This was clearly a parody. The collegehumor inception rip off episode, which I sadly haven't seen yet, I hear is a complete rip off and I'm glad they apologized for it.
Brownmark Sues South Park Over "What What (In the Butt)" Parody
- Thread starter Scott Bullock
- Start date
-_- There needs to be laws against suing over trivial things. There also needs to be a law supporting insta-taco machines!
There are limits to what can be considered parody, and copying something move for move is likely to cost them their license to "parody" works in this case.dogstile said:Its south park. When is anything they do not a parody? They killed Justin bieber for christ sake
Especially in the context of the song title.runedeadthA said:
It's not that simple, actually. Weird Al doesn't copy anything line for line or "pose for pose." Additional bits that help him include: (almost) always getting permission from/working with the artist in question, using his own musicians (Court rulings on use of someone else's musical tracks also probably set up precedent for choreography), and genuinely being relatively inoffensive. There are probably more, too.RanD00M said:
While it may be "line for line" and "pose for pose" there is still a key difference:
It's Butters.
I'm fairly sure that this would make it a parody which is protected under fair use, (or something.)
South Park has gone through more serious lawsuits than this one, lawsuits that make this one just seem silly.
It's Butters.
I'm fairly sure that this would make it a parody which is protected under fair use, (or something.)
South Park has gone through more serious lawsuits than this one, lawsuits that make this one just seem silly.
Look at the bright side, everything seems to point at Trey and Matt winning this, so South Park gets even more notoriety and Brownmark becomes a brownstreak.
Trust Butters, though, to get the boys into trouble again.
Trust Butters, though, to get the boys into trouble again.
Not necessarily, looks like they did a Family Guy and just reproduced it. You can't really parody something humorous that easily, and certainly not just by having South Park characters sing it.SnipErlite said:
(see: ding fries are done and peanut butter jelly, neither are parodies just straight up reproductions)
Except they actually did license the song for use in South Park. The reason Brownmark is giving now is that they licensed the song but not the rights to do a shot-for-shot remake.Zachary Amaranth said:There are limits to what can be considered parody, and copying something move for move is likely to cost them their license to "parody" works in this case.dogstile said:Its south park. When is anything they do not a parody? They killed Justin bieber for christ sake
So they got the license and this happened two years ago without anyone complaining. I'm not a lawyer by any means, but this whole case seems kind of hopeless.
I kinda have to side with the original video creator on this one. I had never heard of the "what what in the butt" video until south park and after watching thought it was something they'd come up with on their own. It wasn't until several weeks later when I found out they were getting it from a youtube video. (yes despite the theme for that episode)
So yeah, I think this guy is in the right to at the very least get south park to mention him in the episode's credits. Then again its been quite awhile since it originally aired so why go after them now? I mean the guy was on Tosh.0 so how could he not have known south park had lifted it.
So yeah, I think this guy is in the right to at the very least get south park to mention him in the episode's credits. Then again its been quite awhile since it originally aired so why go after them now? I mean the guy was on Tosh.0 so how could he not have known south park had lifted it.
Mmmm true, but who knows. To be honest, if I were him I just wouldn't give a shit. Come on, it;s from a comedy programme. Ah well...A Pious Cultist said:
So you're talking in a circle right around the issue. Parody still won't protect it.mireko said:
As to the time restraint, I'm not a lawyer but I do have access to the internet and can run a search engine. There's no demand to sue within six months or a year. The time passed in this case is irrelevant and will have no impact. Hardly hopeless. But especially in the context that people are crying "parody" without understanding parody rights. Mostly, that it's some sort of "get out of jail free" card.
That doesn't apply to you specifically. But what you quoted pointed out the line-for-line remake, and you pointed out the fact that it was licensed (unrelated) and he objects to the line for line remake part (Which was what I was pointing out in the first place), so....
Yeah, parody is protected under fair use. Also, Weird Al does personally ask the artists if its okay to rip them off before he puts his stuff out, so if a Weird Al song shows up it's usually assumed the original writers and performers are cool with it.RanD00M said:
Except for 'You're Pitiful' Where the label blocked it, hence it was never commercially released.