## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 2620 B R OWNMARK F I L MS, LLC , Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant,
v. C O M ED Y P ARTN ERS, e tal

. D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 10 -cv-010 13 -JPS

—J. P. S tadtmuel ler , Judge

. A RG UE D J AN UA RY 17, 2012

—D ECI DE D J UNE 7, 2012

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, C hief Ju dg e, an d C UD AH Y an d H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . C UDAH Y, Cir cu i tJudg e . Th is i s a case a b ou t how a court m ay dispos e o fa c op yr i ght infr i ngem ent a cti on ba sed o n the f ai r us e affi r m at i ve d efen se whi l e av o i di ng the b urdens o fdi sco ver y a nd tr i al. This cas e a l so poses the inter est i ng quest i on o fwh etherthe i ncor pora tion

-byre fer en c e d oc tr in e a p p lies to au d io-v isu al w or ks

.2 N o. 11

- 2620 So uth P a rki s a po pul aranim ated t el ev i si o n s ho w i ntended f orm atur e a ud i ences. T h e show cent er s o n th e a d ve n tu re s o f fou l-m ou th ed fou rt h gra d er s inth e s m all town ofSouth Park, C ol or ado. Itis noto ri ous fori ts dist i nct ani m ati on sty le and scato l ogi calhum or . The sho w fre qu e nt l y p r o v i de s c o mm e nt a r y o n c ur r e nt e v e nt s a nd p o pcul ture thr ough parod y and sa ti re . Pre vi ous e pis odes have deal t with the Fl or i da Recoun t, th e a fter m ath ofhurr i cane Katrin a a nd the phenom enon o fcel ebr i ty se x ta p es . Th i s c a s e i nv o l v e s o ne e pi s o de e nt i t l e d “ Ca na da On St rik e,” w h i c h sa tir ize d th e 2 00 7-2 00 8 W rit er s’ G u ild o fAm er i ca str i k e, i ne xpl i cabl y po pul arv i r alv i deo s an d the di ffi cul ty ofm onet izi ng Inter net f am e. In the epi sode, the na ti o n o f Can ada g o es o n st r i k e, demandi nga share ofthe “I nter net m oney ” they b el i eve i s be i ng g ener ate d by viral vide os an d oth e r o n line cont en t. T he South Park Ele m entar y s choolbo ys

—Cartm an, S tan, Kyle and Butters

—deci de to cr eat e a vi ra lv ideo in or der t o ac cr ue en o ug h “Int erne t m o ne y ” to buy o ff the st r i k i ng C an ad ian s. T h e b oy s c re at e a vid eo , “W h at W h at (In The Bu tt) , ” ( W W I TB ) i n w hi ch B u tt ers s i ngs a paean t o an al se x. W i th i n the s ho w, the v i deo i s a hug e hi t, b ut th e b oy s a re on ly a b le t o e ar n “t h eo re tic al d olla rs .” This vi deo i s a paro dy ofa re alworl d vira lvi deo o f th e sam e nam e, fea tu r i nga n a dul t m al e sing i nga nd d an cing in tight p an ts. T he tw o ve r sions of W W I T B are ver y s i m i l ar . The So uth P a rk ver si on re cre ate s a la rge port ion o f the or i gi nalve rs i on, usi ng the sa m e a ngl es, fr ami ng, da nc e m o ve s an d v i su ale l em ent s. Howev er, theN o. 11

