Powered by i.TV
November 27, 2014

'South Park' Sued Over Two-Year-Old 'What What' Parody

by Jean Bentley, posted Nov 15th 2010 5:40PM
'South Park''South Park''s 2008 viral video spoof, 'Canada on Strike,' paid tribute to many of the Internet's most famous celebrities. But somehow, it took one of them two years to react to the episode.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the makers of the copyrighted viral music video "What What (In the Butt)" are suing the show for infringement after a remake featuring the character Butters appeared in the 'Canada' episode.

The resulting parody was "willful, intentional, and purposeful, in disregard of and indifferent to the rights of Brownmark," the lawsuit states.

Just one question: what took them so long? It's been a full two and a half years since that 'South Park' episode aired. Surely the copyright holders saw the parody then, so why did they wait so long to sue? Besides, shouldn't there be a statute of limitations on these things?

Watch the not-so-safe for work videos and let us know what you think. Do the video makers have a case?




Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

3 Comments

Filter by:
Picviewer

Pay em off in all that internet money and be done with it. which if i recall was the basis for the show anyways. ok pal?
Future news posting: South Park parodies a thrownout lawsuit which was filed back in November(link) at which time said internet douche tried to sue SP studios for copyright infringement 2.5 years after the fact for a piece of parody.

November 16 2010 at 1:33 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Mike

"We want more money."

I guess the irony of that very episode is escaping these morons. Or maybe it took them 2 years to find a lawyer stupid enough to sue a parody because of copyright infringement.

Here's a clue: If George Lucas and his teams of lawyers couldn't get a dime for Spaceballs spoofing Star Wars, what are the chances that these geniuses will get anything for a South Park episode specifically about internet videos?

This is really stupid.

November 15 2010 at 8:08 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
snowy2004

"The resulting parody was "willful, intentional, and purposeful, in disregard of and indifferent to the rights of Brownmark," the lawsuit states."

Well... yes. Isn't that the point of parody? Isn't parody protected against infringement due to its very nature of copying a pre-existing concept? Aren't there laws protecting it?

November 15 2010 at 5:54 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Follow Us

From Our Partners