Orwell's Estate Threatens Creator Of Parody Of Parody Of 1984

from the the-levels-of-parody dept

Wed, Mar 28th 2007 9:49am — Joseph Weisenthal

You could see this one coming from a mile away. The controversial anti-Hilly Clinton ad that parodied the famous Apple "1984" ad is coming under criticism from the company that's licensed the rights to George Orwell's 1984. The company hasn't said it will sue, as so far it's just issuing vague threats about monitoring the situation and protecting the value of its assets. The reason the company probably won't sue is because the ads' creator would almost certainly have a slam dunk case based on the fair use right to create a parody. If anything, you'd think that Apple would be in a better position to sue, since it was their ad, not the book itself, that formed the basis for this ad. Also, you'd hope that a company that's so concerned about protecting Orwell's work and legacy would see some irony in using copyright law to stifle politically-motivated free speech.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

22 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2007 @ 9:57am

also from the levels-of-irony dept
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2007 @ 10:46am

it's as bad when...
Woody Guthrie's estate sued the folks who made that "This Land is Your Land" parody video.

Which of them do you think would be spinning in thier graves at the notion of what their literary heirs are doing with their words?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JS Beckerist, 28 Mar 2007 @ 10:51am

all this is...
All I can think of with all this copyright infringement crap is a child, whining "I thought of it first, waaaah!" Hell, George Orwell DIED in 1950. Now, I understand the need to protect your assets, but COME ON PEOPLE, the guy who came up with the PREMISE has been dead for almost 60 YEARS! This just seems like an excuse to get money (IF they sue), and nothing more. I'm glad we have fair use laws in place too. Otherwise I might have had to call shenanigans, and we'd all have to get our brooms!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kyles mom, 28 Mar 2007 @ 11:27am

I still can't find my girls gone wild dvd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2007 @ 11:31am

Is 1984 - the book, not the lame ad - even still protected by copyright?

@Kyles mom - You left it at my place, babe. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- comboman, 28 Mar 2007 @ 12:21pm
  
  Is 1984 still protected?
  1984 (the novel) is already in the public domain in countries like Canada, Russia and Australia that did not extend copyrights in the late 90's (you can download the text from the Australian branch of Project Guttenburg here). In the European Union it will enter the public domain in 2020. In the United States, it will enter the public domain in 2044, unless there's another copyright extension before then (what are the chances of that happening).
  WAR IS PEACE (US foreign policy)
  FREEDOM IS SLAVERY (US domestic security policy)
  IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH (US education policy)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RandomThoughts, 28 Mar 2007 @ 11:41am

I am wondering if the ad agency that created the 1984 ad for Apple had a contract stating that Apple could only use the ad for the Superbowl.

If so, I can't image they are all that happy with Obama's ad, although its not like they would be able to get anything out of it. Can't imagine they like the thought of someone putting up anything they want off of their work without them getting something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CRTisMe, 28 Mar 2007 @ 11:53am

Parody is not a Blanket Fair Use Right
Joe,
The fair use of parody is when the original work is mocked. In this ad Hillary, Inc is the one being mocked, not 1984. More likely this ad borrows the imagery of the Super Bowl Ad and that is where the infringment (if any) would lie. I don't know who owns the Super Bowl Ad, could be Apple or could be the agency?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JustMatt, 28 Mar 2007 @ 12:05pm

What I don't get
Is that the estate is upset over the idea of him using *concepts* similar to those found in the book 1984. The original commercial portrays a vague future dystopia. The connection to George isn't explicitly based upon anything other than the fact that the commercial came out in 1984.

IIRC nobody in the original commercia never said "Hey, this is based upon 1984" and there certainly weren't any talking pigs* in either the commercial or the parody.

I don't think they have anything to go in. As someone else said Apple is in a slightly better position, but it is protected as parody so they are out of luck too.

