“…strictly social parody.”
I’ve mentioned before that I’m a copyright nerd. As a creative guy I see that legal protection as a way to ensure our profession continues to grow, challenge and remain fairly compensated. Don’t get me wrong, there are vast gray areas and litigation shenanigans that drag to sludgy lows. But on the whole I respect that an artist has clear rights.
Case in point. Peace-friendly American Apparel was recently slapped with a $10 million lawsuit from director Woody Allen. The suit claims Allen’s reputation has been damaged by billboards using his image (the famous photo dressed as a Hasidic Jew from Annie Hall) without his permission.
According to the report, the suit alleges that the billboard falsely implied Allen sponsored, endorsed or was associated with American Apparel, and accuses the company of “blatant misappropriation and commercial use of Allen’s image.” The company, known for “provocative photography,” claims it was used as “strictly social parody.”
Fair enough. Parody is one of the ways a copyrighted work may be used legally without permission. Problem is American Apparel SELLS stuff. Their use of parody is clearly for commercial gain. If not, there wouldn’t be a logo on the billboards. I believe American Apparel is a great company. Unfortunately, this is a misstep that strikes at their socially-conscious image.
What level of parody do you think is legal for commercial use?
Comments
Would it matter if this was 20 years from now and Woody was dead? Would it matter if the law suit was brought to court by a niece twice removed who owned the rights to that movie?
Some creations become part of our cultural fabric. The question for me is when does work stop being owned by an individual, and become common cultural fodder?
You are right that AA is abusing the "satire" loophole. Personally, I think artists should have the rights to their work in their lifetime and should be protected from having their work being used by others for profit, which this billboard is clearly doing.
American Apparel is a for profit commercial company. Even if they were using the image as social parody, they were doing so to draw attention to their brand with the ultimate goal that you would purchase something from them.
So in this instance Woody Allen was right to sue to have them stop using his image.
Social parody can be used in the commercial realm. But it must stop short at implied endorsement without consent of the individual or group who's being parodied. Otherwise, it runs amok and you'd have "Brangelina" selling everything from lipstick to cars.
OKAY, Devils advocate:
See I am inclined to think as soon as something is out in the cultural zeitgeist it's fair game. Would this argument be happening if an artist recreated the image in a gallery painting or sculpture? Or what if I impersonated woody allen in a public setting?
We are all trying to sell something. Whether it's t-shirts, a 30,000 dollar painting or even our own image in other peoples minds.
Where do we draw the line? Corporations have been trying to copyright specific colors for years and most have failed. I think we can agree this is ridiculous. So what specific criteria makes the woody allen example any different?
The best way to "own" an image is just to use it better than anyone else. And the best way to sell stuff is to make quality goods in the first place.
I believe intellectual property creates more problems than it solves. Cultural open source is the only logical way to operate. It's the ultimate free economy.
Leave a Comment