4 ms·

A parody does not confuse the viewer as to the source of goods and services. In a parody, it is clear that the goods or services, or speech, are from a differe

A parody does not confuse the viewer as to the source of goods and services. In a parody, it is clear that the goods or services, or speech, are from a different source than the original. If one makes a product as a "parody" and pretends to be the original source, while acting purposely foolishly, I don't think that would be defensible. For instance, if you are opposed to people eating meat sold by Foster Farms, then making deliberately disgusting meat, and handing it to pedestrians in a city, while making fun of meat, does not constitute parody of Foster Farms. It damages the brand of the original. A parody would be using Google's names and symbols in some transformative action that is clearly not sourced from Google.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
kgarten 12y ago
I don't agree. The strength of some parodies or hoaxes is that you use the companies name, this is important to make people think (I believe). Under your definition groups like "The Yes Men" would not be considered parody. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men I don't want to go into the example you brought up with Foster Farms, you should realize that this comparison is pretty much flawed.
- SeanLuke 12y ago
  > Under your definition groups like "The Yes Men" would not be considered parody. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men With a few exceptions, The Yes Men do not do parody. Hoaxes and parody are quite different things.
  - kgarten 12y ago
    see the comment above: I would classify Adbusters also as parody (spoof). Depends on your definition. https://www.adbusters.org/spoofads https://www.adbusters.org/spoofads
- TheMagicHorsey 12y ago
  It is not required to disguise yourself as another to make people think. Parodies in the past did not depend on fooling people as to the source of words. It is enough to conjure up a thought of the parties parodied, through use of similar symbols/words/methods. One doesn't have to actually pretend to be them in an exact way for parody to hit its mark. Nor in the past have I seen great parodies do this.
couchand 12y ago
To be clear, I'm pretty sure that Peng! wasn't actually selling drones, insurance or hugs. There are no goods or services. They were not making a product. So to adjust your example, if a group had a political complaint against Foster Farms and made a website claiming to sell obviously foul products, that would be a rich example of parody. "Damaging the brand" is pretty much the goal in an action like this.
- TheMagicHorsey 12y ago
  Lets think about this for a moment. Is it a legitimate action to pretend to be another party and to damage their brand? What if I take to the streets to pretend to be you, to damage the brand of your start up? What if I defame minorities, release foolish and buggy products, and plaster the pseudo-wares with racist pronouncements? Is it enough for me to say that I disagree with you, and that my intentions are parody, for such action to be pardonable? I don't think pretending to be another entity should ever be permissible. The integrity of communications should not be compromised. Nor is that the intention of the parody-based fair use principles in IP law. The intention of the parody exception to liability is to give artists an opportunity to make fun of the high and mighty. Not to pretend to be them. If we allow fraudulent messaging to come under the umbrella of parody protection, then this same exception will be abused by parties to malign their competitors. It will be difficult for consumers to know or trust the source of messaging, goods, or services. It is no excuse to say no goods or services were actually produced, because to advertise a shitty bundle of goods in the name of another is enough to cast doubt on the good sense of that other. A proper parody makes no pretense of its source. It proudly proclaims itself a form of protest. It doesn't dissemble and try to corrupt the flow of information/communication in commerce.
  - couchand 12y ago
    I wonder if you looked at the site? It's pretty evident that it's a form of protest and not some racist sockpuppet rant, competitor's defamation or the like. For instance: While we cannot always protect information about you, we can help protect you. Google Trust offers you the world's first model for data insurance. It's completely free, you pay with your data. The more Google products you use, the higher your insurance payout will be in case of data misuse through secret service or private criminals. Your policy will be automatically offered to you, based on our assessment of your risk. If that's not "making fun of the high and mighty" I don't know what is.
kgarten 12y ago
It depends on the type of parody. Your definition seems to stick to literature parody only. If you extend the definition over literature and text, I think it's important to use the same visuals and pretend to be the company or individual ... see also: https://www.adbusters.org/spoofads https://www.adbusters.org/spoofads (they classify for me also as parody and they are spoofs, pretending to be the original source). A parody is often also called spoof, which in this case fits better I think.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

kgarten 12y ago

I don't agree. The strength of some parodies or hoaxes is that you use the companies name, this is important to make people think (I believe). Under your definition groups like "The Yes Men" would not be considered parody. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men I don't want to go into the example you brought up with Foster Farms, you should realize that this comparison is pretty much flawed.

SeanLuke 12y ago
> Under your definition groups like "The Yes Men" would not be considered parody. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men With a few exceptions, The Yes Men do not do parody. Hoaxes and parody are quite different things.
- kgarten 12y ago
  see the comment above: I would classify Adbusters also as parody (spoof). Depends on your definition. https://www.adbusters.org/spoofads https://www.adbusters.org/spoofads
TheMagicHorsey 12y ago
It is not required to disguise yourself as another to make people think. Parodies in the past did not depend on fooling people as to the source of words. It is enough to conjure up a thought of the parties parodied, through use of similar symbols/words/methods. One doesn't have to actually pretend to be them in an exact way for parody to hit its mark. Nor in the past have I seen great parodies do this.

couchand 12y ago

To be clear, I'm pretty sure that Peng! wasn't actually selling drones, insurance or hugs. There are no goods or services. They were not making a product. So to adjust your example, if a group had a political complaint against Foster Farms and made a website claiming to sell obviously foul products, that would be a rich example of parody. "Damaging the brand" is pretty much the goal in an action like this.

TheMagicHorsey 12y ago
Lets think about this for a moment. Is it a legitimate action to pretend to be another party and to damage their brand? What if I take to the streets to pretend to be you, to damage the brand of your start up? What if I defame minorities, release foolish and buggy products, and plaster the pseudo-wares with racist pronouncements? Is it enough for me to say that I disagree with you, and that my intentions are parody, for such action to be pardonable? I don't think pretending to be another entity should ever be permissible. The integrity of communications should not be compromised. Nor is that the intention of the parody-based fair use principles in IP law. The intention of the parody exception to liability is to give artists an opportunity to make fun of the high and mighty. Not to pretend to be them. If we allow fraudulent messaging to come under the umbrella of parody protection, then this same exception will be abused by parties to malign their competitors. It will be difficult for consumers to know or trust the source of messaging, goods, or services. It is no excuse to say no goods or services were actually produced, because to advertise a shitty bundle of goods in the name of another is enough to cast doubt on the good sense of that other. A proper parody makes no pretense of its source. It proudly proclaims itself a form of protest. It doesn't dissemble and try to corrupt the flow of information/communication in commerce.
- couchand 12y ago
  I wonder if you looked at the site? It's pretty evident that it's a form of protest and not some racist sockpuppet rant, competitor's defamation or the like. For instance: While we cannot always protect information about you, we can help protect you. Google Trust offers you the world's first model for data insurance. It's completely free, you pay with your data. The more Google products you use, the higher your insurance payout will be in case of data misuse through secret service or private criminals. Your policy will be automatically offered to you, based on our assessment of your risk. If that's not "making fun of the high and mighty" I don't know what is.

kgarten 12y ago

It depends on the type of parody. Your definition seems to stick to literature parody only. If you extend the definition over literature and text, I think it's important to use the same visuals and pretend to be the company or individual ... see also: https://www.adbusters.org/spoofads https://www.adbusters.org/spoofads (they classify for me also as parody and they are spoofs, pretending to be the original source). A parody is often also called spoof, which in this case fits better I think.