- 2620 3 Sou t h Pa rkv e r s ion st ar s B u tt er s, a n aïv e n in e-y ea r old , in a va rie ty o fco stum es draw i ng at tenti on t o hi s innocence: at var i ous points he i s d re ss ed as a teddy bea r, an a str on au t a n d a d ais y. Br o wnm ar kFi l m s, LLC ( Br o wnm ar k ) , the c o py r i g ht hol der forthe or i gi nalW W I TB vi deo, fi l ed sui t a gainst S o uth P ar kDig i ta lStudi o s ( S PDS ) a nd o th er s f o r c o py r i g ht i nfr i ng e men t un de r the Co py r i g ht Act o f 1 9 7 6 , 1 7U
. S. C. §§ 101 et seq
. Bro w nm ar k’ s co m pla i nt r efer enced bo th ver si ons ofW W I TB , but i t di d not a tt ach ei therwork to the c om pla i nt. S PD S re sponded cl ai m i ng the S o uth P a rk ve r si o n was c l ea r l y f ai r us e unde r § 1 07, a ttac hed the tw o w or ks and m ove d fo r dism i ssa lf orf ai l ure to sta te a c laim u n d e r Fe d . R. C iv. P . 12(b )(6) . B ro w n m ar k d id not add re ss the s ubstance o fSP DS’s f ai r use defense, b u t in st ea d arg u ed th at th e c ou rtco u ld n otco n sid er fair use on a 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) mo t i o n t o di s mi s s . T he di s t r i ct co ur t co nc l ud ed th at “[ o ] ne o nl y ne eds t o t ak e a fl ee ting gl ance a t the S outh Par k e pis ode” t o determ in e th at i ts u s e o f th e WW I T B v i d e o i s me a n t “ t o l a mpo o n th e r ec en t cra ze i n our so ci etyof w atchi ng vi deo cl i ps on the i nter net

. . . o fr atherl ow art i sti c so phist i cati on a nd qual i ty”

—in othe r w or ds, f ai r use. The co urt gr anted S PD S’ s m oti on to d ism iss ba se d on th e fa ir u se affirm at ive d efe n se . Brown m ar k a pp eal s, ar gui ng that an unp l eaded affi rm ati ve defe nse o ff ai r use is an i m properbas i s forgr anti ng a m ot ion to d ism iss u n d er R u le 1 2(b )(6) , a n d t h at in an y e v e n t, S P DS ’ s WW I T B v i d e o i s n o t a f a i r u s e o ft he origina l W W I T B video. W e hold that the d istri ct cou rt c o u l d p r o p e r l y d e c i d e f a i r use onS P DS ’ s mo t i o n, a n d we affi rm the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s fi nd i ng o ff ai r use.4 N o. 11

- 2620

Though di s t ri c t c our t s have gr ant ed Rule 12 ( b) ( 6) m ot i ons on 1 the basis ofaffir m ati ve d efense s and th is cou rthas affir m ed thos e dis m is sal s, w e have repeat edly cauti oned thatthe prop er he a di ngf ors uc h m oti ons i s Rul e 1 2 ( c ) , s i nc e a n a ffi r m a t i ve d efense is extern al to th e com p lain t. I. B ro w n m ar k c or re c tly n ot es th at co u rt s s h ou ld u su ally re fra i n fro m gr anti ng Rul e 1 2( b) ( 6) m oti ons on affi rm ati ve d efe n se s. U nite d State s v. Lewis , 41 1 F
. 3d 838, 84 2 ( 7th Cir
. 20 05)
. Rule 12(b) ( 6) te sts wh etherthe com pla i nt st ate s a c laim for re lief, an d a p lain tiff m ay st at e a cla im even thou gh there is a defen se to tha t cla im . T h e m ere prese nce ofa potenti alaffi rm ati ve defe nse doe s no t r ender th e c laim for re lief inval id . Fu rt h er , th es e d efe n se s t yp ica lly tu rn on fac ts n otbe for e t h e c ou rtatth at st ag e in the pr o c e e di ng s . Bu t whe n a l l r e l e v a nt f a c t s a r e p r e s e nt e d, the c ourtm ay proper l y di sm i ss a ca se b efo re di sco very

—typi cal l y thro ugh a Rul e 1 2( c) M oti on f orJudgm ent o n the Pl eadi ngs

