What What, Fair Use on a 12(b)(6)?

June 8, 2012

“What what, in the butt?” was the question recently before justices Easterbrook, Cudahy and Hamilton in the appeal of Brownmark Films LLC v. Comedy Partners from the Eastern District of Wisconsin. (Opinion)  At issue was whether South Park’s interpretation of Samwell’s “What What In The Butt,” as performed by Butters in the episode “Canada on Strike,” was non-infringing fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107.  More interestingly, though, was that Comedy Partners raised the defense on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss – without any discovery or opportunity therefor (see FRCP 56(d), formerly Rule 56(f)).  The Eastern District of Wisconsin agreed that South Parks’ rendition of What What In the Butt was fair use, and dismissed the Complaint at the pleading stage.

Brownmark did not include the original What What In the Butt video, nor South Park’s adaptation, in its Complaint.  South Park Digital Studios did, however, attach both videos to its motion to dismiss, relying on the incorporation by reference doctrine.  On appeal, the Seventh Circuit resolved this issue in South Park’s favor:

Because the claim was limited to the production and distribution of a single episode, the district court was correct to rely solely on the two expressive works referenced in Brownmark’s amended complaint and attached to SPDS’s motion, as well as the allegations in the complaint, to decide on the fair use defense.

SPDS relies on the incorporation-by-reference doctrine to maintain that reliance on the attached works does not violate Rule 12(d), which requires that Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c) motions containing materials outside of the pleadings be converted into motions for summary judgment. It is well settled that in deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court may consider “documents attached to a motion to dismiss . . . if they are referred to in the plain- tiff’s complaint and are central to his claim.” Wright v. Assoc. Ins. Cos. Inc., 29 F.3d 1244, 1248 (7th Cir. 1994). In effect, the incorporation-by-reference doctrine provides that if a plaintiff mentions a document in his complaint, the defendant may then submit the document to the court without converting defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion to a motion for summary judgment. The doctrine prevents a plaintiff from “evad[ing] dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) simply by failing to attach to his complaint a document that prove[s] his claim has no merit.” Tierney v. Vahle, 304 F.3d 734, 738 (7th Cir. 2002). (Op. at 5)

But the Seventh Circuit noted a curious wrinkle to this analysis:

While the application of this doctrine to the present case would seem to allow SPDS’s action, no court of appeals has ruled that the content of television programs and similar works may be incorporated by reference. Several district courts have concluded that the doctrine does apply to such works. See, e.g., Burnett v. Twentieth Century Fox, 491 F. Supp. 2d 962, 966 (C.D. Cal. 2007); Zella v. E.W. Scripps Co., 529 F. Supp. 2d 1124, 1131-32 (C.D. Cal. 2007); Daly v. Viacom, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1121-22 (N.D. Cal. 2002). And we think it makes eminently good sense to extend the doctrine to cover such works, especially in light of technological changes that have occasioned widespread production of audio-visual works. The parties, however, did not brief this issue, and so we reserve the resolution of the question for a later date. (Op. at 5-6)

Ultimately finding that the Eastern District of Wisconsin was within its jurisdiction to grant dismissal, the appellate court engages in a relatively truncated fair use analysis under the four factors of 17 U.S.C. § 107.  The reason for the brevity?

Since Brownmark never opposed SPDS’s fair use argument in the district court, we consider the argument waived. (Op. at 9)

Ouch.  And, since it’s the Seventh Circuit, that means automatically shifting attorney’s fees and costs under 17 U.S.C. § 505.  What What In the Butt, Indeed.

Perhaps the overlooked gem of this opinion is that the Seventh Circuit has forever enshrined my favorite South Park meme: Internet Money.

The South Park Elementary school boys—Cartman, Stan, Kyle and But- ters—decide to create a viral video in order to accrue enough “Internet money” to buy off the striking Canadians. The boys create a video, “What What (In The Butt),” (WWITB) in which Butters sings a paean to anal sex. Within the show, the video is a huge hit, but the boys are only able to earn “theoretical dollars.”

As the South Park episode aptly points out, there is no “Internet money” for the video itself on YouTube, only advertising dollars that correlate with the number of views the video has had. It seems to this court that SPDS’s likely effect, ironically, would only increase ad revenue. Any effect on the derivative market for criticism is not protectable. Id. at 592. And the plaintiff has failed to give the district court or this court any concrete suggestion about potential evidence indicat- ing that the South Park parody has cut into any real market (with real, non-Internet dollars) for derivative uses of the original WWITB video. (Op.)

Of course, when I use “Internet Money,” it refers to settlements from BitTorrent infringers and others who pay for their wrongdoing.  But, it is evocative of the constant challenge of monetizing the digital ether of the World Wide Web.


The only time Bill Clinton genuinely smiled

May 24, 2012

Is in this photo, with two well-known adult actresses.

I’ve noticed that Hilary Clinton has been growing her hair out and shedding the paige-boy look she sported much of her adult life.  That’s great, and more women should do the same – there are no two things worse on any girl than flip-flops and a short haircut.  Unfortunately, Hilary’s efforts might not have been enough.


Wanna own the Righthaven trademark?

May 2, 2012

By J. DeVoy

Hey, you! Give your failed life some meaning by purchasing Righthaven’s registered servicemark!  Available now on eBay!

OWN RIGHTHAVEN’S  “COMMERCIAL GOODWILL” LOLOLOLOLZ!


The Prince of Darkness’ Family Jewels.

April 6, 2012

Sweet Mary, mother of fucking awesomeness!


I heard on the radio it was Good Friday today.  “Damn right it’s Good Friday,” I thought, “it’s the season opener for the Diamondbacks.”  Baseball season is here and I am one happy camper.  Turns out, though, I totally forgot this weekend is Easter and Good Friday is something Christians celebrate in connection with Jesus’ torture, death, and zombification.

But for you “only celebrate Easter and Christmas” Christians out there- beware- you are backsliding into the fiery pit of hell with every package of Paas Dye.   Something dastardly has infiltrated the fuzzy bunnies, cute little chickies, and OMG amazing candy holiday:

Satan’s giggle berries.

Gasp you should, this is not a new brand of candy (but how awesome would it be if it was?) This Sunday, as your little darlings scamper about festooned in their pretty dresses and bow ties finding Easter Eggs here and there, they will be filling their brightly colored baskets full of Mephistopheles’ nads.

Fortunately, Dr. Daniel Cameroon has written a book to help guide us through these troubled times. It’s called “Are Your Children Playing With Lucifer’s Testicles? The Truth About Easter Eggs”.  Source.   No discount, though, because only Jesus saves.

Please help make everyone aware of this danger and instead of collecting Beelzebub’s family jewels, tell the little children to stomp those Devil Balls  (also a good name for candy) into the ground instead.   How great would that be to see?  I bet the Cadbury Cream Egg explosion would be epic.


Bieber Bang Bus Presents

March 6, 2012

Normal Plungers are Bad, mmm’kay?

December 29, 2011

By J. DeVoy

H/T: Roosh


One man’s heist from an adult novelty store blows up on him

July 8, 2011

By J. DeVoy

A Virginia man broke into an adult novelty store earlier this week, but did not steal anything.  Law enforcement was summoned and, upon arriving on the scene, the suspect fled to a closet in an effort to avoid apprehension.  He was then discovered by police — as he was “attempting sexual relations” with a blow-up doll.

Naturally, South Park has commentary pre-made for the incident: