For what it's worth: When I tried to type the first tag for this post, which was going to be "sesame street," I typed "sexame." That does suggest the new movie has the power to sully the brand, which may support the "Sesame Street" — jeez! I did it again! — side of the legal argument, which is based on trademark and therefore confusion, but I think that satirizing TV shows is an important part of the free-speech tradition. You have to be able to parody famous characters, and in fact there's a Muppet tradition:
The Land of Gorch was a recurring skit that appeared in season one of the American comedy television program Saturday Night Live, featuring Jim Henson's Muppets. Prior to his work for children on Sesame Street, Henson had created puppetry work, including his show Sam and Friends, for adult audiences. His characters appeared regularly on the late-night comedy television programs, and The Ed Sullivan Show. After Sesame Street, Henson feared he would become typecast into working on children's television series. His talent agent Bernie Brillstein, who represented Gilda Radner, Dan Aykroyd, and John Belushi, helped him transition to Saturday Night Live....Neither "The Land of Gorch" nor "The Happytime Murders" uses a particular puppet that was or is on "Sesame Street" (as far as I know). The idea was that there was a style of puppetmaking that had been established and was developed for the children's show in the 1960s, but that was always in tension with the broader idea of what to do with Muppets.
The premise of The Land of Gorch featured Muppet characters, who were members of a royal family, in a faraway locale. They behaved boorishly and made frequent references to drug abuse, sexual innuendo, and consumption of alcohol. Characters included King Ploobis, Queen Peuta, their son, and servants Scred and Vazh. These characters often consulted their oracle Mighty Favog for advice....
Notice that "Sesame Street" isn't claiming control over the Muppets brand. The movie is co-produced by the Jim Henson Co., and the director is Brian Henson who directed “The Muppets Christmas Carol” (WaPo). The claim seems to need to rely of confusion with the "Sesame Street" subsection of the larger Muppet project. The tag line for "The Happytime Murders" is "No Sesame. All Street."
Is that confusing, saying that it's not Sesame? That's what the lawsuit says. I've got to dredge up my "lawsuits I hope will fail" tag.
Posts
50 comments:
I’m confused, Althouse. The trailer makes the connection explicit.
That preview is some funny shi+, I'd watch the flick! Hope the lawsuit fails as well, let the comics create!
Horrid. More crap from Hillarywoodland.
BTW The Jimmy Dean Show c. 1963-1966 featured Rowlf the Dog, a creation of Jim Henson and Frank Oz. Rowlf went on to be the piano player on The Muppet Show.
Harvey Weinstein sketched out the plot summary when he was at that sexual addiction clinic in Phoenix. They cleaned it up, apparently.
I laughed, but how much of the funny was because it was muppets, and how much was because it was funny funny is hard to say.
I laughed pretty hard at that clip.
Many years ago, when Washington State was still a "blue" state, (not like now, it almost banned alcohol) the bars had to close at midnight Saturday. There were all sorts of "blue laws."
In Spokane, there was a private drinking club, one of many in Washington in those day, named "The Early Birds" club in a big downtown hotel. It stayed open until 4 AM Sunday morning and was quite busy. There, I saw the only pornographic puppet show I've ever seen.
This looks like another.
The Muppets have and have always had a presence apart from Sesame Street. The trailer emphasizes this, this is the muppets when there are no kids around. No Sesame.
There is the "Joe Camel" problem: Something that's for adults looks like it's for kids. Kids see the Muppets and get excited and want to see the movie. That's an ethical problem aimed at the movie producers, but if they say yeah we like that, we want something at first glance to look like it's for kids and then — oh no!!! — it's adult.
But is that "Sesame Street"'s concern?
Without the explicit reference to Sesame Street in the trailer (dumb) there would not be much of a case. There are muppets -like characters appearing in TV ads I see quite frequently. If they are not specifically Sesame Street characters then I don't see how they can hope to control Henson's use of the muppet figures.
News for Brian Henson: Explicit puppet sex has been done, and if your trailer is a foretaste done better.
And what is it with gutter-mouthed Irish broads with weight issues? Doesn't Rosie O'Donnell do enough damage to civilization on her own that she needs a clone apprentice?
@Quaestor It was more Roger Rabbit than Team America.
"Doesn't Rosie O'Donnell do enough damage to civilization on her own that she needs a clone apprentice?"
