How long till every studio that had made a porn parody gets sued and loses... - GoFuckYourself.com

xxxjay · 03-11-2013, 09:32 PM

The writing is on the wall....

Smash Reaches Settlement With Universal in 'Fifty Shades' Suit
http://www.xbiz.com/news/160447

People seem to think everyone in adult has millions of dollars to burn.

What sucks more, those stupid parodies are the only thing people are buying these days.

2MuchMark · 03-11-2013, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

The writing is on the wall....

Smash Reaches Settlement With Universal in 'Fifty Shades' Suit
http://www.xbiz.com/news/160447

People seem to think everyone in adult has millions of dollars to burn.

What sucks more, those stupid parodies are the only thing people are buying these days.

Good for Universal, and the lawsuit says it all : a "willful attempt to capitalize on the reputation of the book.". They are exactly right. Same goes for all the other "parody" vids out there in my opinion..

xxxjay · 03-11-2013, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Good for Universal, and the lawsuit says it all : a "willful attempt to capitalize on the reputation of the book.". They are exactly right. Same goes for all the other "parody" vids out there in my opinion..

As much as I hate to agree with you, I agree with you.

If the authors of some soft porn can make that case, imagine what the trademark/copyright holders of Spiderman, Stars Wars, Dukes Of Hazard, and every other mainstream movie that's been given a "not XXX" or "this ain't can do?

The case law is there now.

My maistream friends always asked me "How do they get away with that? How do they not get sued?"

Now I have the answer...

They don't.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 03-11-2013, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

As much as I hate to agree with you, I agree with you.

If the authors of some soft porn can make that case, imagine what the trademark/copyright holders of Spiderman, Stars Wars, Dukes Of Hazard, and every other mainstream movie that's been given a "not XXX" or "this ain't can do?

The case law is there now.

My maistream friends always asked me "How do they get away with that? How do they not get sued?"

Now I have the answer...

They don't.

Is this actually case law now, or simply an isolated settlement to avoid a court decision?

I hope my new favorite cookbook is safe:

ADG

mikesouth · 03-11-2013, 10:57 PM

There is a HUGE difference

parody and satire ARE protected free speech

what Smash Pictures did was neither...it was an "adaptation" that stuck very close to the books, nothing was parodied or satirized.

THAT is a clear violation and as such Smash was smart to settle...they;'d have been handed their ass.

Porno Dan · 03-11-2013, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

The writing is on the wall....

Smash Reaches Settlement With Universal in 'Fifty Shades' Suit
http://www.xbiz.com/news/160447

People seem to think everyone in adult has millions of dollars to burn.

What sucks more, those stupid parodies are the only thing people are buying these days.

Have to disagree that all parodies will be open to law suits

This was an isolated case as Smash VP Stuart Wall bragged to the LA Weekly that they made their movie just like the book.

It was clear this wasn't a parody, it was an their best effort to copy the books verbatim.

Also parodies are not the only thing consumers are buying these days, our lives shows continue to grow, and you yourself talk about the growth of your Porn Star Platinum program.

Maybe we should get together and make a wild parody of the new "OZ" movie.

You can play the Wizard and I will be Finley the flying monkey

xxxjay · 03-11-2013, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesouth

There is a HUGE difference

parody and satire ARE protected free speech

what Smash Pictures did was neither...it was an "adaptation" that stuck very close to the books, nothing was parodied or satirized.

THAT is a clear violation and as such Smash was smart to settle...they;'d have been handed their ass.

I get that two, I'm no lawyer, but it would seem like if they could win on this -- it opens up a lot of doors to take shots at parody producers.

DamianJ · 03-12-2013, 02:55 AM

It wasn't a parody. It wasn't protected because of this. They took someone else's IP and made a movie without their permission. This is a non story.

AllAboutCams · 03-12-2013, 03:02 AM

There all shit anyway

AdultPornMasta · 03-12-2013, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

The writing is on the wall....

Smash Reaches Settlement With Universal in 'Fifty Shades' Suit
http://www.xbiz.com/news/160447

People seem to think everyone in adult has millions of dollars to burn.

What sucks more, those stupid parodies are the only thing people are buying these days.

"How long till every studio that had made a porn parody gets sued and loses...?"

