of a history of MAD. The magazine was, however, never sued for its
parodies of print ads, but it was sued for its song parodies that paired
famous tunes to ridiculous lyrics. “The suit charged that the parodies were
‘counterparts’ to the originals since they could be sung to the tunes of the
original,” continued Reidelbach. Although two New York State courts
agreed with MADthat the spoofs were indeed parody, and that “parody and
satire are deserving of substantial freedom—both as entertainment and as a
form of social and literary criticism,”MAD’s publisher, William Gaines,
realized it was prudent to have a lawyer on permanent retainer to block and
tackle any potential litigants.
Such are the vagaries of parody, that MADtook precautions to
prevent charges of trademark infringement by routinely altering the names
of products (i.e., Crest toothpaste became Crust) while keeping the
identifiable characteristics of a product or institution through mimicry of a
package, logo, or ad format. One of MAD’s classics is a 1961 parody of the
drug company Parke Davis’s once ubiquitous Great Moments in Medicine
campaign. Each ad featured a detailed painting of a warm-hearted healer
tending to the sick and infirm.MADlampooned the campaign by showing
a doctor (holding back a smirk) presenting his inflated bill to the horrified
patient and family members around the sick bed. The caption read
“Presenting the Bill, reproduced here, is one of a series of original oil
paintings, Practicing Medicine for Fun and Profit.. .” The tag line read:
“Park-David... pioneers in bigger medical bills.”
MAD’s spirit was later adopted by Topps Bubble Gum for their
extraordinarily successful, yet decidedly sophomoric Wacky Packs, a send-
up (aimed at preteens) of well-known supermarket products, featuring
pernicious puns on famous brand names. “Rather than a negative parody,”
argued Wayne Small, a marketing analyst, “Wacky Packs actually
reinforced brand names in the minds of children.” Nevertheless, under the
threat of legal actions Topps made a number of out-of-court settlements
with offended corporations. Indeed, consistent with the Reagan
administration’s support of big business, during the 1980 s the courts
enforced stricter rules against defaming corporate (as opposed to
individual) reputations.
Parody is a tricky and dangerous art for two primary reasons.
First, because it involves fidelity to the original work. Second, because
as an instrument of criticism and entertainment parody can infringe on
intellectual property. Since parody is “a form of derision,” even benign
parodies are bound to get somebody’s head out of joint. Moreover, the law
is somewhat vague in its definition of what constitutes a violation of
intellectual property rights, and what action is taken depends on the
tuis.
(Tuis.)
#1