The GOOHF Card is an Obvious Parody
Is our "Get Out of Hell Free" card an infringement of the copyright held by Hasbro, which owns the "MONOPOLY®" board game? Several people have asked. Our answer: No. Let's start with the copyright law -- Title 17, United States Code, Chapter 1, Section 107: "Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use", which reads:
The several "factors" courts are required to consider to determine whether a use of a copyrighted work is "fair use" or infringement are: Weekly Weird News
For an example of how "fair use" is applied to cases of commercial parody in real life, consider Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., (1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 2693 (2nd Cir. Feb. 19, 1998)). Briefly stated, photographer Annie Leibovitz took a photograph of actress Demi Moore, pregnant and in the nude, which was used as a cover for Vanity Fair magazine. Paramount Pictures, in promoting the movie Naked Gun 33 1/3, recreated the very famous photograph with a body double and pasted actor Leslie Nielsen's face on the double's body. Leibovitz sued, claiming copyright infringement. Paramount argued that the ad, even though it was obviously commercial in nature, was a parody under the fair use clause. The court found that the advertisement itself was "sufficient commentary to qualify as parody" and rejected arguments that parody should only be protected when the copyright owner would prohibit use of the original. The decision echoed a 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding 2 Live Crew's parody of the Roy Orbison song Pretty Woman, which firmly established that parody is a defense against copyright infringement claims, even in commercial situations. Interestingly, 2 Live Crew had asked permission to create the parody, but that permission was specifically denied. The rap group did the parody anyway and was sued for copyright infringement. The Supreme Court ruled against Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., which owned the rights to Pretty Woman. ConclusionOur "Get Out of Hell Free" card is not only parody, it is an obvious parody. Under the clear provisions of the U.S. Copyright law's "fair use" clause, as affirmed by federal court cases, it is not a violation of Hasbro's copyright on "MONOPOLY®". Return to the "Chi" page or Return to the GOOHF site. |
4 Comments on This Entry
All comments on this site are reviewed prior to being published. Spammers: don't waste your time. The posting criteria are simple: if a comment is worth visitors' time to read, it's approved. If not, it's not.
Posted by Don in Nawlins on February 27, 2009:
Hasbro thinks they have a Chance to pad their Community Chest because Mr. Monopoly (nee Rich Uncle Pennybags) is a salable commodity. Games at McDonald's and Subway have used the Monopoly images to represent "properties" in a collect-and-win promotion. This is far from the original brand name purpose and might not be bringing in the big bucks anymore.
Posted by Emilio, Mumbai on March 3, 2009:
You lit a fire.
They sat their butt on it and got burnt.
They moved off.
Years later they forgot how it felt and are back with their butts.
Posted by Mark, Minnesota on March 3, 2009:
A google image search for "Rich Uncle Pennybags" returns a ton of interesting hits, including underwear, a number of protest posters, and a cameo appearance in The Simpsons. I'll bet those attorneys are busy going after all those scofflaws who are using the Pennybags image to make a satirical point about greed and wealth.
---
Underwear?! -rc
Posted by Thor, Atlanta on March 9, 2009:
If you think Hasbro is mad at you, imagine what they'll want to do with this: http://site.despair.com/kleptocracy/