—on th e b as is of a n affirm at iv e d efe n se . See 1 i d. ; B roo ks v. R o ss , 57 8 F
. 3d 574, 57 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( approvi ng o fgr anti ng m oti ons to dism i ss base d on the sta tute of l i m i ta ti o ns when“ th e r el eva ntda te s [ th ate st ab l i shthe d efense ] are set forth u na m biguou sly in th e com p lai nt
. ”). D es p ite B ro w n m ar k’s as se rt ion s t o th e c on tr ar y, th e o n ly tw o pie ces ofev i dence needed to d eci de the questi on o ff ai r us e in t his cas e ar e th e o r i g i na lv er si o n o fW W I TB and the epi sode at i ssue. Brown m ar k’ s co pyri ght infr i ngem ent c l ai m i n i ts am end ed c om pla i nt was l i m i ted to th e d i s t r ib u t i o n o fo n e e p i s o de on te lev isio n, South P a rk ’ s webs i te , i Tune s an d Am az o n. com, a nd DVD a ndN o. 11

- 2620 5 B lu -R ay d isc s o f “S ou th P ar k Se as on 12 (U n c en so re d ).” Be c a us e the c l a i m was l i mi t e d t o the p r o du cti on an d distribu tion of a single episod e, th e d istri ct cou rt w as cor re ct t o re l y s ol el y o n the tw o ex press i ve w or ks r efer en ce d i n Br o wnm ar k ’ s amende d c o m pl ainta nd at ta c h ed to SP D S’s m ot ion, as w ell as th e a lleg at ion s in th e c om p lain t, to d ec id e o nth e fa ir u se d efe n se . SPDS r el i es on the i ncor por a t i on-by- re fer ence doctr i ne to m ai ntai n that re l i ance o n the att ached w or ks does not vi ol ate Rule 12(d), wh i ch r equi re s that Rul e 1 2( b) ( 6) or12 ( c) m oti ons conta i ni ng m ate ri al s ou ts ide of th e plead ings b e c onv erted i nt o m otions for sum m ary j ud gm ent. I t i s wel lse ttl ed that i n deci ding a Rul e 1 2( b) ( 6) m oti on, a cour t m ay c on si der “ docum ents att ached to a m o ti o n to di smi ss . . . i fthe y a r e r efer r ed to i n the pl ainti ff’ s co m pla in t an d are cent ra lto hi s cl ai m . ” Wr ight v. A ssoc . Ins. C o s . In c., 29 F.3d 12 44, 1248 (7th C ir. 1994). I n effect, the incor pora ti on-by- re fer ence doctr i ne pro vi des that i fa pla i nti ffm ention s a docum ent in hi s co m pla i nt, th e d efend an t m ay th en su bm it the d ocu m en t to the cou rt w i thout conve rt i ng d e fe nd a nt’ s 1 2 (b ) ( 6 ) m oti on t o a m oti on for su m m ary j ud gm en t. T he doc trine p reven t s a plaintiff fro m “ e va d [in g] d ism iss al u n d er R u le 1 2(b )(6) sim p ly byf ai l i ngt o a tt ac h t o hi s co m pl ainta do cument that prove [ s] hi s cl ai m has no m er i t. ” Tie rney v. Va hle, 30 4 F .3d 73 4, 73 8 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ). W hi l e the appli cati on o fthi s doct rine to the prese nt ca se w oul d seem to al l ow SPDS’s act i on, no cour t o fapp ea ls ha s r ul ed th atthe c o nt en t o ftele vi si o n pr o g r ams a nd si m i l arworks m ay be incorp or ated by r efer ence. S eve ra l6 N o. 11

- 2620 dist ri ct c ourt s hav e con c lu ded thatthe doctr i ne does ap p ly to su c h w or ks

. Se e, e . g. , B urne ttv. Tw ent ie th Cen t ury F ox , 491 F
. Sup p . 2d 962, 966 (C
. D
. Ca l. 2007); Zel l a v. E. W
. Scr ipps Co. , 5 2 9 F
. S up p. 2 d 1 1 2 4 , 1 1 3 1

- 3 2 ( C. D. C al. 20 07 ); D aly v . Vi ac om , 23 8 F
. S up p. 2d 11 18, 11 21-22 (N .D
. C al. 20 02 ). A n d w e t h in k it m ak es em in en tly goo d sense to extend the doctr i ne to c ove r such w or ks, especi al l y i n l i ght of technol ogi cal changes th at have o ccasi oned w i despread pro du cti on o faudio

- vi sual w o r k s. T h e p ar tie s, h ow ev er , d id n otbr ief th is i ssue, a nd so we re ser ve the r eso l uti on o fthe questi on for a lat er d at e.