Probably not long.

There are indications that even to so-called "liberals" are turning against porn.

Barry-xlovecam · 03-12-2013, 03:42 AM

Not sure, but a parody purely for commercial gain using someone's IP and branding is probably not protected from copyright infringement.

This would apply the same as the screenplay adaptation of a novel.

RubyGoodnight · 03-12-2013, 06:38 AM

I agree that what Smash did wasn't covered by any sort of parody grey area, and at the end of it all, it sounds like that wasn't what their defense was.

From what I'm reading, it looks like they were going to question the 'copywriteability' of the books, since they were initially a fanfic of Twilight - that the books weren't EL James's intellectual property to start with since they were based on a 3rd party's work.

They also threw in the fact that the fanfic in its original form was available for free on the internet for years, making them public domain.

Quote:

On information and belief, as much as 89% of the content of the allegedly copyrighted materials grew out of a multi-part series of fan fiction called Masters of the Universe based on Stephenie Myer’s (sic) Twilight novels. On information and belief, this content was published online between 2009 and 2011 in various venues, including fanfiction.net and the person website of Ericka (sic) Leonard. On information and belief, much or all of this material was placed in the public domain. [...] Represented by attorney Steven Lauridsen, Smash wants a declaration that the federal copyright registrations for the three Fifty Shades of Grey books are invalid and unenforceable and that the defendants have not violated copyright or trademark laws.

Not so sure about the public domain part, but the whole fanfic angle would have been interesting to see played out in court. With how strongly Fifty Shades Limited protect their brand, it would have been a whole can of worms to deal with.

Fetish Gimp · 03-12-2013, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RubyGoodnight

Not so sure about the public domain part, but the whole fanfic angle would have been interesting to see played out in court. With how strongly Fifty Shades Limited protect their brand, it would have been a whole can of worms to deal with.

iirc the fifty shades started off as fanfic but were later developed into books, which would indicate that they're separate entities.

Grapesoda · 03-12-2013, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

The writing is on the wall....

Smash Reaches Settlement With Universal in 'Fifty Shades' Suit
http://www.xbiz.com/news/160447

People seem to think everyone in adult has millions of dollars to burn.

What sucks more, those stupid parodies are the only thing people are buying these days.

when I buy toys at the sex shops they tell me they have NEVER sold a parody

GonZo · 03-12-2013, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

when I buy toys at the sex shops they tell me they have NEVER sold a parody

Yeah clearly parody videos dont sell to anyone...

GetSCORECash · 03-12-2013, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porno Dan

Maybe we should get together and make a wild parody of the new "OZ" movie.

You can play the Wizard and I will be Finley the flying monkey

A must see movie! AVN/XBIZ awards before it is even made.

Bman · 03-12-2013, 09:10 AM

A parody must lampoon or satirize the original work.
A good litmus test would be could this be aired on a comedy show like SNL?

Watch the People vs Larry Flynt thats what it is about and the reason why Hustler makes the majority of those movies.

TisMe · 03-12-2013, 10:17 AM

Parody and satire, which are protected, weren't the issues here.

They claimed that the original work was in the public domain.

Also, settlements do not establish case law or precedent.

JP-pornshooter · 03-12-2013, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

when I buy toys at the sex shops they tell me they have NEVER sold a parody

sex shop stores are way expensive on toys, you should try amazon - plus it is shipped right to your door.
agree on the parodies - way lame, the exception was the rollerskating one, however i still didnt see it but thought it could be a good flick to watch.

Mutt · 03-12-2013, 10:37 AM

Parody and satire are protected speech BUT I would not want to be VIVID or any of these porn studios who produce them should they be sued. Saturday Night Live is a TV program which has a long history of satire/parody, it's a big part of what that show is about. VIVID is a hardcore porn video producer - that's what they're all about. A persuasive argument could be presented that those XXX 'parody' videos are first and foremost hardcore sex videos the same as every other video they produce and the 'parody' aspect is a thinly veiled attempt to capitalize on the trademarks/copyright of the parodied coprighted source material.

AJHall · 03-12-2013, 02:24 PM

You've got to assume that the big studios making the parodies had these conversations with their lawyers prior to producing them and wouldn't be doing it unless they feel they're operating within the law or that the risk is worth it.

