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

[SinisterGehe]

Isn't this bit late to do that?
I don't know about America but in Finnish law that is impossible since the product (episode), been released for long while ago and reproduced already. It is old and cold trail.
But I don't know American law seems rather odd to me anyway.

 

[hyperdrachen]

Matt and Trey Parker ripoff content? SAY IT AIN'T SO!

 

[DTWolfwood]

I have to admit, i love the original samwell vid just for its sheer comedic affect on those whom are insecure about their sexuality. I showed it to my college buddies way back when and i damn near laugh myself to death! i was in tears and it started to hurt! XD

Still this seems a bit late doesn't it? The company must be strap for cash or something to motivate them to file a lawsuit 3 years after the fact.

 

[Sirisaxman]

You'd think that dude wanted that video to sink into history never to be mentioned again, I guess this is what you shall be known as forever, the What What In My Asshole Guy

It's What What In The Butt, sir.

 

[boholikeu]

As far as I can tell, this is in one hell of a grey area right now. On one hand, their version of "What what in (the butt) doesn't poke fun oft he original itself, and can be counted as non-parody. On the other hand, later in the episode, they say "Hey look, it's the what what in my asshole kid!" which MIGHT spin it as parody...

I have no clue where this will go

Its south park. When is anything they do not a parody? They killed Justin bieber for christ sake

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.

I think it'll end up being cleared under being a parody though.

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.

(see: ding fries are done and peanut butter jelly, neither are parodies just straight up reproductions)

You guys are missing a very important fact:

The song (an extremely sexual one at that) is performed by a clueless child.

How is that not a parody?

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

As far as I can tell, this is in one hell of a grey area right now. On one hand, their version of "What what in (the butt) doesn't poke fun oft he original itself, and can be counted as non-parody. On the other hand, later in the episode, they say "Hey look, it's the what what in my asshole kid!" which MIGHT spin it as parody...

I have no clue where this will go

Its south park. When is anything they do not a parody? They killed Justin bieber for christ sake

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.

I think it'll end up being cleared under being a parody though.

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.

(see: ding fries are done and peanut butter jelly, neither are parodies just straight up reproductions)

You guys are missing a very important fact:

The song (an extremely sexual one at that) is performed by a clueless child.

How is that not a parody?

But "It's a clueless child" might not stand in court, especially when they have a clueless minor performing, as you said, a very sexual song. I know worse has gone on with south park, but still, it's hard to see where this will go

 

[boholikeu]

But "It's a clueless child" might not stand in court, especially when they have a clueless minor performing, as you said, a very sexual song. I know worse has gone on with south park, but still, it's hard to see where this will go

So they would argue it should be considered obscene? I don't really see where you're going with this.

The basis of the joke is that a child is singing an explicit song. I'd like to see a lawyer argue that this is *not* a parody. I don't really see anything short of a "wookie arguement" working here.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

You'd think that dude wanted that video to sink into history never to be mentioned again, I guess this is what you shall be known as forever, the What What In My Asshole Guy

It's What What In The Butt, sir.

Been waiting for that exact reply since I posted, thank you

 

[mjc0961]

It's a parody. Get over it. Time to get that stick out of your butt (out of your butt) Samwell.

 

[murphy7801]

It frustrates me when otherwise ignored and irrelevant people who get made relevant by someone parodying or whatever their material and then turn around and sue them as if they never wanted to be known.

Its like, if I did a video song, and South Park came along and did a parody of it and suddenly people know me, why would I SUE them ?

And you would lose horrifically because you can parody anything for humour purposes and get away with it its called freedom of expression.

 

[Akalistos]

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.

Therefore, shouldn't they be gratefull? It put them on the map and thus giving them a "butload" of subscriptions. (Pun intended)

I would like to start a posse who will go around punching people who sue for stupid reasons in the face. Who is with me!

I would be with you in a normal setting but I'm conflicted. On one hand, it poke fun at the song but on the other hand, it's VIACOM. It's a win-win scenario.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

Large media companies have been going on copyright witch hunts for over a decade now while shamelessly ripping off and even watermarking viral content produced by the masses. About time the masses started striking back.

That was my first thought too. South Park or not, it's still a Viacom property that ripped off something from YouTube. The only way this could get any more ironic would be if YouTube themselves were the ones filing the suit, somehow.

Part of me wants to believe that even if the guy has no legal ground to stand on and is clearly just doing it for the money he could win, it would still be good overall if he wins. Part of me wants to believe that if Joe Average sues Big Corporate Television for bullshit copyright claims, he'll win, and if they try doing it to him, they'll lose, and that even if this is a horrible double standard, it's still a good thing.

What the hell is wrong with me?

 

[Sirisaxman]

You'd think that dude wanted that video to sink into history never to be mentioned again, I guess this is what you shall be known as forever, the What What In My Asshole Guy

It's What What In The Butt, sir.

Been waiting for that exact reply since I posted, thank you

No problem! I'm surprised no one else said it earlier, so I jumped on the chance.

On topic, this is plain recockulous. I foresee this case being thrown out. (I hope!)

 

[kjurick]

Ironic that they're suing 3 years later, I wonder if their hype from the original video has faded too quickly and now they need money. South park is constantly a scape goat.. for religious groups to be mad at, celebrities to sue.. its ridiculous really. I sincerely hope that this lawsuit isn't taken seriously. I'm not even an avid south park fan, but I think this is just crazy.