II. F o l l o wi ng th e r ec en t tr en d o f he i g ht en ed pl ea di ng st an dar ds, a s i n Ash crof tv. Iq b al , 5 56 U. S
. 6 62 ( 20 09 ) a nd B el l Atlanti c Corp. v. Tw om bly, 5 5 0 U. S
. 5 4 4 ( 20 0 7 ) , S PD S ar gues that w e s houl d encoura ge cou rts t o consi der affi rm ati ve d efense s o n 12(b) ( 6) m oti ons and ther eby re d u c e th e t h re at of n u isa n c e s u its . W e a re sy m p at h et ic to the g oal o f curt ai l i ng nui sance sui ts, but w e feelthat ther e is no need to enl ar ge the r ol e o f12 ( b) ( 6) m oti ons, as th er e ar e al r ea dy two o th err ul es tha t addr es s th e si tuati on o fdi sm i ssing ba seless sui ts bef or e di sco ver y: Rul e 12 ( c) M o ti o n f or J udg m en t o n the Pl ea di ng s an d R ule 56 M o t ion f or Sum m ary Jud gm en t. H ad SPD S’s m oti on be en ca pti oned as a m oti on fo r sum m ar y j ud gm ent, th e di st r i ctc o ur t woul d ha ve e m pl o y ed pr o ce dur e es se ntia lly id en tic al t o p ro c ed u re follow in g a 12 (b )(6) m ot ion
.N o. 11

- 2620 7 I t appe ar s S PDS ’ s r ea so n fo r r ely i ngo n the i ncor pora ti on-by- re fer ence doctr i ne f ori ts m oti on t o dism i ss, r atherthan s im p ly capti oni ng i ts m oti on a s a m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent, was i ts concern that such a m an eu ve r woul d o p en th e do o r t o di sc o ve r y . The e xpense o fdi sco ver y, wh i ch SPDS s tr ess ed at or alar gum ent, loo m s ove r th is su it. SP D S, an d am icu s, th e E l e c tr on ic F r o nt i erF o unda ti o n, r emi nd thi s co ur t th at i nfr i ng ement su its are often baseless sh aked o w n s . Ru inou s d iscovery hei g ht e ns the i nc e nt i v e t o s e t t l e r a the r tha n de fe nd thes e fri vol ous sui ts. Bu t disc ove ry w oul d o nl y f ol l ow a Rule 56 m oti on i fthe dist ri ct cour t gr anted a re quest f ordi sco ver y. Dist ri ct c ourt s nee d not, and i nd eed o ught not, al l ow d isc ov er y when i t i s cl earthatthe case tur ns o n f acts alr ea d y in ev id en c e. I n thi s ca se, B row nm ar k di d not r equest disc ove ry . B row nm ark claim s tha t i t cou ld n ot, as th e m atter before the c ourtwas a 1 2( b) ( 6) m oti on, wh i ch does not al l ow f o r di sc o ve r y r eque st s. Butthi s i s ha r d t o b el i ev e. The ca pti o n o n a mot i o n do es no t ha ve s o m e i nde pen den t author i ty that l i tiga n ts orco urts m ust r espect
. Rather th an rely in g on th e n ot ion th at co n sid e r a t i o n of a fa ir use defense i n the conte xt o fa 12(b) ( 6) m oti on was prem atu re , B ro w n m ar k c o u ld h av e p ro vid ed a listof p os sib le ev id en c e t h at w ou ld su p p o rtits infr in ge m en t c laim an d de feat SPD S’s f air us e d efense

