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

[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

[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

[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

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.

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?

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: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.

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.

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?

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: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).