I disagree. There is a big difference between the kind of "parody" stuff that Larry Flynt used to be able to pull off taking shots at Jerry Falwell and his ilk and what adult has been doing with mainstream movies.

For example...


You say that 50 Shades is a direct ripoff of the book (which I am not familiar with and didn't even know there was more than one of them) and 'Star Wars XXX'?

I was at the premier of it in LA I've never watch the whole thing, but they pretty much copied the plot, characters, storyline, and costumes...If I was a lawyer for Dreamworks, I'd be foaming at the mouth.

How is this any different than the 50 shades thing?

I really have no opinion of this, just adding my...

:2 cents:

No, I would welcome the free marketing and the novelty of it all.

Now, again, watch my sample:

SPUNK'D TRAILER

MY question to YOU, Myjah, is after watching this, do you feel I "stole" anything from anyone? Do you feel I owe a % of sales???

This...the only people who win in a lawsuit are the lawyers.

for the most part anyway

I am not an attorney, so please don't take this as legal advice:

A settlement is not case law and does not set a precedent.

Just for the record... an undisclosed settlement means there is no case law precedent. All it means is Universal cost them so much so quickly in fees to fight it that they realized it wasn't worth it and so they settled, end of story.

oops, beat me to it... that's what I get for being long-winded.:winkwink:

That is true. However I'm sure Smash didn't settle because they didn't want to establish case law. They paid because they had to.

Flynt's case seriously lopsided his company for a while too and he was making bank at the time. The next time a similar case landed on his doorstep he settled.

This kind of litigation is very expensive for a result that no matter how good a team of $350 to $1500 an hour legal brains you have working the defense none can provide a certain outcome. Most will settle if pressured to do so.

However, most don't want to sue either because it can either raise more attention than it is worth, there is too little cash to make it worthwhile, or even because they do stand as parody and are not seen as a detriment but a compliment to the original.

Parody porn isn't new nor is it going to go away. I have avoided it since the original Batman porn parody and of course the classic Edward Penishands parody...

One reason they don't sue is the so called parodies is that they are so badly done, so unfunny, so un sexy that it would be like the sporty guy kicking a cripple.

They are the successful movie makers they don't need the bad publicity.

Just like suing 12 year olds for making their own Star Wars movie.

Ok, this is the last time I'll shamelessly post the trailer for our own parody... I might be biased, but I think ours is well done, funny, and sexy!:
Spunk'd Trailer

Dude, you deserve it. XXXJay pointed out earlier in this thread (on this page) about Star Wars XXX simply inserting sex into the script and calling itself a parody.

Spunk'd is obviously a creative, witty and funny parody that actually pokes fun at the original IP. This, my friends, is how a parody should be done.

Screw all this "This Ain't" and "A XXX Parody" shit that the "big" studios put out. You want to see a REAL porn parody? Check out Spunk'd!

You proved my point

I saw the trailer for the taxi driver parody, nothing looked funny about it. It looked like a serious movie with sex in it

Also to make sure the material isn't bullshit and the real shape and size.


No opinion on the original topic.

I haven't thought about that in forever

I'm wondering about porn parodies of PORN!

"This Ain't Brazzers"

"Not Naughty America"

:1orglaugh

You know....

If you actually poke fun at their company, sites or style of their material, then it should be fine. I would love to see it happen, because you know within seconds they'll be bitching and moaning about it.