Ha ha. Rosie O'Donnell should sue Melissa McCarthy for trademark infringement.
I too thought I was looking at Rosie O'Donnell at first.
Given that Sesame Street got its start through PBS with government funding, I'd like to see them repay the taxpayers everything they got with interest before being able to claim ownership of the intellectual property.
In the lamentable movie Forgetting Sarah Marshall, were the very Count-like puppets used on Broadway required to be a licensed version of Sesame Street, or were they OK under the fair use of stupid puppet motifs rule, too?
We won't talk about John Malcovich's foray into puppeteering under the malign influence of John Cusack in Being John Malcovich, nor will we mention The Dark Crystal.
If I can remember correctly a lot of Fair Use litigation revolves around the distinction between satire and parody. Parody has a lot of protection under fair use, satire does not. Interestingly enough, Weird Al Yankovich is always very careful to refer to his work as parody. I think the prime distinction between parody and satire is that parody is self-referential, whereas satire is not necessarily. So if you use Seasame Street IP to make fun of Seasame Street it is ok, but if you use it to make fun of something else it may not be protected.
Is it just me, or does the cop puppet look like Jim Halpert from The Office?
Mutual of Omaha v. Novak, 775 F.2d 237 (8th Cir. 1985),
“Applying the Dataphase approach with close regard to our decision in Squirt Co. v. 7-Up Co., 628 F.2d 1086, 1090-91 (8th Cir. 1980), the district court found that Mutual had made a substantial showing of probable success on the merits. In its analysis the court considered the strength and validity of Mutual's trademarks, and the similarity between the trademark and Novak's design. The court also noted at least four incidents in which mail addressed to "Mutants of Omaha" was delivered to Mutual. In conclusion the court stated:
[P]laintiff's strong and distinctive trademarks, the extensive and obvious similarity between plaintiff's marks and defendant's designs, defendant's intent to associate his products with plaintiff, and the relevance of the other factors to the extent that they are applicable, all weigh in favor of likelihood of confusion. Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiff has shown a probability of success on the merits of its Lanham Act claims.
Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. v. Novak, Civ. 84-0-581, Mem.Op. at 14 (D. Neb. Nov. 30, 1984). Having found that Novak's conduct created a likelihood of confusion between his design and Mutual's trademark, the court concluded that a threat of irreparable injury was present.”
In trademark I think the claim would be dilution or tarnishment rather than likelihood of confusion.
I wonder if there might be a trade secret claim, if some puppeteering techniques were acquired from within the Henson organization?
The movie is co-produced by the Jim Henson Co., and the director is Brian Henson who directed “The Muppets Christmas Carol”
I bet that made them privy to all the secrets.
Prof., if you haven't seen them, you must watch old Wilkin's Coffee Ads.
See also thishttp://www.theknightshift.com/2008/06/wilkins-coffee-ads-dark-side-of-jim.html
Sesame Street seems to be experiencing The Streisand Effect.
-LWL
Althouse said...
"...and please know in advance there's lots of puppet ejaculation at the very end."
Upon my discharge... wouldn't the correct grammar be ejaculate, excuse me, ejac-u-tate?
Open Sesame... Street to satire. I probably won't watch the movie, but I see no legal reason it should be banned. Avenue Q got made after all.
After seeing the preview, I can only think that Idiocracy is a prophecy.
"Fuck me!"
"Maybe."
That's some really, raunchy, stuff. I believe that they should win the law suit to be able to make and show it. I believe they shouldn't have exercised their creative freedom in such a vulgar way and hope that the market does not reward them for their efforts. But, I don't believe the courts should be used to shut them down.
There is the "Joe Camel" problem: Something that's for adults looks like it's for kids. Kids see the Muppets and get excited and want to see the movie.
When I went to see the South Park Movie in a theater it was full of kids, I'm talking some of them maybe 6 or 7 years old. I think the creators knew that was going to happen, so that's why the movie was about a couple of comedians being persecuted for making a movie with lots of foul language that is corrupting the youth.
NSFW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOR38552MJA
“The Muppets have and have always had a presence apart from Sesame Street. The trailer emphasizes this, this is the muppets when there are no kids around. No Sesame.”