* When did Charlotte's Web come out? Someone may have a case against the Orwell estate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- kweeket, 28 Mar 2007 @ 5:43pm
  
  Re: What I don't get
  You've mistaken 1984 for Animal Farm - there are no talking pigs in 1984.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mikey, 28 Mar 2007 @ 12:31pm

Protected Speech
Too bad that parody is considered protected speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reed, 28 Mar 2007 @ 12:39pm

Kinda Pathetic
Comboman cracked,

"In the European Union it will enter the public domain in 2020. In the United States, it will enter the public domain in 2044, unless there's another copyright extension before then (what are the chances of that happening)."

2044!? Thats real sad for the US. Of course we also spend twice as much on health care and more than all other countries combined on our military. I guess we just aren't happy unless we are outdoing everyone else! LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2007 @ 12:39pm

"there certainly weren't any talking pigs"

I think you're confusing Orwell's boring and stupid dystopian 1984 with Orwell's contrived and stupid satirical Animal Farm.

I'm not against satire: Brave New World was a much better book than either of those by Orwell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2007 @ 12:49pm

It's really a satire of a TV commercial parody of a movie from the screenplay of a novel.

Protecting your own private property by availing yourself of the protections ostensibly enforced by your government is not the same thing as a government censoring the free expression of its citizens. If your actions violate the rights of another, calling it "free expression" and screaming for government sanction of your violation is not a defense of anyone's natural rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rod taylor, 28 Mar 2007 @ 1:02pm

orwell
Joe -- you are absolutely right. The amazing thing is that Orwell was levelling his criticism at socialists, hence the title 1984. The thought control can only come from one direction -- above. So it's always the government or the courts. That's why "hate speech" is such a disastrous and foolish thing. The notion of categorizing a form of speech or opinions as hateful has already begun to make problems for religious people . And the notion that some ass from the Orwell estate would threaten the maker of that parody of the apple add parodying 1984 is discpicable, not just annoying. He/she can go to hell. The sooner the better. If anything, I would argue that the estate's property rights are enhanced, not damaged. Maybe they should pay. Bye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wolf0579, 28 Mar 2007 @ 2:47pm

As I recall the ad, there were no references to 1984. The scenes depicted in the ad were "1984ish", but that's not enough to be what I would consider "actionable". Any lawyers (spit) out there that would care to correct me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2007 @ 4:57pm

Because I can....
Apple - 1984 ad, circa 1984

Obama - 1984 ad, circa 2007

Apple is the one with the copyright rights here, the Obama ad is a complete ripoff that is not parodying the original work of art. Its parodying Clinton, a third party, that is NOT covered by fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve R. (profile), 28 Mar 2007 @ 5:53pm

Another absurd copyright claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jack, 28 Mar 2007 @ 8:16pm

"...you'd hope that a company that's so concerned about protecting Orwell's work and legacy would see some irony in using copyright law to stifle politically-motivated free speech."

Not to mention, those who have actually read 1984 will recognize there is no description of a scene in the book remotely resembling the Apple ad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ramsey, 28 Mar 2007 @ 8:45pm

Kurt Vonnegut
This ad reminds me more of the Vonnegut story Harrison Bergeron than 1984 anyways.

The athletic woman breaks the monotony of the shuffling masses and all.

God bless the Handicapper General and The No Child Left Behind Act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
|333173|3|_||3, 29 Mar 2007 @ 8:44am

In fact the Apple ad is quite different from 1984, since in teh book the people all watching the screen in the big room were in teh 2 minutes hate, and were all angry, rather than passive. furthermore, the setting is largely delapidated London, not a fururistic city of tubes etc. Then there is the fact that only the Outer Party wear blue uniforms in 1984, not the shuffling proles.

1984 was not about scialism, it was about totlaitiarianism and repression by a party which no longer made any claim to scolialist ideals, only refering ot the improvment made since the revolution, and the name, Ingsoc, derived from English Socialism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sergio, 29 Mar 2007 @ 2:26pm

Put Your Money Where You Mouth is :)
This site is really interesting, I really like it... but a question... what is the license of site content??? I hope that has CC-Atributtion-SA o GNU FDL....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]