making number Y, massaging statement X as necessary. Really, take anything you want to be evil, modify the statement/word and the process significantly, and you can almost always make 666 out of it.

Weird Al is not the best example to mention

[krell]

"The US Court System has previously ruled (need a reference here) that parody is protected under the First Amendment. That's how people like Weird Al get away with what they do."

Weird Al is not the best one to mention. He always tries to get permission from the original songwriters. In instances where he did not get permission ("Amish Paradise"), there was a communication mix-up and Weird Al was under the false impression he had gotten permission.

Re:Weird Al is not the best example to mention

[R2.0]

Weird Al does this because he is a decent guy and smart enough to know that he is part of an industry that relies on personal relationships, and he wants to keep good relations.

In the instance you pointed out ("Amish Paradise", I believe), lawsuits were never even mentioned. Just a pissed off rapper mouthing off. Is that redundant?

Re:Weird Al is not the best example to mention

[Wordplay]

Moreover, while Weird Al (and his fans) always calls his stuff parody, it's arguably satire, and not protected.

http://grove.ufl.edu/~techlaw/vol9/issue1/collado. html

The difference is that parody has to specifically make fun of the original, whereas satire uses portions of the original to make fun of something else. "Smells Like Nirvana" is plainly parody. Most of the rest of his stuff's borderline. I'd argue that "Jurassic Park" primarily makes fun of the titular movie, rather than "Macarthur Park."

It's for more than courtesy that he gets permission, I think.

Re:Weird Al is not the best example to mention

[Phroggy]

"Achey Breaky Song" and "Six Words Long" come to mind as being strictly parodies, and I would suggest that his polka medleys are parodies as well (changing the music to make fun of how dumb the lyrics really are). But often, it's a very gray area. Take "A Complicated Song" from the Poodle Hat album, based on Avril Lavigne's "Complicated". If this satire, what is it satire of? I'd call it parody, even though the lyrics aren't about the original song at all... and by that logic, songs like "Fat", "Lasagna", "Taco Grande", "I Love Rocky Road" and "Like a Surgeon" ought to be called parodies as well - they're not really making fun of anything, except the original song. Songs like "Yoda", "Ode to a Superhero", "The Saga Begins", "Ricky" and "Bedrock Anthem" are obviously satire... but aren't they parodies as well? Where do you draw the line?

Back from the dead!

[Rob T Firefly]

Barney's alive?? Didn't I kill that bastard in a Doom wad in 1995 that nobody prosecuted?

Barney as the antichrist

[GnarlyNome]

You mean he isn't ?
You've never had 4 toddlers on a saturday morning ....AAAARG!

The site in question

[SirClicksalot]

Couldn't find it in the linked article, found it on EFF page:
original site
site after complaint

Good 'ole Barny

[dubdays]

...claims the purple dinosaur is the Antichrist.

Well, I guess the truth hurts.

Right to parody is not the issue here

[Atroxodisse]

The only issue is if he has the right to take copyrighted material, the pictures he doctored, and post it on his website.

Re:Slashdot ALWAYS Rejects my Articles!

[Kadin2048]

Are you implying that the /. moderators have something against Fox News? I thought everybody on /. was fair and impartial?

I think you meant to say "fair and balanced."

Slashdot: We Dupe, you Decide.

Re:Slashdot ALWAYS Rejects my Articles!

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to say "somebody please think of the children!".

And you might read the FAQ about whinning about submissions.

Back off the gunwales, me hearty!

[krell]

"You've never had 4 toddlers on a saturday morning ....AAAARG!"

I know, I know, you just can't help it. But it's still a few weeks until the day

Re:Slashdot ALWAYS Rejects my Articles!

[MyLongNickName]

Worse. He is implying Slashdot Editors check the links.

Hooray

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our new fuzzy, purple overlords.

Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man...

[StressGuy]

of wealth and taste

HeHEY!! KIDS!!!

I dunno....doesn't quite work does it?

Insane IP laws

[Digital Vomit]

Hey, if you don't like it, go to Russia.

Re:Insane IP laws

[SanityInAnarchy]

Wait... that means...

In Soviet Russia, the EFF sues you?

WTF?

I was chased by a 6-foot-tall barney once.

[ClioCJS]

In Ocean City. On vacation. Walking around town with some friends, pretty buzzed. They told Barney to hug me. I said no. Barney started chasing me. I had to run a block to escape his clutches.

True story. I have disliked Barney significantly more since that incident.