It would be disingenuous in the extreme to not recognize that a large part of the satire/ humor derives from taking the icons of the sunny Sesame Street world and having them behave very badly. The makers of the film deliberately make the connection, exploiting the association. Not a lawyer, but it’s gob-smackingly obvious that the SS brand is being deliberately degraded here in the service of humor.
But, yeah, I’ll definitely watch this movie given the chance.
McCarthyism is making a comeback, first figuratively and now literally. At long last, Melissa, have you no decency?
@mikee - The Dark Crystal *was* a Jim Henson production.
Wait, 25 comments and no one has mentioned Meet the Feebles yet?
This movie will definitely make it to my Netflix queue. I think the moral fabric of America can withstand the stress of this movie. We're a resilient people. The media has informed us of the many exemplary qualities of Stormy Daniels so you can see how exposure to ejaculate actually makes you a better person......I do, however, question the producers taste in their choice of ejaculate material. It looked toorealistic. I would have chosen a more festive substance, perhaps confetti or maybe colored beads with sequins. I hope they do better in the sequel. If Miss Piggy appears in a bukkake scene, I'd rather see her splattered with confetti than that other stuff.
Cracker
The Muppets have been cute and family friendly in many things aside from Sesame. It is their image, and the image of puppets generally, which drives the comedy. This is not the only case of independent acts being associated with well known shows. If you did a movie about Senor Wences the Ed Sullivan Show couldn’t sue.
Guessing those were the best jokes. But it was funny, especially the silly string.
there's lots of puppet ejaculation at the very end.
I bet there's a line you never dreamed you'd write when you started your blog.
Ken,
They make a none-too-coy reference to SS. Their intent is pretty clear. I don’t know if that means anything in strictly legal terms.
Another lawsuit that you hoped would fail has failed.
I advise against any attempt to read the decision unless you are a highly trained professional or need to get to sleep right away.
"Parody has a lot of protection under fair use, satire does not. Interestingly enough, Weird Al Yankovich is always very careful to refer to his work as parody. I think the prime distinction between parody and satire is that parody is self-referential, whereas satire is not necessarily. So if you use Seasame Street IP to make fun of Seasame Street it is ok, but if you use it to make fun of something else it may not be protected."
But Weird Al's videos seem to always make fun of something other than the original. He's lifting the melody and the arrangement, then putting in his own words -- like "fat" for "Bad."
"Prof., if you haven't seen them, you must watch old Wilkin's Coffee Ads."
Thanks! If I'd seen that before I'd forgotten. You'd never have ads like that today. People are much more sensitive about bang-bang gun play.
I wonder also if this is just a case of "we have to protect our copyright/trademark, even if we're not sure we'll win, so it doesn't look like we don't protect our copyright/trademark," like when Disney sues daycares or whatever?
I think that satirizing TV shows is an important part of the free-speech tradition
Satire is an over-rated right.
Satire is just a free-pass excuse for people to rip off other people's products.
Sure, satirising politicians (say) serves a useful public function.
But satirising TV shows serves no purpose at all, other than to indulge in cheap gags and enrich the satirist.
Taking G rated stuff and making in crap is not hard to do. That's why the Hillarywoodlanders do it.
Big money in foul mouthed ejaculating puppets. Big. Money.
Take the whole family!
Jim Henson had non-Sesame muppets on SNL and other shows things decades ago, and they were far from innocuous and saccharine-sweet.
How do you make a "reference to sexual innuendo"? I understand a reference to sex and I understand sexual innuendo, but I don't understand this combination once removed.
Sensitive/censorious
Objections to ads are objections to what other people watch.
There’s a story that Lilly Tomlin’s favorite bumper sticker reads “ Honk if you know
the difference between parody and satire”.
Melissa McCarthy is funny here, cute funny and fun. The comic timing and tone in the line delivery, the looks on her face after snorting glitter through the twizzler, and rebuffing a dick-suck from a crackhead muppet, LOL!
Rosie never could do that. Rosie O'Donnell was never funny, has never shown any comic chops. She's just a fat angry loser.
Amy Schumer could be like Melissa, but she is going the way of Rosie.
There is the "Joe Camel" problem: Something that's for adults looks like it's for kids. Kids see the Muppets and get excited and want to see the movie. That's an ethical problem aimed at the movie producers, but if they say yeah we like that, we want something at first glance to look like it's for kids and then — oh no!!! — it's adult.
I wonder how many kids had that reaction when the first "Ted" movie came out.
Post a Comment