I get it from a content/parody standpoint but have wondered for a lone time about the trademark/copyright issue with the titles and brands and how they get around that.

videobunch · 03-12-2013, 03:28 PM

I think once a kid gets a hold of something like XXX Smurfs or another title related to kids stories, not only will the org copyright holder sue but the parent in civil court. That is my take. I have talked to several studios and their lawyers have already warned them. Win or loose. Getting sued you loose no matter what just to defend yourself.

xxxjay · 03-12-2013, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by videobunch

I think once a kid gets a hold of something like XXX Smurfs or another title related to kids stories, not only will the org copyright holder sue but the parent in civil court. That is my take. I have talked to several studios and their lawyers have already warned them. Win or loose. Getting sued you loose no matter what just to defend yourself.

Agreed.

blackmonsters · 03-12-2013, 03:56 PM

From what I read so far it seems like they did everything wrong.

Just look at the title; you can't use the real name in your title period.

That's enough to lose by itself.
It's like buying the domain x-mart-sucks.com; it doesn't even matter what you put on
the domain. The well know company, x-mart, is going to win.

pornlaw · 03-12-2013, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJHall

You've got to assume that the big studios making the parodies had these conversations with their lawyers prior to producing them and wouldn't be doing it unless they feel they're operating within the law or that the risk is worth it.

I get it from a content/parody standpoint but have wondered for a lone time about the trademark/copyright issue with the titles and brands and how they get around that.

The trademark issue has recently been litigated in Los Angeles...

This case is from 2009 in the Central District of California (Los Angeles)

The owners of the Route 66 trademark sued Penthouse over their use of the Route 66 trademark in the title of a porn movie. The court sided with Penthouse in a summary judgment motion and dismissed all of the TM's owners claims.

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx...WAR3-2007-CURR

NaughtyVisions · 03-12-2013, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

From what I read so far it seems like they did everything wrong.

Just look at the title; you can't use the real name in your title period.

That's enough to lose by itself.
It's like buying the domain x-mart-sucks.com; it doesn't even matter what you put on
the domain. The well know company, x-mart, is going to win.

I agree with you. And I've been wondering for awhile now how Vivid and the other studios get away with it simply by slapping "XXX" or "A XXX Parody" or "This Ain't" into the title.

Porn has always done parodies. But they used to be more creative about it. "A Clockwork Orgy." "The Texas Dildo Masquerade." "Pulp Friction." "Edward Penishands." The titles alone scream parody, not "we're trying to cash in on a popular IP."

tony286 · 03-12-2013, 04:37 PM

It seems like alot of them really arent parodies just the actual movie script with hardcore sex scenes thrown in.

NaughtyVisions · 03-12-2013, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

The trademark issue has recently been litigated in Los Angeles...

This case is from 2009 in the Central District of California (Los Angeles)

The owners of the Route 66 trademark sued Penthouse over their use of the Route 66 trademark in the title of a porn movie. The court sided with Penthouse in a summary judgment motion and dismissed all of the TM's owners claims.

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx...WAR3-2007-CURR

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm actually not familiar with any Route 66 television programs that the case mentions, but I think this is apples and oranges. Penthouse used "Route 66" in an attempt to refer to a road trip, and the "adventures" that could occur along the way. They were not spoofing an existing tv show, or whatever else Roxbury Entertainment associates their use of Route 66 with. There was no real connection between the two except for the wording "Route 66."

As opposed to the films mentioned earlier in this thread, who are intentionally attempting to conjure thoughts of the original IP with their "parody" works.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see how the case you are referencing really has any connection to what is being discussed here. I'm drawing a blank at the moment, but I know for a fact there's plenty of instances of companies using the same wording/phrasing/branding/name for two entirely different types of products or IPs, and neither is infringing on the others trademark.

NaughtyVisions · 03-12-2013, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

It seems like alot of them really arent parodies just the actual movie script with hardcore sex scenes thrown in.

YES!!! I've been bitching about this for what seems like an eternity now. Porn used to do spoofs and parodies (see the examples I give above). Now they just throw some sex into the script, slap the word "parody" across the box cover, and ship it out.

