Westbrook discusses the risk of copyright infringement regarding the spoof ad a student of his made, arguing that such an ad may be considered derivative, becoming illegal if approval isn't obtained from the creator of the text or image to distribute it.
Westbrook seems to provide a justified assessment when it comes to educational fair use, and I don't doubt that L'Oreal could be quite successful if it attempted a lawsuit, but I wonder if another fair use exemption isn't being considered here. I'm no expert in copyright law, but I believe that another exception exists for reproduction for purposes of satire or parody. It seems to me that Sara's ad fits this example.
And there are plenty of examples of how writers have challenged others regarding copyright based on the exception of satire or parody. Garrison Keillor, that good old Minnesotan humorist, one a battle with former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura when he satirized him in a novel. In another incident more similar to Sara's ad, Al Franken won a case against Fox, who sued him for the use of their slogan "Fair and Balanced" on Franken's book cover. The book was defended by Franken's lawyers on the grounds that it is satire. The judge essentially threw the case out of the court, asserting that "There is no likelihood of confusion as to the origin and sponsorship of the book ... or that consumers will be misled that Fox or Mr. O'Reilly are sponsors of the book," (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/22/fox.franken/).
Isn't this similar to the case of Sara's Ad. Would anyone confuse the Sara's production as one that is sponsored or created by L'Oreal? In this case, isn't it justified on ground that it is a satirical production meant to criticize both L'Oreal and the makeup industry?
Again, not that L'Oreal couldn't be quite successful, if it wanted to be, at squelching such productions, as has also happened in the past. Various creative writers have been silenced when producing satirical fiction based on the characters of Batman and Robin. DC Comics typically threatens to sue whenever these characters are depicted, and when challenged by an expensive lawsuit, publishers of such fiction generally back down quickly. It seems in matters of composing and publishing, Copymight makes Copyright.
About Me
- J. Edwin Paschke-Johannes
- n. ('jA-'ed-w&n-pash-kE-jO-'han-es) 1. A male homosapien of U.S. citizenship, w/ diffused hereditary origins from the Polish, Swiss, German, Lithuanian, Nebraska white trash, and Minnesota backwoods missionary. 2. Name of said male homosapien. 3. One of few individuals, if not the only one existent, to be credited, on public records and various publicly distributed documents, with a Bachelor of Arts in English Education from Midland Lutheran College and a Master of Arts in English, specializing in Creative Writing (Fiction), from Iowa State University, and enrolled in a doctoral program in English, specializing in Rhetoric and Composition, at Ball State University. 4. One of a married couple that have adopted two children, a precocious female and winsome male, from Ethiopia, thus constructing a nuclear family known as “multicultural,” or specifically “transracial,” and grafting onto the couple’s mutual/individual family tree a branch that, to America's racial psyche, is considered radically divergent.
1 comment:
Jeff,
He says something about parody towards the end of the essay. He doesn't think that would hold water because it is increasingly not being upheld in court.
Though, I agree with you. I also think that he would be under fair use to have it in College English because it is for research, which is another fair use.
Jackie
Post a Comment