Brownmark Sues South Park Over "What What (In the Butt)" Parody

[Chesterfield Snapdragon McFisticuffs]

I'd feel sorry for Viacom but they were the guys who took the music out of Music Television so..

 

[twilinova07]

This is really surprising. As posted before, the guy who made the video originally was on T0sh.0 and basically said he gave them permission for its use.

Im sure trey ans stone are just as surprised as the rest of us.

 

[Sean Strife]

according to Samwell, they got his permission to do the parody.

Did they not go through the proper channels?

Hell, I even remember from some faux interview from Samwell's YouTube channel where he mentioned he was a FAN of the show!

 

[Baldr]

In order to be protected by the parody fair use clause, the use of the artwork to make fun of itself, there is a clear line between this and satire, which is not exactly protected.

Weird Al always call the artist before writing a so called parody song and it is usually considered an honor in the music industry. That is why he almost never gets sued.

 

[mireko]

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....

Well, my head just exploded.

Teaches me to think before posting. The statute of limitations on copyright infringement is three years, so.. yeah I was pretty far off.

I wonder if we'll be seeing more of these stories popping up. Between this and the Inception parody it seems like South Park hasn't been above ripping off random internet videos for a while.

 

[XMark]

Parody = fair use. Case closed.

 

[Danpascooch]

Oh my god, I KNEW they lifted that from College Humor! That line about the dead wife's thoughts manifesting as trains was STRAIGHT FROM THE VIDEO!

 

[Dr_Roxo24]

its been quite a while since that episode came out. slowpoke is slow

 

[A Pious Cultist]

Parody = fair use. Case closed.

How is a word-for-word version of the song a parody?

Seems more like they just played a funny song... that isn't really a parody.


Sort of like how Wolverine's flipping the bird in the absysmal Epic Movie wasn't a parody since it happened in the film it was immitating.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

2007 episode? Wtf took them so long?


Btw Butters >>> Most things

Nobody cares about his old video anymore so now he has to try and get attention (and money) by milking it in another way?

So how long before the courts throw out this BS case? Seriously, if they wanted to sue back in 07 that would be something but it's nearly 2011. It's a bit late.

 

[Yokai]

Good god. Imagine how embarrassing it would be to be the lawyer for either side.

 

[Elesar]

Maybe Jim Sherman should sue Samwell since he ripped off Rocky Horror for the lips intro.

More seriously Samwell can go fuck himself. I'm not a big fan of South Park (or rather, not a fan at all) but the idea that the person being parodied can sue the person making the parody is an insanely dangerous. What's next, Stephanie Meyer suing Matt Groening for the Twilight segment on the last Treehouse of Horror?

 

[obisean]

I await the parody episode of this situation.

 

[Aurgelmir]

Awesome reactiontime there.... the episode came out, what two years ago?

 

[fgdfgdgd]

Funny story, i never actually knew it was a parody of an internet video, shows how much i was on the net in '07. OP: He's just trying to get attention because his one hit wonder was forgotten.

 

[kouriichi]

Uhhh.... how can you not think this is a parody?

Ugh. Humans.....

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Brownmark Sues South Park Over "What What (In the Butt)" Parody

Viacom and Comedy Central are being sued by Brownmark Films over South Park's parody of the viral YouTube hit, "What What (In the Butt)".

On Friday, Brownmark Films filed a copyright infringement suit in U.S. District Court against Viacom and Comedy Central, the producers of South Park, over the character Butters performing the song "What What (In the Butt)" during the 2007 episode "Canada On Strike!".

The South Park rendition of the video, which some would argue helped the original Samwell version reach the viral heights it did, is pose-for-pose, thrust-for-thrust a near-perfect animated adaptation of the internet video. Because of this, Brownmark claims that the infringement is "willful, intentional, and purposeful, in disregard of and indifferent to the rights of Brownmark." They want a permanent injunction and statutory damages.

The case will likely come down to whether the South Park video is considered a parody, and therefor protected, or infringement.

This comes after an embarrassing incident last month, when South Park was accused of lifting material from CollegeHumor with regards to several Inception jokes used in the episode "Insheeption", which the creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, quickly apologized for.

If you care to see the weirdest pair of clips this side of an X-rating, you can find the original Samwell video here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbGkxcY7YFU].

Source: The Hollywood Reporter via IGN

Permalink

I remember it being mentioned on Tosh.0 that Samwell gave Comedy Central PERMISSION to use his song, mentioning they asked him about using his song. Given they had artists permission and the fact this episode is 3 years old I don't see shit happening here.

 

[Weresquirrel]

Even if the whole "parody" thing is up for debate, the fact remains that he knew about this being made and waited 3 years to do anything about it. Even if the statute of limitations doesn't smother this case before it goes anywhere, the South Park Lawyers could just say: "It was three years ago dude, why start now?"

If the episode was damaging enough to get the lawyers involved, he should've done it years back.

 

[Desert Tiger]

isn't this covered under some sort of act where you can parody copyrighted material, i mean thats how internet reviewers can do their reviews.

That's what the court case is to decide on.

 

[Desert Tiger]

Stupid as:

1) 3 years too late
2) it's obviously parody
3) the work didn't cause any damages, it popularised and made the video viral
4) it's a viral video, it had no value anyway. Only youtube made any money off it.

You get money on Youtube via adverts directed from your channel, also directly affected by how many subscriptions you have.

It's why people always beg you for subs.