This question came to me after watching the movie “Funny Pages”. In the opening scene the main character is with one of his teachers looking at a strip that has the comic strip character Henry and his girl friend getting it on. It seems to me that this would be a copyright violation. I understand that this porn genre has existed for a while, but was surprised to see it in a movie. Should the makers of the movie be expecting a nasty letter from King Features (or whoever owns the rights to the character)?
For a while, a publishing company based in Mexico (so as to avoid being easily sued and shut down) made little booklets featuring porn with comic strip and cartoon characters. They are known as Tijuana Bibles. They can be found at comic shops and antique shows.
OTTOMH Percy the guard is caught reading a TB in Green Mile.
Depends. Depends. Depends. Depends.
I haven’t seen the movie, but… First, I’m sure that every movie, even indies, are passed by lawyers to ensure that nothing is included that would create a legitimate suit. Second, copyright has a number of exceptions and parody is one of them. Third, the question of whether Henry’s likeness is protected by copyright isn’t clear to me; likeness may fall under Trademark law instead. Fourth, see my opening paragraph.
It was referred to as a Tijuana Bible. It probably wasn’t an actual one; my daughter told me that a real cartoonist drew the cartoons in the movie.
Tijuana Bibles date back as far as the 1920s. See the link for an interesting Wiki article.
They were palm-sized pornographic comic books produced in the United States from the 1920s to the early 1960s. Their popularity peaked during the Great Depression era.
From the wiki article:
“Most Tijuana bibles were obscene parodies of popular newspaper comic strips of the day, such as “Blondie”, “Barney Google”, “Moon Mullins”, “Popeye”, “Tillie the Toiler”, “The Katzenjammer Kids”, “Dick Tracy”, “Little Orphan Annie”, and “Bringing Up Father”. Others made use of characters based on popular movie stars, and sports stars of the day, such as Mae West, Clark Gable and Joe Louis, sometimes with names thinly changed. Before World War II, almost all the stories were humorous and frequently were cartoon versions of well-known dirty jokes that had been making the rounds for decades.”
“Bringing Up Father”??? The idea of seeing Jiggs and Maggie getting it on frightens me.
What, you can’t take the image of Maggie getting jiggy or Jiggs getting Maggie? Tsk!
Insect!
heh you guys missed the blondie pnes which led to all sorts of interesting situations … and no as long as its “parody” there’s no copyright violation …otherwise the anime companies would sue people out of existence because of rule 34
I’ve read that after the Disney animators finished drawing Snow White, they drew some very interesting additional takes on her.
And remember Erin Esurance? She got retired from too much porn.
Cite: Esurance Axes Erin After the Secret Agent Took on an X-Rated Life of Her Own - CBS News
I once heard that Disney was planning sex education comics aimed at kids. Guess what happens when Pinocchio tells a lie.
(rim shot)
There are X-rated parodies of the old “Archie” comics on-line. They look exactly like the comics books of the 1960s looked, and I’ve always wondered how they were not in violation of a copyright. Could the copyrights have expired? All I can say is, the ones involving Betty and Veronica are…everything you might have imagined as a 12 year-old.
Were there any with Big Ethel?
I can’t think of too many things I’d be less interested in seeing than Henry having sex.
BTW, isn’t Henry supposed to be a child?
mmm
Ignoring some of the other challenges the owner of the character would face if trying to sue for copyright there’s also the “transformative use” defense. The movie is a separate work of art and the comic strip is a small portion used in a way that doesn’t reduce the value of the original.
Him being a child occured to me as well. I just remembered a picture in National Lampoon of a Smurf doing it doggie style with Strawberry Shortcake.
I bet nobody could get away with using Disney characters, though.
The whole point of transgressive art is to transgress norms.
Back in the 60s someone did a poster of all of Disney’s characters engaging in an outdoor orgy. You can still find copies around occasionally, but Disney’s lawyers stopped the printing of it toot sweet.
ETA: $295 from Amazon of all places!
Are you not familiar with the internet?
What’s that? I’ve only been a librarian for 30 years. I’m referring to what’s under the spotlight, not under rocks on the Web. Ever notice that when National Lampoon’s Vacation came out they were no longer going to Disney World?
I’m just saying, images licensed cartoon characters having sex with each other are as common online as cat pictures. Saying that 99.99% of the contents of the genre is “under a rock” is missing the point.
But I get what you’re saying: no, Disney probably wouldn’t have allowed pornographic versions of its characters in a movie, even a tiny indie film that very few people have seen. That’s because unlike the vast majority of the stuff out there, is is a rare case where they can actually do something about it.