Pink Panther Studio, Producers And Star Sued For Joke Theft
from the a-lawyer,-a-copyright-and-a-loser-walk-into-a-bar... dept
Historically, jokes have always been things that were shared and passed on. The power of a joke is not in the idea behind the joke, but in the telling. Yet, in this era when people have it drilled into their brains over and over again that every creative thing is "ownable," we're now seeing this great tradition of joke sharing and joke telling stifled by claims of "ownership." The latest such example, found via Michael Scott, is that two people are suing over jokes in the Pink Panther movies. Specifically, Jean Epstein and Gary Stretch have sued "MGM, Sony, Fox, producer Robert Simonds, star Steve Martin and others" because they say the Pink Panther movies violate their copyright on certain jokes. Apparently, Epstein and Stretch made a short film that they placed on YouTube and iFilm, which included a few jokes that are similar to jokes in the movies. So, be careful next time you're "performing" a joke you heard somewhere else. Perhaps you'll get sued for copyright infringement.
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: copyright, gary stretch, jean epstein, jokes, pink panther, robert simonds, steve martin
Companies: fox, mgm, sony
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well, duh...
(and yeah, most things that you create -- at least intellectual property -- are "ownable" -- it's called copyright).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, duh...
If jokes aren't copyrighted, then guess what? People will still create and tell jokes like they have since the beginning of humanity. It serves no common good to give joke-creators royalties, so you have no more right to getting paid for usage than I have a right to get paid for my farts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, duh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, duh...
And then a will is set up to make sure your children can keep benefiting from it for another SEVENTY years.
Start paying all labor in that fashion and that problem is solved. The next problem, does it make a lick of economic sense ? I'll answer for you, hell no. Start paying people in perpetuity for the work they do for you, set your own example and we'll check back with you and see how it's working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, duh...
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, duh...
If someone does a comedy sketch based on silly walks, how mush would he own to Monty Python (check youtube)? How about to the heirs of Charles Chaplin?
And, BTW, the US constitution doesn’t say “if value then right”. It says give exclusive rights “to promote progress in the useful arts”. Is comedy a “useful art”? Maybe… But would exclusive rights promote it? As explained above, NO, quite the oposite!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SLAPP?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personally...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Personally...
yeah, both of them have been accused of stealing jokes, but what's important to note, is that joe rogan has taken his dispute with menstealia to the public, rather than the court system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh, Oh, the Dead Parrot sketch is in trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, Oh, the Dead Parrot sketch is in trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you answer is yes, explain. BTW, I know that's off topic slightly (the subject is jokes), I'm just asking why creativity shouldn't be valued at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
everyone tells redneck jokes, but the person who can get people to pay to see him is the one that deserves to get paid for it, not the person who invented the joke (if he wants to get someone to hire him to write their jokes, then he can get paid)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why not? If anything that should make people more interested in actually going to see Chris Rock perform, and making his performances (and movies, and albums) more valuable.
Isaac Asimov has a wonderful book full of jokes, and he admits that every one of them was originally told to him by someone else.
Should that be illegal?
If you answer is yes, explain. BTW, I know that's off topic slightly (the subject is jokes), I'm just asking why creativity shouldn't be valued at all?
Huh? Creativity is valued, but you seem to be confusing value and price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Publicity Stunt
Let's hope they get fined for spurious litigation.
Aside: I hit enter accidentally and an almost empty comment went through, apologies for the spam if it shows up on the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright
It is way out of hand.
I feel the need to educate the masses around me when people talk about owning ideas how stupid it is.
Seriously, it is rediculous. And I am a programmer that could benefit from this bull if I was that stupid too.
Same to patents ..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Aristocrats (Not Disney's)
Have you ever noticed that when you repeat a joke you hear a comic tell, people don't laugh quite so hard as they would when the comic tells it. Maybe that's just me and I need to work on my delivery.
Comics, especially ones whose material is rooted in pop culture and current events, will often times come up with the same joke/observation, because it is an easy and obvious one to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Aristocrats (Not Disney's)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is just dumb
I hope you go out of business and no one will ever even know your name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jokes
Also a copyright is a copyright, and writing and performance of some short sketches is as protected as 1 hr tv shows, or movies are. I don't see a problem with that other than the ones discussed at length elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is where your argument seems to unravel best:
"and albums) more valuable"
Well if I can print a book of his jokes, why should (by extentsion) I not be able to sell a copy of one of his albums. I'll just digitize an album and re-arange the order of the show? Totally cool with you still? If so, again, explain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If I work on a movie set, or in a recording studio for two years, or on a program for three years, should I receive a paycheck for that work, and then move onto the next project ?
OK, now, should I be able to work 5 years on a project then sit back for the rest of my life, with TOTAL and monopolistic control over my work and demand payments before ANY usage, claiming ANY price I wish, then passing that on to 70 years of my childs life ?
I'd LOVE to understand the theory behind THAT. Please do include why teachers, architects and construction workers should not be paid the exact same way ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Um. No. I've gone over this at least 1000 times by this point.
Not earning money DIRECTLY from your content doesn't mean YOU DON'T EARN MONEY.
Well if I can print a book of his jokes, why should (by extentsion) I not be able to sell a copy of one of his albums. I'll just digitize an album and re-arange the order of the show? Totally cool with you still? If so, again, explain?
You must be new here. Yes, I think that should be perfectly fine. Because people will want to buy the LEGITIMATE version and no matter what you copy you can't copy his live performance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright "Discussion"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is copyright becoming like patents?
