- Journal Archives
- Volume 18
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
Behind the Lines Productions, in an attempt to feed off of the wildly successful “Twilight” movie franchise, created a parody film, “Twiharder.” The brooding Edward Cullen is now Bedford Mullen, while Bella Swan becomes Stella Pond. The trailer, which can be viewed here, highlights the movie’s attempts to poke fun at Kristen Stewart’s acting skills, the emphasis on Jacob’s abs, and Edward’s cringe-inducing obsession with Bella. Behind the Lines asserts that it “portrayed hyper-exaggerated caricatures from The Twilight Saga and lampooned expressive elements embodied in Defendants’ pre-existing works through imitative reference” and used the Twilight story “as an object of ridicule, criticism and sociopolitical commentary.”
But after sucking material from “Twilight,” Behind the Lines found itself with a cease and desist letter from Summit Entertainment, and its parent company, Lionsgate Entertainment. Although Behind the Lines had previously found a distributor for “Twiharder,” once the distributor learned of the cease and desist notice, it decided against licensing the film.
An angry Behind the Lines, thirsting for blood, has sued Summit and Lionsgate for $500 million in damages, and also seeks cancellation of their trademarks. Behind the Lines alleges that the companies have created an intellectual property monopoly over the “Twilight” franchise by engaging in anticompetitive conduct. They argue that by executing a “vexatious legal strategy that seeks to collapse every conceivable intellectual property right granted by trademark or copyright law,” the companies have effectively crushed any efforts to (legally) play off of the series.
Behind the Lines’ suit claims that “Twiharder” is in the Fair Use Zones that are “populated by independent filmmakers, parodists and other ‘counter-cultural’ artists who create separate or derivative works that may be related to, inspired by or comment upon the pop culture events that dominate the national Cineplex and, by extension the attitudes, perspectives and behaviors of the populace.”
The landmark case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994), established that a commercial parody could be fair use under § 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. In that case, a rap music group created a parody of Roy Orbison’s “Oh, Pretty Woman.” The Supreme Court held that the parody was a fair use that limited the exclusive rights of the original. Section 107 reads reads as follows:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Should Behind the Lines have the right to profit from their use of characters and plots clearly based on a trademarked franchise? Do you think “Twiharder” constitutes Fair Use under the Copyright Act? Are Summit and Lionsgate intruding on free expression and artistic rights with their expansive trademark coverage?
–Mary Fletcher King
Recent Blog Posts
- Former Cardinals Executive Pleads Guilty to Hacking, But Will the Cardinals Pay the Price?
- Making a Murder – Technology in Forensic Evidence Questioned
- Is “smart gun” technology the future of gun safety?
- Why High-Profile Athletes’ Defamation Lawsuits Against Al Jazeera Are Nothing More Than a Hail Mary
- Executives of a Chinese Online Video-Sharing Service Provider Stood Trial for Internet Pornography
- The Rise of ‘Swatting’
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution