A legal, moral and freedom of speech question.

PETA is known for going too far. They will be contacted by KFC’s legal team and will have to take this down. It’s just like the commercials they try to put out that they know will never make it to the air. It just gets publicity.

Peta never seems to worry about the law, unless it benefits them.

A few years ago they were trying to get NJ to outlaw deer hunting. They tried to sue NJ for damage to their company car when one of the employees hit a deer in NJ while they were having this campaign.

They may very well be able to get away with it. They changed what the Colonel looks like, and they changed “Kentucky Fried Chicken” to “Kentucky Fried Cruelty”.

Even if it creates a scandal it will still get them the attention they so desperately wants…

Hm, we’ve actually just covered this in my media law class and as long as none of those claims are lies, it is completely legal. As for the drawing of horns on his pictures, I think this might be protected because it is considered parody but then again, it might not be considered transformative enough to be protected. PETA might actually win if there was a big law suit taken up against them but I doubt it will get to that point because litigation is often more expensive than settlement or simply doing what the “wronged” party wants.

As for the freedom of speech aspect, I don’t necessarily agree with their methods but neither do I think that they shouldn’t be able to complain as long as they are within the bounds of the law.

@KatawaGrey I don’t think it can be called parody because their is an intent behind it. Not just making fun. Companies like Apple have been very successful at defending their image. (i.e. the apple logo) Parody would be if SNL used the logo slightly distorted to make a joke. PETA is trying to rebrand KFC as cruel and inhumane. Not parody.

It won’t go to court because PETA will stop running it after legal threats and because it has garnished enough attention.

Just last night, I stopped in at KFC just before I caught the bus home from work. I’m finishing up a bucket of Crispy Strips right now :-)

The issues here copyright, and trademark, which are two different beasts. Per copyright law, the altered image of Colonel Sanders is a derivative work. If it’s a parody, which it appears to be, then it is fair use.

On the other hand, Trademark protects a company’s image, which isn’t about protecting the freedom to engage in political debate and whatnot. What this looks like is trademark violation, which the courts may rule in favor of KFC.

@HungryGuy Doesn’t parody have to be for comic effect? I’m not sure how they (PETA) could claim parody when they are clearly not trying to be funny. Just the definition of parody is:

parody |ˈparədē|
noun ( pl. -dies)
an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect

I’m still not convinced PETA would win on that alone but who knows the legal system is strange.

As always, there are differences in dictionary definition, common usage, and legal definition. What dictionary did you get that from? I’ve always assumed that parody could be either for comedic or political purposes, but maybe I’m wrong. The courts will almost always have their own legal definition (that often seems to defy common sense).

You are right about the courts. I got the definition from the dictionary in apple’s widget. I’m not sure which version it is. I always assumed even if it was for political reasons it was for comedy. Maybe i’m wrong. Who knows.

@missingbite: @HungryGuy is correct. From a legal standpoint, parody does not necessarily have to be for comic effect. It just has to be a derivative of the original work with enough aspects of the original work to be recognizable.

I guess I stand corrected. Thanks! I learn something new everyday!

It’s only defamation if it’s untrue and it appears to be true. I do believe I’ve just kicked the bucket. I reserve the right to buy their coleslaw every now and then. :o)

Parody is protected speech, including demonstrated parody. Even a crappy lawyer can defend a parody suit.

I’ve learned so much from this thread. Thanks!