If you’re like me, you love mullets. You also love parody and spent several years of your life earning beer money with it. You also got a masters degree in political science with an AOE in Constitutional Law – which is why you laugh your ass off whenever a U.S. Congressperson says we can’t try enemies of the Constitution in courts.

But you probably don’t laugh whenever there’s a lawsuit looming in the wings.

According to Latino Review (or rather a poster named Pinche Taco (who is either a rabid fan of the site or actually one of the LR writers himself (or herself)), Lee Ziotoff, the creator of “MacGyver” is threatening to sue Relativity over copyright infringement caused by its upcoming MacGruber flick.

One view of this is that Ziotoff has every right to earnings made from the film, that his work is being stolen, and that copyright laws regarding parody are incredibly strict.

This would be the wrong view.

Like any public figure or cultural icon, MacGyver is subject to parody, lampooning, satire and honest good ribbings. As legal scholar Pinche Taco claims, there are stringent limits to parody which keeps it to the realm of 4-minute sketches. But that’s not necessarily true.

The best film example I could give is Airplane! which directly spoofs the film Airport 75 (although admittedly, the creators were smart enough to buy the rights to Zero Hour!, the film it’s based on).

But we’d need to turn to Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc. in order to check out this quote from the Supreme Court regarding parody which states that it is:

…the use of some elements of a prior author’s composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comment’s on that authors work.

If Relativity Media has trouble proving that MacGruber directly comments on Ziotoff’s work, they don’t deserve to stay open as a business.

But he’ll probably end up getting a pay out simply because the threat of a lawsuit is often enough to strike fear into the hearts of accountants. All those billable hours and the messy contracts. Handing over cash is easier.

So will the movie move forward? Of course it will. It’s endearing for Mr. Ziotoff to join the cadre of individuals who sue comedians and lose, and part of me understands his frustration (none of us wants to see something we love or create mocked openly), but ultimately the rule about putting it out into the world means that you have to be open to seeing it ridiculed.

Let’s all brush up on copyright law and watch things blow up, shall we? Thanks, Fair Use Doctrine!

What do you think v. Schechter Poultry Corp.?


ARTICLE TAGS
  Previous Article
Next Article  
Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!


Movie News After Dark Reject Radio Junkfood Cinema Boiling Point Culture Warrior This Week In DVD This Week In Blu-ray Criterion Files Foreign Objects The Reject Report

MOVIE NEWS | MOVIE TRAILERS | MOVIE REVIEWS | COMIC-CON 2011 | FEATURES | INTERVIEWS | SHORT FILMS | MEET THE REJECTS
Film School Rejects is the movie blog you've been waiting for. The ultimate commentary track on what's happening in Hollywood, FSR combines the freshest voices on the web and a swagger all its own to provide the best reviews, interviews and industry news coverage to millions of unique visitors from around the world every month.
Got a Tip? Send it here:
editors@filmschoolrejects.com
Publisher:
Neil Miller | Email
Managing Editor:
Cole Abaius | Email
Associate Editors:
Rob Hunter | Email

Robert Fure | Email

All Rights Reserved © 2006-2011 Reject Media, LLC | Site Credits | Privacy Policy
Design & Development by Face3