Is saturday night live illegal?No. If is it clearly stated as a parody then there is no copyright infringement.

@pallen123, are you looking for reliable legal advice? We are not all necessarily qualified to give it.

Dieclaimer, @XOIIO?

Twitter actually supports accounts like that from what I’ve seen. So I would bet your friend is in the clear.

Bearing in mind that I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice, my understanding is that parodies are generally legal. And as long as your friend isn’t violating any Twitter policies, I doubt there will be any problems. The company could try to have the account shut down, but I doubt it would go any further than that (if it even went that far).

Yes, although that person/company can sue you for defamation.

I follow @BPGlobalPR and Keith Olberman’s @FOKNews. I also follow @FakeAPStyleBook. So Twitter seems to be okay with them.

A public figure cannot sue for defamation. A company? Not sure. I think not.

@Jesus has a Twitter account and I’ve yet to hear that the Vatican has retained any legal representation.

The Vatican does not own Jesus.

They are an organization that could successfully argue that they represent Jesus.

this being because jesus would more than likely not show up for the court date

@Blondesjon I would actually guess that they haven’t sued because it would become international relations, and they’d have to convince whatever country @Jesus was in (the real user,not Jesus, obviously) to extradite him to the Vatican in order for there to be any legal proceedings.

Only if you disregard the entire Protestant Reformation.

Anybody else remember back to when Jerry Falwell sued Larry Flint and Hustler magazine over a parody article about his “first time” sex encounter (and if memory serves correctly it purported to be with his Mother) ?

Even tho it was certainly tasteless and rather vile, Falwell’s suit was ultimately unsuccessful. . Freedom of speech (including parody) prevailed.

So something clearly stating Fake as part of its name pales in comparison.

Even if. XYZ Corp tried to sue for defamation or whatever, it probably would get thrown out of court in the first attempt.

That Flint-Falwell imbroglio was precedent setting. If sites called Microsoft Sucks and similar still exist without their authors being sued for defamation, then something clearly labeled as Fake is unlikely to be in danger.

However, I can’t speak for the owners of Twitter. But maybe Ben, Andrew and the other Flutter gods can put in a good word for you ;)

Yes, according to my (admittedly rudimentary) knowledge of media law, a public figure cannot sue for libel. Falwell should have known that. Nor can a dead person, or someone on his or her behalf, sue for libel. (Which makes it perfectly legal to take Jesus’ name in vain. Not sure how this applies to God… but let’s not go there.)

And let’s not disregard the Protestant Reformation. It allowed for all of that beautiful polyphony! And Bach! ;)

@Buttonstc It might fail – it often does. However, the cost of the lawsuit will probably do a lot of damage to the parodier, and not a whole lot to the parodeee.

There were also two more recent cases which provided a few good laughs.

Outdoor clothing and gear store The North Face brought suit against the creators of The South Butt.

Eventually NF decided to settle the case as it wasn’t worth the negative reactions of the public to their heavy-handed tactics.

And several years ago Abercrombie and Fitch brought suit against a really clever parody site called Aberzombie. They tried to claim trademark infringement due to people confusing the two. (As if…) They did not prevail either.

Reading through the details of the court case was really interesting.

The pontificating of A&F’s lawyers was really hilarious.

Freedom of speech is still alive and well. Even if that speech contains biting satire.

@Lily

I was typing a second time as you were posting so I didn’t read your post immediately. I really do understand what you’re getting at, but the public has repeatedly shown their disapproval when a big company viciously goes after the little guy just having a little fun. Their overkill is what does them in.

In both of the cases I just added reference to, the companies lost incalculably in terms of public perception and good will and, I’m guessing, sales as well.

If I rember correctly, the Aberzombie creator chose to represent himself. And did a bang up job of it.

And I’ll bet he sold a boatload of his Aberzombie T-Shirts to boot.

People generally stand behind the little guy going up against the pompous a-hole company with no sense of humor.

I don’t recall ever hearing about any court case over any
_____________ Sucks websites. There are a bunch of them, similarly titled but Microsoft was the only one which sprang to mind.

But there may be relatively lesser known ones who folded after the first C&D letter from a lawyer not realizing that there was a good likelihood they might prevail.

But I loved the moxie and tenacity of the Aberzombie guy. That’s why I waded through so much of the details. It was really fascinating.

But, as I mentioned before, I really do understand the point you raised. Not every satirist has the stomach for a fight like that.

And that’s PRECISELY what some of these companies are counting on. I love it when a plucky underdog is willing to go toe to toe with them and refuse to be steamrollered by them.

The David vs. Goliath dynamic is fascinating to see.

and while we’re talking about the little guys going up against the pompous a$$eS, let’s not forget about FleurtyGirl of New Orleans taking on the NFL for her right to print T-shirts with WhoD@t? on them. NFL claimed they owned the copyright to that as a part of owning the New Orleans Saints, but when it was discovered (by FleurtyGirl) that the saying had originated long pre-NFL in Vaudeville comedy routines, the threat of an NFL lawsuit against her evaporated. The whole bucket of crap also garnered some bad press for the NFL and I think they were glad to just have it all go away.
As far as your parody question goes, the general rule of libel or defamation concerns intent. You would have to intend to cause harm or loss of income or public humiliation to said XYZ Company in order for there to be any court rulings against you.