. Ind eed , Brow nm ark p ro vid es su c h a list in its br iefs . B ro w n m ar k a rg u es th at it shoul d be a l l owed to d i sco ver : the i ntent ofS PD S at the t i m e the epi sode w as cre ate d; al l re l evantvi deo i m age s orcl i ps, es peci al l y where such uses a re d i vor ced fro m the Epis ode; and pre- ai ring l ice n sing i nfo rm ati on r el ate d8 N o. 11

- 2620

A do pting this p osture w ould hav e given SPD S great er 2 fre ed o m in set tin g o u t i t s fa ir -u se d efe n se . In its re p ly b ri ef, B ro w nm ark m ak es m u ch of the fact tha t SP D S m en tion s B u tters’ naïveté, b utha d noti nt ro duce d evi denc e on Butt er s ’ i nno c en t na tu re . W hil e we d o not feel thatthi s cas e turns on any s uch naïv eté, SPD S co u ld ha v e intro d u ced p rev iou s S ou th P ark epis od es to show thatBu tt er s has r epeatedly dem onst rat ed a lac k of und ers tanding ofsex . S ee, e . g. , B u t t e r s ’V e ry O wn Ep i s o de (C om edy Central te le visi on broad cas t Dec. 12, 2001) (p er ce iv in g sex as w re stl in g ), seeal so C artman S u c ks ( Co m e dy C en tr a l t e le v isi o n b ro a d ca st M a r. 1 4 , 20 0 7 ); S tupid Sp oi l ed Wh or e Video P lay set ( Co m edy Central te le v isi o n broad cas t Dec. 1 , 2004)
. I nd e e d, i n on e o fthe s e e pi s od e s , Bu t t e r s i s dr es se d i n the s am e t eddy bea r c os t um e he wear s i n the W W I TB vi deo. S tu p id Spoi l ed Whore Video P lay set ( Co m edy Central te le v isi o n b ro a d ca st D ec . 1, 2 0 0 4 ). to the Epis ode. W e no ted durin g or alar gum ent that s uch a br oad di sco ver y r equest, sur el y e ntai l i ng expensi ve edisc ove ryo fem ails o r othe r i nter nalco m m unica ti ons, giv es B ro w n m ar k t h e a p p ea ra n c e o f a “c op yr igh t t ro ll.” W e ar e confi dent that the di str i ct c ourtwould have re fused to gra n t s u c h ex p an siv e d em an d s. Therefor e, r atherthan deci de w hetherthe vi deos m ay be i ncor p or ate d-by

- re fer ence i n SPDS’ s m oti on t o dism i ss, w e elect to t reat SPD S’s m otion as a m otion for su m m ary j ud gm ent. S PD S ought to have capti oned the m oti on as such, but the m i scapti oni ng in thi s case shoul d not hav e

2 ca us ed co nfus i o n, a s th e pr o ce dur es f o r b o thmot i o ns ar e e sse n tia l l y the sa m e. The o nl y pos sibl e di sadvantag e to th e pla in tiff w as th e lac k o fn o tic e, s e eEdwardGr ay Corp
. v. Nat ’ l U ni on Fi r eIns . Co. , 94 F. 3d 363, 36 6 ( 7 t h C ir.N o. 11

- 2620 9 19 96 ) , b utthi s er r o r i s harm l es s when th e o ppo ne nt opposi ng the m oti on co uld not have offer ed any e vi dence in resp ons e. A nd as w e note d above, the d istri ct cou rt re quir ed onl y the two vi deos to ad j ud i cate thi s i ssue, especi al l y in l i ght o fBro w nm ar k’ s f ai l ure to m ake any c oncrete co ntenti on that the So uth P a rke pi s o de r educed the fi na nc i alr etur ns fr o m the o r i g i na lW W I TB vi deo. The di str i ct c ourtco uld pro perl y c ons id er an affi rm ative d efense i n th e con tex t o f a m otion for su m m ary j u dgm ent, wh i ch i t di d here , r ega rdl ess o fthe capti on SP D S u se d

.
III
. H av in g c on firm ed t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rtco u ld p ro p er ly dism i ss the s uito n the basi s o fan a ffi rm ati ve defe nse at th is e ar ly st ag e o f th e p r oc ee d in gs , all th atrem ain s is to deter m i n e if t h e d i str i ct c ourter re d i n i ts f ai r use deter m i nati on. Thi s m att eris si m ple because Brown m ar k, i n re sponse to SP D S’s m oti on, di d not a dd re ss f ai r use as appli ed to the W W I TB vid eos , and i nstea d i nsi ste d th at the c ourtco uld notco nsi der the m att erata 12(b) ( 6) sta ge. S i nce Bro w nm ar k ne ve r opposed S PD S’ s f ai r use argum en t i n the di st r i ctc o ur t, we co ns i derthe a r g um en t w aiv ed

. H owever, ev en if B row nm ar k were notbar re d fr om offer i ng ar gum ent that S PD S did notenga ge i n fair use, w e a gr ee w i th the di str i ct c ourtthatthi s i s an obvi ous c ase off ai r use. W hen a defe nd ant ra ise s a f ai r use defense cl ai m i ng hi s o r her w or k i s a p ar ody, a cour t ca n often d ecid e th e m erits of th e claim w ithou t d iscovery or a10 N o. 11

- 2620 tr i al

. W hen the tw o w or ks i n thi s case ar e v i ew ed si de-by

si de, the So uth P a rke pi so de i s cl ea r l y a pa r o dy ofthe origi na lW W I TB v i deo , pr o vi di ngc o m m en ta r y o n the ri dicul ousness o fthe or i gi nalvideo and the vi ra ln atur e o f c er ta inY ou T u b e v id eo s. The Copyri ght Act of 1976 se ts f or th f our, non- excl usi ve f acto rs thata cour t m ust co nsi der in deter m i ni ng wh ether a par ti cul ar us e o f a co py r i g ht ed wor ki s a f ai r us e: “ ( 1) the pu rpos e a nd char acte r ofthe use . . . ; (2 ) the nature o f the c opyr i ghted work ; ( 3) the am ount a nd subst anti al i ty of th e po r ti o n us ed i n r el at i o n to th e co py r i g ht ed w ork as a w hol e; and ( 4) the e ffect ofthe use upon the pote nti al mar k e tf o r o r v a l ue o fthe c o py r i ghted wo r k

. ” 1 7U. S
. C. § 1 07 ( 2 0 0 6). W e c on sid er ea c h fac to r intu rn, ult im at ely ag re ein g w ith th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s a n aly sis an d find in gs . C en tral to d eterm ining th e pu rp ose an d cha ract e r of a w or k i s whether the ne w w or k m er el y s up er sedes the o ri gi nalwork, o r i nstea d add s s om ething new with a fur t h e r p u r p o s e or of a d if fe r e n t c h aract er. C am pbel l v. Acuff- R ose M usic, Inc. , 510 U
. S. 569, 579 (1994 ). T he un d erlyi ng pu rp ose an d cha racter SP D S ’s w ork w as to com m ent o n and cri ti q ue the soc i alphenom enon that i s the “v i ra lvi deo. ” Bro w nm ar k’ s v i deo e xem pli fi es the “ vi ra lvi deo. ” Thro ugh one ofthe Sou t h P a rk c h a r a c ters

—th e innoc en t and naïve B ut ters

—S PD S i m i ta te s vi r alv i deo c r ea ti o n whi l e l a mpo o n in go n e p ar ti cul ar l y w ell-k n ow n e x am p le of su c h a v i deo. M or e o v e r, the e pi s o de p l a c e s Bu t t e r s ’ WW I TB v i deo al o ng si de o th er Yo uTub e hi ts i nc l udi ng, amongo th er s, the N um a N um a Gu y, the Snee zi ng Panda a nd the A fro N i nj a.N o. 11

