Go back one page

For any company to outright declare an artist's parody to be in violaton of another's work, prior to any court decision agreeing to such, is patently illegal. The ultimate decision of whether or not a work is parody, must be decided in court...if any potential plaintiff cares to challenge the piece. Schulz's lawyer's letter was an infringement on my person, and a slanderous accusation. Letter did not say "We believe your work may be an infringement of our clients' art." If they did, then they would be legal. Instead, they claimed absolutely that my work is a copyright and/or trademark violation.

Their letter was entitled "Unauthorized use of PEANUTS Characters", and later said "...all of which constitutes a clear violation of these rights." Had they phrased it like: "Questionable use of PEANUTS Characters", and "...all of which constitutes a possible violation of these rights"...then they would be behaving as responsible attorneys, instead of asserting authority that only belongs to a judge and jury. (These are but two examples among several in the letter, in which they impersonate a judge.)

As I understand copyright law, when the piece in question is a parody whose style is to mimic another author's work...then there is no violation of any copyright/trademark. If the artist being parodied cares to challenge this, then he must take it to court...for the final arbiter of whether or not a work is really parody, must be the court. The firm of Baker & Hostetler is acting as sole judge and jury...and therefore is impersonating an officer of the law: in this case, a judge. This is definitely against the law, and an abuse of authority which should hold no place in a democracy.

The plaintiff's most likely attack would be to question if my work is really a parody. I claim it is, in the most traditional sense of the word. From my Random House electronic dictionary:

par·o·dy (par_uh dEE)  n. pl. <-dies> v. <-died, -dy·ing>                     
    n.                                                                        
     1.  a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of              
         literature or writing.                                               
     2.  the genre of literary composition represented by such imitations.    
     3.  any humorous, satirical, or burlesque imitation, as of a person,     
         event, etc.                                                          
     4.  a burlesque imitation of a musical composition.                      
     5.  a poor or feeble imitation; travesty.                                
    v.t.                                                                      
     6.  to imitate (a composition, author, etc.) for purposes of             
         ridicule or satire.

My "Pee Nuts" is indeed a parody, per definitions (1), (3), and (6). In the case of (1), I have accomplished a humorous rendering of Peanuts, that has never been done before...nor has the topic of gay rights ever been brought up in Peanuts. Thus by portraying the characters as gay, I point out the absurdity of Schulz's omission of that aspect of human rights, though he has covered many other issues over the years.

In the case of (3), I am satirizing the characters of Lucy and Charlie Brown ...putting them in what is a surprising and revelatory position, in relation to their customary roles in this popular comic strip.

And in the case of (6), I closely mimic the Peanuts strip, so that at first glance, one assumes it is another Schulz original. But upon closer observation, one notices their topic of conversation as completely unexpected for the usual nature of this strip, that they are both sporting a pink triangle, and (by virtue of their dialog and dress) are portrayed as gay activists. I am, in essence, ridiculing Charles Schulz for neglecting the gay issue.

IN CONCLUSION:
Not only am I defending my free speech to parody another's work...but I declare the lawyer's letter itself an offense against the court and the jury process. An offense that is liable by law, and potentially damaging to their clients. No matter how heavily protected is an artist's copyright or trademark...he does not have any legal assertion over censoring a parody of any work that he has originated. (That is, under the artistic "fair use" laws here in the United States.)