What if the pink panther guys never saw the video, never even heard about it, is it still copyright infringement? Just the mere fact that it exists makes anything resembling it copyright infringement? And if they did see it, is it copyright infringement if the word he can't pronounce is tortellini? Where does the copyright end?
I have to say that I'm uniformly disappointed with the quality of comments on Techdirt. I see an interesting story like this and expect to read insightful comments under it, and instead it's mostly trolls. I think your douchebag filter might be broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jokes are not property, only the performance of them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Mike: You're esentially saying that no one should be able to profit, and or make a living as an artist.
Here is where your argument seems to unravel best:
"and albums) more valuable"
Well if I can print a book of his jokes, why should (by extentsion) I not be able to sell a copy of one of his albums. I'll just digitize an album and re-arange the order of the show? Totally cool with you still? If so, again, explain?
This was directed at Mike, but anyone is welcome to try and answer it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yep, I'd allow it. I'd allow complete and unaltered copies of the albums. Why? Cause people will hear it and want to go to see a live show. More money will then be made at the show from one person than from 8 people buying the damn CD.
Doug Stanhope operates EXACTLY this way. He encourages his fans to copy and spread his stuff and what does he get in return? Sold out shows and a loyal fan base. I watched a guy give him $20 because he downloaded Doug's albums and Doug kept telling him that he didn't have to because it encourages people to see the live shows; he literally had to force Doug to take the money. My wife and I have seen him no less than 3 times($25 per ticket x 2 people x 3 = much more than his collection of CD's and DVD's cost) and we'll see him again this year when the opportunity arises. So yeah, this does work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sometimes..
I would actually have no problem with it. They call them mash-ups or remixes. If it is better than the original order maybe people would like it and then again maybe not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sometimes..
I'm getting tired of people trying to convince me that I would be better off if the public domain were smaller rather than larger. The same people ask me if I have something they can copy or use for immediate gratification without disbursing cash. Everyone can side with the little guy, who can side with ALL the guys ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what joke?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the one hand, I agree that suing over some jokes that seem similar is an abuse of copyright.
On the other hand, I can't help being amused by the fact that a movie studio is on the receiving end of a copyright infringement lawsuit, made possible by their own efforts to expand the scope of copyright law to ridiculous amounts.
(By "they" I'm referring to all of the content industry collectively)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Was your observation funny enough to be a joke? Can I pass on the gist of what you said and chalk it up to fair use?
Questions, questions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pink panther... not funny
them getting sued... priceless!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On the topic- Wouldn't youtube have the right to sue PP since they own what was posted? And if that was used, they should get royalties if there are ant warranted? JK, I don't know if youtube claims to own what they let post, haven't read their Terms and Conditions. I know that they would reserve the right to remove what they deem violative. If they were to claim ownership, it'd be a double edged sword where they would be liable for things posted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF?
No, what we have here is another manifestation of the terminal stages of the litigation cancer that will, if left unchecked, stifle creativity in the country entirely. But the lawyers and CEOs will still get rich.
But at least you lameass "creative" apologists for this bullshit will make a few bucks in the interim...at least until the entertainment megacorps decide all your product is, in fact, owned by them. And don't delude yourselves into thinking any business that owns congressmen can't make that legal. Once the rewards for creativity are decided by members of the legal profession, no "public good" will be served. Except the income of lawyers, of course.
Plus, I suspect a lot of the people posting these "I'm a poor artist and I should be able to make a little money blahdeblah..." argumentum ad misericordiam posts are actually representatives (corporate whores and shills) of the firms who most benefit from the current sick status quo.
The ability of some people to believe their own rationalizations is not without very disturbing precedent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reminds me of M*A*S*H
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was your observation funny enough to be a joke? Can I pass on the gist of what you said and chalk it up to fair use?
That was a semi joke. Licensing fees for semi-jokes start at $200 for written republication, plus a 5% royalty of whatever you might make from them. If you wish to relate the semi-joke to someone orally, you'll need performance rights, which start at $500, plus a royalty of 10% of whatever you make. If you want both, you can choose the combination licensing package which covers both written and oral duplication for only $600 with a 12% royalty rate. This will allow you to reproduce the semi-joke for up to six months from the date of payment. If you wish to continue using the semi-joke after that point, you will need to renew the licensing agreement. Depending on how financially successful the semi-joke has been, the licensing fees may be increased to reflect your increased earnings. If the semi-joke hasn't been doing well for you, a discount may be permitted, allowing you to continue to use the semi-joke for a reduced rate. Please note that these rates are only for your own personal use of the semi-joke. If you wish to have others reproduce the semi-joke in written form, or perform it orally, you'll need to purchase a volume license, which will be $1,000 for written copies, plus a 15% royalty on each copy, and $3,000 for performance rights with a 25% royalty rate. Further note that the performance rights only cover live performances of the semi-joke. If you wish to record the semi-joke on a permanent audio/visual format, you will need to purchase performance recording rights and if you want to have your performance of the semi-joke broadcast in some fashion, you will need to purchase performance broadcast rights. Again, these rights only cover a performance of the semi-joke by yourself. To have others perform the semi-joke to be recorded or broadcast, you will need to purchase volume rights for each. For $50,000 and a 40% royalty rate, you can purchase an all-inclusive license that covers all of the above for a period of six months, at which time you'll need to re-negotiate the license fees based on your earning in relation to the semi-joke.
Which would you like?
Please note that even passing on the "gist" of the semi-joke, even if the exact wording isn't used, is still considered to be copyright infringement unless the proper license fees are paid and will be met with legal action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay Up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]