Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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
http://dustyfeet.com/evil/enemy.html
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.
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.
Couldn't find it in the linked article, found it on EFF page:
original site
site after complaint
It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong
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.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
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.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I hope the EFF really lays the smack down on Lyons Partnership.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
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.