# Could Disney sue over a duck cartoon? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 28, 2016, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-disney-sue-over-a-duck-cartoon/769932 "2016-10-28T14:11:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2016, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-disney-sue-over-a-duck-cartoon/769932/1 "2016-10-28T14:11:03Z")
Yesterday, the Montreal Gazette had an editorial cartoon showing very Donald looking duck with his bill wide open ranting “Make white America great again”. Is this too close to copyright infringement? ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2016, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-disney-sue-over-a-duck-cartoon/769932/2 "2016-10-28T14:20:02Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > Yesterday, the Montreal Gazette had an editorial cartoon showing very Donald looking duck with his bill wide open ranting “Make white America great again”. Is this too close to copyright infringement? As always, the answer to “could X sue?” is yes – the real question is, could they win? Would a reasonable person be confused by this representation to believe the Disney endorsed the message? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2016, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-disney-sue-over-a-duck-cartoon/769932/3 "2016-10-28T14:39:26Z")
No. The standard for copyright infringement is “substantial similarity.” While the image may be substantially similar, in the case of a literary and artistic work such as Donald Duck the narrative must be similar too. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2016, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-disney-sue-over-a-duck-cartoon/769932/4 "2016-10-28T14:58:10Z")
Disney threaten to sue the University of Oregon for their duck mascot … yeah, it was an exact copy … don’t know the arrangement that was agreed upon but the imagery is still in use … I’m guessing money was exchanged and a licensing document in place. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2016, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-disney-sue-over-a-duck-cartoon/769932/5 "2016-10-28T15:05:55Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Disney threaten to sue the University of Oregon for their duck mascot … yeah, it was an exact copy … don’t know the arrangement that was agreed upon but the imagery is still in use … I’m guessing money was exchanged and a licensing document in place. [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oregon_Duck#Relationship_with_Disney) > [@](#): > > Beginning in 1940, cartoon drawings of Puddles in student publications began to resemble Donald Duck, and by 1947, Walt Disney was aware of the issue. Capitalizing on his friendship with a Disney cartoonist, Oregon athletic director Leo Harris met Disney and reached an informal handshake agreement that granted the University of Oregon permission to use Donald as its sports mascot. > > When Disney lawyers later questioned the agreement in the 1970s, the university produced a photo showing Harris and Disney wearing matching jackets with an Oregon Donald logo. [The photo.](https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1720/26255797495_7f81bbbd75.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2016, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-disney-sue-over-a-duck-cartoon/769932/6 "2016-10-28T15:06:03Z")
If it helps - here is a link [http://wpmedia.montrealgazette.com/2016/10/aislinweb-102716ca.jpg?quality=55&strip=all&w=840&h=630&crop=1](http://wpmedia.montrealgazette.com/2016/10/aislinweb-102716ca.jpg?quality=55&strip=all&w=840&h=630&crop=1) ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2016, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-disney-sue-over-a-duck-cartoon/769932/7 "2016-10-28T15:32:40Z")
There are two issues at work here: copyright and trademark. One way to use copyrighted works is fair use. Quoting small amounts of works here at the Dope is considered fair use, because that serves an educational, informative purpose. So even using Donald’s image may be allowed in certain contexts. Here, Donald Duck’s image was not used; it was parodied. Parody is almost universally considered a protected form of fair use. Trademark has a somewhat different set of allowed uses. The use of “Disney” as a term indicating its products and “Donald Duck” as one of those products are no doubt themselves trademarked but everyone is allowed to make reference to such terms. We are not using the terms to sell goods in a way that may confuse buyers to the identity of the seller. Using the actual image in a commercial product has no such protection. Consumers might legitimately assume that The Walt Disney Company had issued or authorized the product. Even variations or parodies on a trademarked image can fall under this rule. An editorial cartoon might be termed a commercial use because the newspaper uses it to sell newspapers. Of course, I’m spouting U.S. law and the cartoon comes from Canada, so I may be talking through my hat. Muffled as my words might be I’m guessing that neither copyright infringement nor trademark infringement could be a successful basis for a suit against an editorial cartoon. Though Canada doesn’t have a First Amendment I assume that it has broad freedom of political comments that would be comparable to ours in this situation. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2016, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-disney-sue-over-a-duck-cartoon/769932/8 "2016-10-28T16:00:17Z")