- 2620 11 This ki nd o fparo dic use h as obvi ous t ra nsf or m ati ve va lu e, w h ich u n d er § 1 0 7 i s fa ir u se . See § 107 (pream ble); C am pbel l , 5 10 U. S
. a t 57 9 ( “[ P] ar o dy, l i k e o th erc o m m en t or cri ticism , m ay claim f air us e un d er § 107.”). Th e c r e a t i v e a nd e xp r e s s i v e n a t ur e o fthe o r i g i na l W W I TB pl ac es the wor kwi th i n the c o r e o fc o py r i g ht prot ecti on. But thi s fa cto r onl y establ i shes that the o ri gi nal el em ents of W W IT B ar e pr ote cted t o the o uterbo und s o f co py r i g htpr o te ct i o n, whi chi s defi ned b y f ai r us e. In the case of p arod y, th is f acto r offers l ittl e help to Brow nm ark be ca us e “pa r o di es al m o st i nv ar i ab l y co py publ i cl y kno wn, express i ve w or ks. ” Id. at58 6. Regard in g th e thi rd f acto r, S PD S’ s use o fthe or i gi nal W W I TB was not i nsubstanti al

. Cert ai nl y, S PD S used th e “h ea r t” o fthe wor k ; the wor k ’ s o ve r al lde sign a nd d i st in c tiv e v isu al e lem en ts
. Harp e r& R o w, Pu b l rs . v. Na tio n E nters. , 47 1 U
. S. 53 9, 56 5 ( 1985 )
. But i n the conte xt o f paro dy, “[ c] opyi ng does notbec om e e xcessi ve i n re l ati on to paro dic p urpose m er el y b ecause the port i on t ake n w as the o ri gi nal ’ s hea rt
. ” C am pbel l , 5 1 0 U. S
. a t5 8 8
. P a r o dy th er ef or e “ prese nts a di ffi cul t ca se. ” Id. Ind eed, i t m ay ev en se em as an an om aly u n d er fair u s e t h at p ar od y, a f avo re d use, m ust use a substa n tia lam ount o fqual i tat i ve an d quant i ta ti ve el ement s to c r ea te the i nt en ded al l us i o n; ther e a re few al ternati ves. But w hen paro dy achi eve s its int en d ed aim , th e a m ou n t t ak en be c om es rea so n ab le whe n the p a r o dydo e s n o ts e r v e a s a ma r k e ts ubs ti tute for th e w or k. Se ei d. (“[H ]ow m u c h m or e is rea so n ab le w il l d ep en d

. . . o n th e ext en t to w hich the [w ork’s] overriding p urp ose an d cha ra c t e r i s to pa rod y the ori ginal or,12 N o. 11

- 2620 i n c o nt r a s t, the l i k e l i ho o d tha t the pa r o dy may s e r v e a s a m ar ketsubst i tute f orthe or i gi nal

. ”)
. The Sou t h P a rk W W I TB i s cl ea r l y a pa r od y a nd ha s no t su ppl an te d the o r i g i na lWW I TB
. I tf o l l o ws fr o m t he thi r d f a c t o r tha tS PD S ’ s p a r o dy cannot have an acti onabl e effect on the pot enti alm ar ketf or or v alu e o fthe or i gi nalW W I TB vi deo under the f ourth f acto r. A s the So uth P a rkepiso d e ap tly points out, there i s no “Inter net m on ey ” fo r the v i deo i tse l fo n YouTu be, onl y a dvert i si ng dol l ar s that co rrela te w i th the num ber ofvie ws the v i de o h a s h a d. I ts e e ms t o thi s c o ur tthat SPDS’ s l i kel y e ffect, i ro ni cal l y, would onl y incre ase ad re venue. A ny effect on the der i vati ve m ar ketf or cri ti ci sm i s no t pr ote ctabl e. Id. at 592. A nd the p lai nt iff ha s fai led to give the d istri ct cou rt or this court any concr ete sugge sti on about potenti al evi dence i nd i cati ng tha t the So uth P a rkp ar ody has cut i nto any r ealm ar ket ( w i th r eal, non- I nter net dol l ar s) f orderi vati ve uses of the o ri gi nalW W I TB vi deo. W e ag r ee wi ththe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s wel l

- r ea so ne d a nd del i g ht fulo pi ni o n. F o r the se r ea so ns , the j udg m en t o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

6- 7- 12