More Evidence

[MOtisBeard]

...claims the purple dinosaur is the Antichrist.

And here's further proof! http://www.jlasso.com/jesus/showdown.html

Parody v. Satire?

[Ruff_ilb]

Parody's fair use, but satire isn't?

What's the difference; wikipedia has lost me

(Parody: "In contemporary usage, a parody is a work that imitates another work in order to ridicule, ironically comment on, or poke affectionate fun at the work itself, the subject of the work, the author or fictional voice of the parody, or another subject.")

(Satire: "Satire is a technique of writing or art which exposes the follies of its subject (for example, individuals, organizations, or states) to ridicule, often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change.")

Is the difference in the immitation?

Re:Parody v. Satire?

[Pharmboy]

An example in a nutshell: The Michael Jackson song "Bad". Weird Al makes a song called "Fat" that is similar to the song "Bad" to make fun of the song "Bad" itself. That is parody.

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:Parody v. Satire?

[tlhIngan]

An example in a nutshell: The Michael Jackson song "Bad". Weird Al makes a song called "Fat" that is similar to the song "Bad" to make fun of the song "Bad" itself. That is parody.

Except that Wierd Al gets permission from the original artist to do the parodies. Check it out some time - he couldn't get permission to do a song based on one of Eminem's songs (I believe Eminem even tried to sue Wierd Al over it), so he dropped the entire thing.

With "You're Pitiful", Wierd Al got permission from the original artist, but the label didn't want anything to do with it, so he released it online to prevent a label-on-label shootout.

Re:Parody v. Satire?

[Pharmboy]

The fact that he gets permission is a courtasy, to stay in good graces. It is NOT a legal requirement. If he didn't, he would still be legally able to do so, then, they would likely sue him, and after a long legal battle, he would win. He has just decided to get permission ahead of time to make life easier, not because the law requires it.

Re:Parody v. Satire?

[mabhatter654]

no, Weird all gets permisson from the rights holder... ie. the RIAA to do his parodies. He usually asks permission.. because it's always funnier if you get the inside scoop, but his legal permission comes from the record company... that's why the record companies are so picky about getting all the artists rights signed over.

A devout fan

[mantar]

As a devout fan of the cuddly purple dinosaur, and a close personal friend, I can say quite positively that Barney has no ill fellings towards this parody master. In his words: "All the great entertainers are made fun of... that someone would waste their time long enough to call me the anti-christ, is just another sign of my greatness".

BTW, Barney just finished filming an E! True Hollywood story to be aired sometime next month. The title of this episode is called "Peaking Under the Purple Rug: The Life of Barney". It chronologically covers his career starting with: "Jurassic Stardom", "How a Sex Change Changed My Life", "Purple, Die!", and finishing with "Mediarights Caused My Extinction".

beloved?

[Vellmont]

So...they...choose...to...sue...to...uphold...some one's...right...to...mock...and...deride...a...bel oved...children's...character?

Funny, when Barney first came out I remember a lot of people making fun of him. I've only seen clips of him, but he's pretty annoying to anyone over the age of 8 or 9. Why do you think there's so many parody sights?

Why isn't Satan suing?

[XenoPhage]

Perhaps the producers of Barney want the images removed because it's giving Satan a bad name? Hell, if I were Satan, I'd be suing Mr. Frankel for defamation of character.. Everyone know Barney is MUCH worse than Satan...

Re:Slashdot ALWAYS Rejects my Articles!

[Marcion]

Are the organohalogens the reason that Barney has not much going on down there too?

BarneySplat!

[Yonder Way]

I remember hanging out at ASCII Express's place during the BBS days. I ran a local BBS and so did he. AE had a special place in his heart for Barney and came up with a great door game that can be run as a standalone game in DOS as well. Anyone remember playing BarneySplat!?

Someone should put that in a VMware image so everyone today can enjoy it.

Use

[Mark_MF-WN]

Fair use? Of course not. Professional wrestling organizations trademarked "flipping the bird" (t) back in the late 90s. Unless you meant the sweater -- I think wearing a purple sweater is a service mark of the Purple Man Group (r).

Well, now ...

[ScrewMaster]

Barney may be the Antichrist (and I'm not saying he isn't) but there are an awful lot of lawyers that definitely qualify as minions.

So how much doctoring before its legal?

[mattnuzum]

I was at jupiter images today and thought to myself, "If you take an image w/out paying for it, make a few changes here and there, isn't it a derivative work? Aren't I free to use my derivative works however I see fit?"

