Re: Lame "dilution" assertion by United Feature Syndicate, Inc.

On Wed, Apr 21, 1999, Michael Juhre <michael.juhre[_at_]aig.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 1999, Adrienne Meddock <ameddock[_at_]bambi.acc.nccu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > To add fuel to the fire, there is the line of comment based on the
> > concurrence to the 2 Live Crew (Acuff-Rose v. Campbell) case that
> > says that to be a parody, the new use must "target" the work from
> > which it takes. Judge Posner wrote an influential article claiming
> > that target parody, as it is becoming known, is fair use, but mere
> > borrowings that do not make fun of the source upon which the parody
> > version is based are really derivative works and must seek permission
> > and pay the original author. This is a thread in the Dr. Seuss case.
> > There, the new authors used Seuss to parody OJ, but not to parody
> > Seuss. Therefore, in these terms, it was a "source" parody and not
> > a "target" parody.
> >
> > Making fun of Dilbert seems to fit within the "target" area and thus
> > be distinguishable from Seuss. But than again, they didn't send me
> > the scarry c&d letter :) And of course, that only addresses the
> > copyright issue, and not the dilution argument. Has anyone mention
> > the pre-federal dilution case of Hormel v. Henson? There is parody
> > that was found to be non-diluting and was in the "taget" realm.
>
> Hormel v. Hanson -- that was the "Spam" incident I believe? I will
> definitely look into that. yes I agree the "target" of the parody
> here is distinguishable from the *Seuss* decision. On a side note,
> I am concerned that some judges might not comprehend a comment put
> forth by a particular parodist, and decide erroneously that the work
> is not transformative.
>
> The Dilbert parodies really have only one comment: that the author
> finds Dilbert cartoons and its ilk to be profound banal. I think
> that's a valid statement. But I could easily imagine some judges
> missing that.

Just be sure you don't confuse the analysis of parody as a defense to TRADEMARK infringement or dilution (which was at issue in Hormel v. Henson) with the analysis of parody as a defense to COPYRIGHT infringement (which is at issue in the Dilbert matter). Trademark infringement concerns itself with consumer confusion as to source; trademark dilution concerns itself with weakening the trademark or the goodwill and reputation associated with it; while copyright law concerns itself with the unauthorized taking of a property right.

Robert C. Cumbow
> Graham & Dunn, P.C.
> 1420 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
> Seattle, Washington 98101-2390
> Phone: 206-340-9619
> Fax: 206-340-9599
> E-mail: rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com
> Website: http://www.grahamdunn.com/
>
Received on Thu Apr 22 1999 - 16:32:28 GMT