Will Fox Sue Congress For Simpsons Parody?
from the d'oh! dept
If you follow politics outside of the tech world you've probably seen plenty of talk in the last week or so about the battle over SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The details of the debate really aren't worth getting into on a tech/business news site, but a bunch of Republican Congressmen put out what can only be considered a parody press release using characters from the TV show The Simpsons to try to highlight their side of the debate. This was so random and bizarre that a few people actually wondered if the Republican site had been hacked. That turned out not to be the case, but apparently none of the Representatives who put together the mock press release sought the approval of Twentieth Century Fox, who apparently is not at all happy that Simpsons characters are being used in this manner: "Twentieth Century Fox was unaware of the illegal use of characters from The Simpsons in this press release. Let me assure you, Fox did not authorize this use. Characters from The Simpsons may not be used in this manner…" Some would argue that parody is covered by fair use, but that may only be true if the parody is of The Simpsons itself, rather than using them for a parody of something else. Either way, while Congress has been bending over backwards to give the entertainment industry everything it wishes when it comes to keeping control over their creative works, it seems that even those same Representatives can think of cases where it made perfect sense to them to make use of characters without having to first license them. Somehow, why do I get the feeling this lesson won't stick and these same Reps will have no problem putting in place more stringent copyright laws that eat away at fair use?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
Filed Under: congress, fair use, parody, schip, the simpsons
Companies: congress, fox, news corp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: last comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let loose the hounds of war...
Come on folks, where is your righteous indignation? If someone is about to be drummed out of the halls of the Legislation for tapping his foot in a rest room, those responsible for this travesty should be ridden out of town on a rail!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let loose the hounds of war...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is an e-mail address
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And we wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only if
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fair use for some...
besides, it's not like the GOP is using the simpsons' likenesses for profit. it's for power. sweet, delicious power...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually I'm pretty sure that the constitution holds actual congressmen and senators non-liable for this sort of thing while they are in office or at least serving in the capitol. Byrd used his copy of the pocket constitution to get out of traffic tickets for years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GOP "Children's Health Fact of the Day"
I'm so happy that the House Republican's Committee on Energy and Commerce lent their webspace so generously to the important cause of limiting health care for children. I'm so glad that these wise minds realize how important it is to spend our taxes on war, instead of wasting it on the health of children. I mean, gosh--someone might use Federal money to pay for their kids' health care instead of paying out of his or her own pocket. We certainly can't have that.
And, of course, the sagacious Congressmen know best, since their health care plans are provided at no cost to them, and generously cover their extended families.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let them be known for what they say, so we can keep our eyes on their actual detachment from reality.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: how is this parody different
Its different because one was done by a collection of perverts, degenerates, hypocrites and borderline criminals...
and one was done by a magazine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Getting back on to the real subject -- SCHIP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Sugar OR Money??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Homer? A Republican?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Homer? A Republican?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here in NJ, they are not signing up poor kids and want to raise the family income up to $100K and include adults. Why should the Fed. Govt. pay for something that the states can't get right in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Veto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Continued
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Fed rule is under %200, but the states have been bumping it up. Here in NJ, a family of 4 with a household income of $72K would qualify, yet the state has not done enough to sign up the kids that it was designed for in the first place (people under the poverty level)
Why should the states open it up to higher income families when they can't get the truly poor signed up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad, good
2) This parody isn't for profit, if you really think about it it's for not-profit. If this is to stop the government from spending money through health care then it's not-profiting anyone, except every tax payer, thus it isn't for profit.
3) I'm glad GW vetoed this, the program is ripe with abuse and misuse. I don't want to help some family earning 60k a year pay for their kids health care because they don't want to. I bet they could afford it if dad stopped playing golf every weekend and mom stopped drinking Starbucks twice a day on the way to the spa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
D'oh is right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]