Disney would have to disavow their WWII hate campaign cartoons against the Germans and the Japanese. ---
**Author:** ![brujaja](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4af34b/32.png) [@brujaja](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brujaja)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2016, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-disney-sue-over-a-duck-cartoon/769932/9 "2016-10-28T16:09:53Z")
Actually, the duck’s hat says, “Make white people great again.” Without a sailor suit on, the duck doesn’t even look much like Donald Duck. It’s only once I remembered that both ducks share a first name that the parallel became clearer. But a mere suggestion is hardly infringement. Besides, if anybody is going to sue, I would think it would be the non-avian duck, if only from force of habit. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2016, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-disney-sue-over-a-duck-cartoon/769932/10 "2016-10-28T16:26:37Z")
Pretty sure editorialists are allowed to use likenesses. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2016, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-disney-sue-over-a-duck-cartoon/769932/11 "2016-10-28T16:33:40Z")
Parody is considered fair use under copyright law: [http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506\_outline.pdf](http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2016, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-disney-sue-over-a-duck-cartoon/769932/12 "2016-10-28T16:43:11Z")
Recall that when National Lampoon published their “Encyclopedia of Humor”(?) in the late 1970’s(?), they included a parody ad - Volkswagen about that time published a series of ads one of which featured a VW Beetle floating. NL copied the layout of the ad exactly, including the appearance of the typeface and the headline; but the headline said “If Ted Kennedy had driven a Volkswagen he’s be president today”. (Politicians getting into trouble because of women - who’da thunk it?). Apparently neither Kennedy nor Volkswagen thought this was funny, but VW was the one that threatened to sue. And perhaps legitimately - they apparently got complaints from people who thought it was a real ad. > **[On Hoaxes, Spoofs, and Parodies](https://www.printmag.com/daily-heller/on-hoaxes-spoofs-and-parodies/)** > > Hoaxes, spoofs, and parodies play a huge and sometimes dubious role in our social and political discourse. The spoofer is akin to the trickster of old. And the trickster’s job was to force people t… > [@](#): > > Speaking of VW, The National Lampoon‘s infamous Teddy Kennedy ad was a visually spot-on replica of VW’s ad produced by Doyle Dane Bernbach, claiming the Beetle was so well sealed it could float. The Lampoon had to recall the magazine and issue an apology. The issued this retraction: “Even if Ted Kennedy had driven a Volkswagen he wouldn’t be president today.” As offensive as this appeared to many, it was seen as hilarious by others. Nonetheless, the parody appeared in a magazine that announced itself as a “lampoon.” It’s possible the retraction was simpler than fighting in court and possibly losing. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2016, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-disney-sue-over-a-duck-cartoon/769932/13 "2016-10-28T18:24:59Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > in the case of a literary and artistic work such as Donald Duck the narrative must be similar too. Well, Donald has shown support for [evil ideas](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/oLV5GCbsRTY/maxresdefault.jpg) in the past. ---
**Author:** ![NeonMadman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58f4c7/32.png) [@NeonMadman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NeonMadman)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2016, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-disney-sue-over-a-duck-cartoon/769932/14 "2016-10-28T20:45:17Z")
I’m operating from memory here, but I believe there was a bit of a kerfuffle between Disney and Marvel Comics over the latter’s Howard the Duck character. Disney threatened legal action because Howard was allegedly too similar to Howard (which may well have been so, since Howard was conceived as sort of a parody character anyway). As I recall, they ultimately came to terms, part of which is the reason that Howard now always wears pants.