South Park, Viacom Sued Over Parody Video... Videomakers Point To YouTube Lawsuit In Defense

from the yeah,-that's-not-going-to-work dept

Fri, Nov 19th 2010 9:39am — Mike Masnick

Justin Loban was the first of a whole bunch of you to send in the news of video producers Brownmark Films suing South Park, Viacom, Paramount and others over a parody video shown in South Park. The original (quite viral) video was the "What What (In The Butt)" video:

This was, of course, a huge viral sensation a few years ago. It currently has over 34 million views. South Park parodied it all the way back in April of 2008, with the following:

Now, there are a few oddities about the whole thing. First, it's not clear why they waited over two and a half years to sue. That's got to work against them. Also, apparently, Viacom did license the song. The singer/songwriter (if you can call it that), Samwell, is not a part of the lawsuit. Brownmark were just the folks who made the video, and they're saying that their copyright was infringed also. In fact, if you watch the original video, you'll see that they've even added a popup telling people that Samwell isn't suing South Park, and in the description they state:

SAMWELL IS NOT SUING SOUTH PARK.
Brownmark Films is NOT Samwell. It is a music video production company.
Samwell is not involved, so please try to be nicer to him!

The whole "please try to be nicer to him" thing is kind of strange, and suggests that Brownmark knows what a ridiculous lawsuit this is. Separately, Viacom has responded by pointing out that parody is protected and is not copyright infringement. Obviously, the whole thing seems a little silly, and feels partly like it might be a publicity stunt by the two guys at Brownmark.

However, there is one other interesting note. In the press release announcing the lawsuit, Brownmark points out that there's a certain irony in the fact that Viacom was "copying" content from YouTube at the same time it was suing YouTube for posting copies of Viacom content:

In a time when corporations like Viacom are actively pursuing billion dollar judgements against video distribution sites such as YouTube, it is unreasonable for those same corporations to treat the Internet as a bottomless well from which it can endlessly draw content without permission, payment, or even acknowledgment of the original artists. Brownmark Films is taking a stand against these corporations� continued reliance on double-standards, a decision made all the more difficult by Brownmark Films' respect for South Park and its brand of humor.

All that said, this lawsuit seems like it will go nowhere extremely fast. The video is clearly a parody video, and I can't see how the videomakers have any chance of convincing a court otherwise.

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: infringement, parody, samwell, south park, video, viral video, youtube
Companies: brownmark films, viacom, youtube

15 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Hulser (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 9:51am

Not strange at all
The whole "please try to be nicer to him" thing is kind of strange, and suggests that Brownmark knows what a ridiculous lawsuit this is.

I think it simply suggests that Samwell's representatives are sick of him getting blamed for something he didn't do. It's not Brownmark, but Samwell who knows what a ridiculous lawsuit this is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Benny6Toes (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 9:53am

Maybe that's the point?
it's possible that the entire point of the lawsuit is to sine a very bright light on what Viacom is doing regarding youtube. let's face it: the average person doesn't care that Viacom is issuing takedowns that it shouldn't be, and no amount of advertising is likely to change that.

however, sue Viacom (and one of it's most popular and well known franchises) for the same reasons that they're going after youtube, and now you've got instant publicity and people taking an interest because it directly relates to something they're invested in.

maybe that's a stretch (and an expensive one, at that), but that might be the whole point of the suit...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nina Paley (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 10:26am

Re: Maybe that's the point?
That makes sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
trilobug, 19 Nov 2010 @ 10:29am

But...but...
I thought parody was protected speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eugene (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 10:55am

It sounds like their heart is in the right place, but their heads are completely up their asses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 11:26am

Wait. What?
"The singer/songwriter (if you can call it that)"

Oh come on, Mike. There was no reason for that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 11:35am

Who's on first?
So, my question is: how many DMCA takedown notices has Viacom issued for parody videos? I don't know, but would be interested if anyone else does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 12:32pm

Ah who says Mike doesn't have a sense of humor. I saw this and what? Southpark and not a article on depicting Mohamed? Gata love those guys.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lisa from New York, 19 Nov 2010 @ 2:46pm

Parody means?
No one seems to be talking about what exactly Parody means. Is something parody simply because it's funny? Weird Al makes parodies, but he changes a LOT of the originals. What if you copied a Weird Al song? Can you parody a parody? These are interesting and complex questions, but most people simply think that, if it's on South Park, it's parody. I think it's more nuanced, and I think the people suing know this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 19 Nov 2010 @ 6:01pm

Re: Parody means?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parody

Wow - that was difficult
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 20 Nov 2010 @ 3:52am

Re: Parody means?
Hey, look! Maybe, just maybe, the lawsuit is a parody of a lawsuit that's a parody of a lawsuit of a parody of a lawsuit......
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich, 20 Nov 2010 @ 6:31am

I don't get it
This video went viral? I guess that's why I don't work in the entertainment industry. I just don't get it. Of course, I can always tell when a TV show is going to get canceled, because I'll like it. If it's god-awful, like any of the numerous "reality" shows out there, it will get high rating. Ugh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bluezy (profile), 21 Nov 2010 @ 12:46am

Huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dizi izle, 22 Nov 2010 @ 12:52pm

Thanks for sharing this article for us, seem good article. Keep sharing up this kind of articles dude :)
Dizi izle
Canlı Dizi izle
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Him ThatIs (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 2:01pm

Re: Maybe that's the point?
I believe you nailed it. In order for Viacom to protect themselves in this lawsuit, they have to defend Brownmark. Otherwise they lose all standing in their harrasements of YouTube. Brownmark has put them in a Catch 22. I believe they knows the lawsuit is bogus and are only doing it to hurt companies [like Viacom] that use their muscle on others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]