Grapesoda · 03-12-2013, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GonZo

Yeah clearly parody videos dont sell to anyone...

maybe for you 1200-1500 copies is big money...'shrugs'

Grapesoda · 03-12-2013, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP-pornshooter

sex shop stores are way expensive on toys, you should try amazon - plus it is shipped right to your door.
agree on the parodies - way lame, the exception was the rollerskating one, however i still didnt see it but thought it could be a good flick to watch.

I have to check the motor to see if the vibrate enough and have a sturdy build... couldn't do that with online stuff

myjah · 03-12-2013, 05:03 PM

Without reading the other responses, my gut response is that Parody films OWE a % of profit to the Parent media they spin off from and the Parody project should be contractually agreed upon.

ReggieDurango · 03-12-2013, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by myjah

Without reading the other responses, my gut response is that Parody films OWE a % of profit to the Parent media they spin off from and the Parody project should be contractually agreed upon.

Wrong.

The real issue here is that Smash didn't wait until Universal released THEIR movie of 50 Shades of Grey... then Smash would have had no problems releasing a "parody" of that movie. However, Universal bought the "film" rights to adapt the book, and Smash made a "film" based on the book, which, since the Universal movie hasn't come out yet, they are not allowed to do - so it's not a parody issue, it's a film rights issue.

Our movie SPUNK'D is clearly a parody, we never got sued, and if we ever DO get sued I don't think they would have much of a case against us. Check out the trailer and you decide:
SPUNK'D TRAILER

myjah · 03-12-2013, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReggieDurango

Wrong.

The real issue here is that Smash didn't wait until Universal released THEIR movie of 50 Shades of Grey... then Smash would have had no problems releasing a "parody" of that movie. However, Universal bought the "film" rights to adapt the book, and Smash made a "film" which since the Universal movie hasn't come out yet, they are not allowed to do - so it's not a parody issue, it's a film rights issue.

LOL, no not Wrong. Stealing ideas is stealing. Buying film rights will vary in each situation. Profiting from an idea that doesn't belong to you is never right not matter the variables.

ReggieDurango · 03-12-2013, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by myjah

LOL, no not Wrong. Stealing ideas is stealing. Buying film rights will vary in each situation. Profiting from an idea that doesn't belong to you is never right not matter the variables.

Again, check out my example of our parody movie Spunk'd and tell me how exactly it is stealing? How is this NOT considered fair use parody in your opinion???

myjah · 03-12-2013, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReggieDurango

Again, check out my example of our parody movie Spunk'd and tell me how exactly it is stealing? How is this NOT considered fair use parody in your opinion???

I didn't look at your example. Without looking at it, I'd like to pose the question to you that if YOU were the mastermind (and I use that interchangeably with publisher/producer/etc) behind a blockbuster book/film/series/etc...don't you think that anyone who wants to Parody your idea in a porn film OR for that matter an After School Series, should pay you for the rights?

EDIT: I'm speaking about the RIGHT thing to do...not the legal thing.

ElConquistador · 03-12-2013, 05:35 PM

Anyone know what the settlement amount was? Universal doesn't settle for $20k.
I would imagine, Smash Pictures is done.

MaDalton · 03-12-2013, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElConquistador

Anyone know what the settlement amount was? Universal doesn't settle for $20k.
I would imagine, Smash Pictures is done.

i would really like to know that too

_Richard_ · 03-12-2013, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

i would really like to know that too

could a settlement be based on a percentage of profits?

blackmonsters · 03-12-2013, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by myjah

LOL, no not Wrong. Stealing ideas is stealing. Buying film rights will vary in each situation. Profiting from an idea that doesn't belong to you is never right not matter the variables.

It's perfectly legal to "steal ideas".

You can't copyright an idea.

http://legalwritepublications.com/co...right-an-idea/

myjah · 03-12-2013, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

It's perfectly legal to "steal ideas".

You can't copyright an idea.

http://legalwritepublications.com/co...right-an-idea/

Please see my note above that my response isn't about what is legal but about what is right.

Morals...yes, some people still have them.