I fully expect Jupiter to feel that its not OK... So how is it different taking a picture of Barney and modifying it from taking a stock photo and modifying it?

where's the beef?

[sadtrev]

The computerworld article contains a rather insipid description of the site from which my over-active imagination must imagine what the contents of the site must be like. It contains no link to any off-site source of information.
This reeks of the pre-google days of the wwweb when traditional media monopolies were desperately trying to hang on to their feebe prescriptive worldview.
Why is Slashdot linking to this site and not to a genuine uncensored source?

America, f**k off

[Anonymous Coward]

America, I wish you would fuck off. You don't need the atomic bomb, or chemical weapons, or weapons of mass destruction that can be deployed in 45 minutes. You can just infect the resut of the world with your fucked up "money is god" culture and watch the world wither at your feet. I am no terrorist, but I pray for the day Islam brings your fith to its knees.

Hail Odin, Hail Diversity, Hail Europe.

Re:America, f**k off

[ScrewMaster]

I am no terrorist, but I pray for the day Islam brings your fith to its knees.

Maybe you're not ... but I get the feeling it wouldn't take much to tip you over the edge. Besides, the Middle East doesn't need "the atomic bomb, or chemical weapons, or weapons of mass destruction" either, but you have them. Hypocrites like you are just pissed off because we got them first and have more of them. I guess that would irritate me too, but at least I'm not calling for my Money God to turn you into a molten radioactive lake. He'd like that too, because you annoy Him ... but not enough Americans can stomach the idea of genocide to let Him do it. Lucky for you, Bucko.

Frankly I enjoy reading the opinions of people from other countries: they have a lot to contribute to these discussions. But I'd appreciate it if you'd keep your barbaric, bigoted remarks to yourself. So I have a better idea: you fuck off.

Jihad.net - The Jihad to Destroy Barney

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what they think about this site.

http://www.jihad.net/

Re:Whose Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

How can a website be harrassment? If the makers of Barney don't like seeing the site, they can just not go there.

Only enough for it to be funny.

[SanityInAnarchy]

The difference is, the Barny site is a parody, and it doesn't matter at all wether Barney agrees with it or not.

Blarney is a child molester

[Abrax]

Blarney has a big diansaur peepee

"fat" jokes are not funny ... are they??

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do some people think it is ok to make fun of overweight people? A similar joke based on the fact that the woman was black or Chinese is socially unacceptable -- what is different about weight?

Re:"fat" jokes are not funny ... are they??

[Scudsucker]

Why do some people think it is ok to make fun of overweight people?

Crude but funny.

A similar joke based on the fact that the woman was black or Chinese is socially unacceptable

Depends on the joke. And it should be noted that people who get up in arms about these jokes don't care if they are aimed at men, especially white men. Take for example, the example of Ann Richards, the former governor of Texas, making a crack that "I know you all are worried about the economy in California but I want to assure you that it's a problem all over the country. In fact in Texas the price of gas has gone up so high that women who want to run over their husbands are car-pooling," a reference to Clara Harris who murdered her husband by running over him with a car multiple times. With his daughter in the passenger seat. Now imagine the reaction if a politician made a similar crack about Laci Peterson - they'd be lynched.

Mod parent up

[RealGrouchy]

Some yutz of a mod labeled PP by article submitter as "offtopic".

I was also curious why there was no link to the site, and PetManimal provides background.

(The fact remains, it's a pretty weak site, and Lyons Partnership is really grabbing at straws).

- RG>

IsueUUsueMe

[mrmeval]

Don't forget http://www.jihad.net/

And the story of a little boy destined to be the purple pedosaus greatest friend.
Brian Bull's Day of Barney
http://www.jihad.net/stories/nonjihad/dayofthebarn ey1.txt

I think these sue happy troglodytes need a dose of despongification.

THE victim or just another casualty?

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep seeing /.'ers linking to dustyfeet.com but I found another site that seem highly plausible or is at least another victim of Lyons Partnership. Look here: http://www.franksworld.com/scrape/issue03/anti.htm l

Hi mr editor.. forgetting something?

[Kerto]

I'm lazy, sue me. But wheres the link to this damn parody site?

Yes, you are wrong

[e_AltF4]

> Yes, satire is protected, but the use of copyrighted images is not.

Using copyrighted images as part of a parody is, and has long been, completely lawful under the doctrine of fair use and requires no permission from Lyons Partnership.
etc. etc.

legal analysis by EFF: http://dustyfeet.com/evil/legal2.html