It’s probably copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and trademark dilution. What makes you think that it’s not? Just the fact that it is still on the internet? Why do you think that intellectual property owners are always complaining about the impossibility of policing infringement on the internet?
NSFW, obviously.
I remember that one. I also remember that despite being typical Smurf blue, the Smurf was given with exaggerated stereotypical “black” features.
Here’s what Paul Krassner had to say about it.
I called Wally Wood, a staff artist for Mad magazine, and assigned him to create a black-and-white montage - a “Disneyland Memorial Orgy” - for the middle two pages of the May 1967 issue of my satirical journal, The Realist…
The pious empire that owned them was well aware of the poster. They didn’t sue me, but they became militantly litigious in the years that followed.
For example, their attorneys arranged to have white paint splashed over the “innocent delightfulness” of Disney characters at three day-care centres in Florida. They also threatened a lawsuit against Britian’s official artist for the 1991 Gulf war, John Keane, for his painting of Mickey Mouse sitting on a toilet, with a shopping cart of anti-tank missiles nearby, and a background of shattered palm trees. Keane said that the idea came to him in Kuwait City, in a marina used by the Iraqis, where he found a Mickey Mouse amusement ride surrounded by faeces.
Recently, as if to honour the 50th anniversary of Disneyland, I published a digitally coloured edition of the poster (available at PaulKrassner.com). I was nervous about doing it, but the only alternative was not to do it. However, my lawyer reassures me: “In the 40 years since the work was first published, Disney has not objected to the parody use of its characters in this copyrighted work. Because of this decades-long delay, I think the company has ‘slept on its rights’. Should Disney, which is known to be a very aggressive company concerning its intellectual property rights, ever make a claim against you, someone who has slept on his rights loses them as to the work has failed to object to for so many years.”
This concept of “sleeping on rights” applies only to trademark law, not to copyright law. However, even under under copyright law, the First Amendment protects parodies.
This description makes me think of what we used to call “8-pagers” back in the late 50’s and early 60’s. For me, that’s high school. Literally eight pages long, they were pornographic cartoons booklets. And I specifically remember one with Popeye and his enormous…member. Yep, we passed them around, looked at them furtively, laughed, and then wondered about the real-life versions.
I remember some that you could flip through quickly and simulate movement.
I have some book of feminist cartoons from like the 80s which has some interesting Star Trek porn including Kirk-Spock romance. Spock was, of course the bottom. There are also scenes of the two of the wanking off on a new planet to “possess” it.
Yep. There are porn parodies of absolutely everything, both animated and live action. Superman, Scooby Doo, Happy Days, Seinfeld, you name it. Google any movie or tv show and type the word “porn” after it and something will, ahem, come up.
In fact, google any word whatsoever followed by the word porn and you’ll get something. It’s weird and funny to do. Try it. Think of any crazy word and then type porn after it. NSFW.
An entity like Disney or Archie comics knows where thay can get their best ROI, and that is in stopping things that cut into sales and that could eat into the brand integrity. The nursery school is welcome to buy character posters from Disney, but should not just paint Mickey on the wall themselves. And the big studios are familiar with the Streisand Effect. They are NOT going to give Hustler free publicity for their porn parody of one of their properties.
Yes you all read that right, Seinfeld.
And Avengers and 1960s Batman and live-action Smurfs, Og help us all.
And in the cartoon/animated side everyone from Wonder Woman (of course) to the Powerpuff Girls, from Naruto to Totoro(!!!) and every damn game character from Mortal Kombat to Animal Crossing.
Rule 34, well, Rules.
Hustler won the parody case that made it safe for everyone.
Admittedly, it wasn’t strictly porn and it wasn’t Disney. But most of the landmark censorship cases come from outlets that were once considered porn.
if you want to see the Japanese parody porn lookup <insert character/series here>doujins just make sure your security is on and your not at work and such
The Falwell case involving Hustler also wasn’t a copyright or trademark infringement case. It was a defamation case. The key finding was that no reasonable person would believe that the cartoon was making a statement of fact. So, the matter of its being a parody was secondary.
The key parody case was Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, which was about 2 Live Crew’s Version of “Pretty Woman.”
That’s an issue for copyright infringement. You can pick and choose which copyright cases to pursue without any penalty.
However, trademark cases are different. If you fail to pursue a trademark matter, you can lose your trademark rights.
There’s also a live-action American Dad, complete with Roger the Alien.
A buddy of mine and I once had a contest to see who could find the most deranged categories by taking a simple noun and putting the word “porn” after it. I’m going to spoiler what the “winning” term was, out of sympathy for the sensibilities of others: Down Syndrome porn.
Neither of us are proud of that,
“ASSHOLES!”
Sorry. Dave Barry story about performing with the Rock-Bottom Remainders.
Thanks for the correction.
It’s a notable event—you’re never wrong about anything! 
La, Sir, I’m blushing. Kind of you to say since you’re the only expert on IP here. I’m at best a knowledgeable layman with an obviously faulty memory.
My problem is that I know just enough about IP to know that 99% of what people say online is wrong. And who can resist that?
At least one parody – I think in MAD – gave Henry a Baby Herman backstory.