NaughtyVisions · 03-12-2013, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReggieDurango

Our movie SPUNK'D is clearly a parody, we never got sued, and if we ever DO get sued I don't think they would have much of a case against us. Check out the trailer and you decide:
SPUNK'D TRAILER

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReggieDurango

Again, check out my example of our parody movie Spunk'd and tell me how exactly it is stealing? How is this NOT considered fair use parody in your opinion???

Now this ^^^^ is a fucking parody.

Spoof title, spoof celeb names. Kudos to you for putting out a REAL parody.

Mutt · 03-12-2013, 07:06 PM

This is a famous lawsuit, Walt Disney sued a group of underground comic book artists/writers call Air Pirates for copyright and trademark infringements. The comics this group created featured Mickey Mouse and other famous cartoon characters doing nasty stuff, weird sex, drugs etc The defense was the comics were parody, therefore protected speech. The trial court disagreed as did the US Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court denied them an appeal to that court.

This was 1979, maybe there are other cases that followed that have precedent now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Pirates

blackmonsters · 03-12-2013, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

This is a famous lawsuit, Walt Disney sued a group of underground comic book artists/writers call Air Pirates for copyright and trademark infringements. The comics this group created featured Mickey Mouse and other famous cartoon characters doing nasty stuff, weird sex, drugs etc The defense was the comics were parody, therefore protected speech. The trial court disagreed as did the US Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court denied them an appeal to that court.

This was 1979, maybe there are other cases that followed that have precedent now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Pirates

That's a different thing because they don't just copy the script they copy the art work.

When you look at their porn, you see Mickey Mouse fucking, not Dicky Mouse.
That's wrong.

A good example is "Itchy and Scratchy" : it is a parody of the violent "Tom and Jerry".
But Itchy and Scratchy look nothing like Tom and Jerry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Itc..._Scratchy_Show

Grapesoda · 03-12-2013, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

It's perfectly legal to "steal ideas".

You can't copyright an idea.

http://legalwritepublications.com/co...right-an-idea/

in Hollywood it's not called stealing... here's it's 'reimaging'

Mutt · 03-12-2013, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

That's a different thing because they don't just copy the script they copy the art work.

When you look at their porn, you see Mickey Mouse fucking, not Dicky Mouse.

No different than a Batman or Spiderman XXX parody, they use the same costumes.

blackmonsters · 03-12-2013, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

No different than a Batman or Spiderman XXX parody, they use the same costumes.

Links?

...

myjah · 03-12-2013, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

in Hollywood it's not called stealing... here's it's 'reimaging'

Sadly you're right and it pains me to say that.

ReggieDurango · 03-12-2013, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaughtyVisions

Now this ^^^^ is a fucking parody.

Spoof title, spoof celeb names. Kudos to you for putting out a REAL parody.

Why thank you, good sir. I was hoping someone would notice ;)

xxxjay · 03-12-2013, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElConquistador

Anyone know what the settlement amount was? Universal doesn't settle for $20k.
I would imagine, Smash Pictures is done.

Nope, they still book girls through OCModeling and pay their invoices. Maybe the settlement was a lot less.

03-11-2013, 09:32 PM	#1
xxxjay Tube groupie. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: LoScandalous, CA Posts: 13,482	How long till every studio that had made a porn parody gets sued and loses... The writing is on the wall.... Smash Reaches Settlement With Universal in 'Fifty Shades' Suit http://www.xbiz.com/news/160447 People seem to think everyone in adult has millions of dollars to burn. What sucks more, those stupid parodies are the only thing people are buying these days. __________________ http://donttellmehowtoruinmylife.com/ - http://www.jmdigitalmarketing.com/my...s-and-reviews/ - http://www.wouldyouhitit.org - http://shinyobjectreviews.com/

03-11-2013, 10:57 PM	#5
mikesouth Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: My High Horse Posts: 6,334	There is a HUGE difference parody and satire ARE protected free speech what Smash Pictures did was neither...it was an "adaptation" that stuck very close to the books, nothing was parodied or satirized. THAT is a clear violation and as such Smash was smart to settle...they;'d have been handed their ass. __________________ Mike South It's No wonder I took up drugs and alcohol, it's the only way I could dumb myself down enough to cope with the morons in this biz.

