South Park Sued Over Big Bad Lollipop
from the imaginationland-property dept
South Park is certainly no stranger to insane copyright lawsuits. Some time ago, they survived a suit over having character Butters parody Brownmark Films' "What What (In The Butt)" music video. In that case, South Park relied on a strong Fair Use claim over what was clearly a nod to the original video.But now we learn of a new copyright lawsuit over the inclusion of a character called the Lollipop King in South Park's Imagination Land trilogy. The claim here is as bizarre as the South Park trilogy that is allegedly infringing. A guy named Exavier Wardlaw claims he created a show years ago called The Lollipop Forest in which one of the characters, Big Bad Lollipop, is the clear inspiration for the Lollipop King South Park character. His inspiration for the lawsuit is, apparently, the rather, uh, not nice things that Trey Parker and Matt Stone subject the Lollipop King to.
In his suit, Wardlaw claims "Lollipop Forest" is a wholesome family show -- and it's value was diminished when the Big Bad Lollipop ripoff was exposed to "unwholesome language and sexual innuendo."Indeed, almost as crazy as Wardlaw insisting that his character was the basis for the Lollipop King, seeing as how the two characters look nothing alike (beyond being lollipops, of course). In fact, the absurdity of this claim in an episode where the disputed character, which South Park sources indicate is an original, is shown alongside such obvious non-original characters like storm troopers and Snarf, is almost too much to handle.
FYI -- during the "South Park" episode ... Lollipop King gets choked out by a Storm Trooper ... witnesses the carnage of a suicide bomber ... and gets a front row seat as Kyle performs a sexual act of an oral nature on Cartman's nether region (... it was a crazy episode).
South Park's Lollipop King
and... the Big Bad Lollipop. I know I can hardly tell the difference.
And beyond the question of any actual copying that might have occurred (a dubious claim, at best), this is yet another case that demonstrates the overblown nature of tarnishment accusations. Can anyone with a straight face say they really think that The Lollipop Forest (whatever the hell that is; I couldn't find any IMDB credits) had its value tarnished by South Park's Imagination Land trilogy? Unless you're in the middle of one epically large stroke, the only sensible answer is "no". Hopefully, this suit gets punted out of the legal system post-haste.
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: big bad lollipop, copyright, lollipop king, lollipops, south park
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Wow...
Did it really take them five years to decide to file this suit? Seriously? Original air date: 10/17/2007Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Indeed one more reason why we need weaker copyright laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I like to look at the positive in cases like these so here it is. They strengthen the case for reform of the copyright/patent reform.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I claimed it. It's mine now. MUAHAHAHAHA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That will be �1 million in royalties please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There's also Wonder Woman, Luke Skywalker, Captain Planet, smurfs, Popeye, and so on. I think if South Park wanted to rip off this Big Bad Lollipop, they would have made it more overt than that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I claimed it. It's mine now. MUAHAHAHAHA."
Ah, but I claimed that... ON THE INTERNET.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
hee hee hee
ho ho ho
ha ha ha
ak ak ak
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wow...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They could kill him off and turn him into Saddam's new lover. They could also place him on the moon with Tom Cruise "the fudge packer" rofl.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wholesome family show? Not with characters looking like that. South Park should counter-sue the guy for false advertising. *shivers*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This makes me angry
We got your back guys!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
South park lawsuit
[ link to this | view in thread ]