03-12-2013, 03:02 AM	#9
AllAboutCams Femcams.com Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: bjcam.com Posts: 12,222	There all shit anyway __________________ Binance - Blockchain and Crypto Asset Exchange Chaturbate make money in cams

03-12-2013, 03:42 AM	#11
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	Not sure, but a parody purely for commercial gain using someone's IP and branding is probably not protected from copyright infringement. This would apply the same as the screenplay adaptation of a novel. Last edited by Barry-xlovecam; 03-12-2013 at 03:48 AM..

03-12-2013, 09:10 AM	#17
Bman Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Redirecting your traffic Posts: 1,679	A parody must lampoon or satirize the original work. A good litmus test would be could this be aired on a comedy show like SNL? Watch the People vs Larry Flynt thats what it is about and the reason why Hustler makes the majority of those movies. __________________ ICQ 228211529

03-12-2013, 02:55 AM	#8
DamianJ Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land Posts: 15,808	It wasn't a parody. It wasn't protected because of this. They took someone else's IP and made a movie without their permission. This is a non story.

03-12-2013, 10:17 AM	#18
TisMe Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,719	Parody and satire, which are protected, weren't the issues here. They claimed that the original work was in the public domain. Also, settlements do not establish case law or precedent.

03-12-2013, 10:37 AM	#20
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	Parody and satire are protected speech BUT I would not want to be VIVID or any of these porn studios who produce them should they be sued. Saturday Night Live is a TV program which has a long history of satire/parody, it's a big part of what that show is about. VIVID is a hardcore porn video producer - that's what they're all about. A persuasive argument could be presented that those XXX 'parody' videos are first and foremost hardcore sex videos the same as every other video they produce and the 'parody' aspect is a thinly veiled attempt to capitalize on the trademarks/copyright of the parodied coprighted source material. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

03-12-2013, 02:24 PM	#21
AJHall Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 1,306	You've got to assume that the big studios making the parodies had these conversations with their lawyers prior to producing them and wouldn't be doing it unless they feel they're operating within the law or that the risk is worth it. I get it from a content/parody standpoint but have wondered for a lone time about the trademark/copyright issue with the titles and brands and how they get around that. __________________ Owner, Elevated X - The 4 Time Award Winning Adult CMS Software Company Used by More Than 2000 Adult Sites.

03-12-2013, 03:28 PM	#22
videobunch Largest Content Provider Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: www.VideoBunch.com Posts: 778	I think once a kid gets a hold of something like XXX Smurfs or another title related to kids stories, not only will the org copyright holder sue but the parent in civil court. That is my take. I have talked to several studios and their lawyers have already warned them. Win or loose. Getting sued you loose no matter what just to defend yourself. __________________ Kevin www.VideoBunch.com Email - Kevin @@ Aned .com or Team - videobunch

03-12-2013, 03:56 PM	#24
blackmonsters Making PHP work Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: 🌎🌅🌈🌇 Posts: 20,488	From what I read so far it seems like they did everything wrong. Just look at the title; you can't use the real name in your title period. That's enough to lose by itself. It's like buying the domain x-mart-sucks.com; it doesn't even matter what you put on the domain. The well know company, x-mart, is going to win. __________________ Make Money with Porn

03-12-2013, 04:37 PM	#27
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	It seems like alot of them really arent parodies just the actual movie script with hardcore sex scenes thrown in.

03-12-2013, 05:03 PM	#32
myjah Back in the harbor Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 11,482	Without reading the other responses, my gut response is that Parody films OWE a % of profit to the Parent media they spin off from and the Parody project should be contractually agreed upon. __________________ VP of Marketing AVN Media Network Skype: AVNJill [email protected]

03-12-2013, 05:35 PM	#37
ElConquistador Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: West Coast Posts: 520	Anyone know what the settlement amount was? Universal doesn't settle for $20k. I would imagine, Smash Pictures is done.

03-12-2013, 07:06 PM	#43
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	This is a famous lawsuit, Walt Disney sued a group of underground comic book artists/writers call Air Pirates for copyright and trademark infringements. The comics this group created featured Mickey Mouse and other famous cartoon characters doing nasty stuff, weird sex, drugs etc The defense was the comics were parody, therefore protected speech. The trial court disagreed as did the US Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court denied them an appeal to that court. This was 1979, maybe there are other cases that followed that have precedent now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Pirates __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!