Good post. I wouldn’t have known about this story, otherwise.

Though it looks like everything has worked out.

FoD is decidedly liberal and they have the strength to defend the video as satire; As a publicly-traded company, Crayola had to protect their brand and though one assumes that the comedy troupe could appeal, it seems YouTube stuck to their hands-off policy toward trademark issues.

All of which came together to get the video, a nice round of publicity. Everybody wins.

“Look, you may like the sketch and you may not, but you can’t try to silence comedians just because you don’t like what they have to say.”

Why not? It is the right just learning to play the left’s game. Just watch twitter and see how many peopel are trying to get EVERY right wing host and pundit off the air by boycott and false statements.

Furthermore, how is this any different than the Glenn Beck Boycott? The only difference I can see is it isn’t coming straight from the White House.

Germ, it’s not that they were trying to boycott Crayola that really bothers me. Although it always rubs me the wrong way when family groups of someone boycotts the sponsors of Glee because of an off-color joke, that’s nothing new. It’s the fact that people who call themselves satirists and have a website which contains plenty of “mean” political humor, have tried to silence another website that’s just like them because they disagree. It’s disingenuous and hypocritical.

It would be like a butcher shop getting another butcher shop closed down by complaining to the local government that their competitors “kill animals”. It’s ridiculous.

Magister, I’m sure you’re right that the Full Ginsburg doesn’t mind the publicity at all. In fact, Cunningham emailed me to let me know how many hits the video had on YouTube when it was taken down. I asked him if he wanted to make any more comments. Hopefully he’ll have the time to get back to me. If he does, I’ll throw up an update.

Jon,

Again, how is that any different than one “news” organization calling for a boycot of another “news” organization? It isn’t any different, unless you want to continue to argue semantics.

Because freedom of speech only matters when conservatives use it!!!! *wink wink, smile*

Germ, because they didn’t ask their readers to boycott the Full Ginsburg site. They sent emails asking Crayola to sue the Full Ginsburg team and they did it so as to silence them. If they just said, “All of our likeminded readers, stop supporting that site” it would have been fine. But they wanted the opinions of the sketch group to go away.
What if MSNB made some lies to the government and tricked them into shutting down Fox News? That would be completely reprehensible. If Olbermann or someone told his viewers to boycott Fox, it would be pissy, but still fall under fair competition.

They did everything in their power to silence the free speech of a competitor and to hurt them financially.
And don’t forget that, as political satirists, they have jokes just like the video up on their site all the time.

“They did everything in their power to silence the free speech of a competitor and to hurt them financially.”

Like the Soros founded groups are doing to Glenn Beck? Just sayin.

Seriously, they’re just markers, they don’t have opinions. Crayola should be a little more confident in their company. They are the most famous global craft supplies company that we all know and love from our childhood. People aren’t going to protest their products b/c of some silly parody video. If anything, I want to run to my nearest art supplies store and buy a pack of markers.
Kindly de-twist your knickers, Crayola.

This is giving the “The Full Ginsberg” the “Full David Horowitz” (The Art Of Political War) in tactics.

Works good too.

“Like the Soros founded groups are doing to Glenn Beck? Just sayin.”
If George Soros hosted Countdown on MSNBC.

I get what you’re saying. I just think it’s particularly underhanded to try to steal the ability of someone you disagree with to do the exact same thing you yourself do.

@Jon Bershad: Maybe iOwntheWorld.com is secretly funded by Rose Art…

My God, Bershad, if you’re going to blog, please get your facts straight and be a little more thoughtful and less fingerpointer(y.)

First of all, this video you are defending is not a fair use parody. They pretended to be the actual corporation, using the name and trademark and a similar sounding CEO name (Michelle Perry/Michael Perry) to issue a press release style video. Not everyone is going to know that it’s a parody. And that is the video makers intent. If it’s a parody you say, Shmayola, or anything but CRAYOLA.
Viewers can see that it is light-hearted and it uses mockery, but nowhere is it made clear that CRAYOLA didn’t endorse this. In fact, the opposite is true.
The video makers quickly slapped a “parody” disclaimer in the title when they realized they infringed on Crayola’s trademark.

Is it the game now to infringe on Trademark, make a video that seemingly has a major corporation taking your favored political stand and then see what the repercussion are? I certainly have never done that, despite your characterization that we, and this video maker, are one and the same. I know I can be sued. These video makers seem to think they are in friendly waters. I’d like to know if they are before I continue buying Crayola products.

This is not a free speech issue. I am not free to steal a trademark. Maybe I will change iOTW’s banner tomorrow to your banner and write my political point of view in your name. How do you like dem apples? Get it now?

Secondly, wasn’t the left apoplectic that the Supreme Court ruled that corporations could make political ads? You guys became unglued saying it shredded the constitution.
But it’s okay to STEAL the trademark of a corporation to make YOUR political ad and saddle it onto an unsuspecting corporation and that is somehow kosher?

You’re entitle to your misguided opinion. Carry on.

Mr. Hat (may I call you Big Fur?),

I would like to point you to this article written by the insidious periodical The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/articles/shell-executives-accuse-oilcovered-otter-of-playin,2818/). I was shocked when I found it on their homepage and can only assume that there may be more like it.
In the article they claim to be quoting from an executive from the Shell Oil Company and say some terrible, terrible things. They don’t, as is clearly needed in this case, change their name to Phell Boil Bumpany! The only thing they do is point out in the fine print on their website, that they are a satirical company (you know, kind of like how a certain sketch group identifies themselves on their website). HOW DARE THEY?

When, Mr. Hat, will you be sending emails to Shell asking them to sue those dirtbags at The Onion? Clearly this site must be shut down. Looking forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Someone who just doesn’t “get it”

Jon, your bias is showing.

You reach out to get comments from one side (your side), the other side comes on and gives you a comment and you blast them for it?

Gee, I am glad the Mediaite “News” has no opinion!

No you DON’T get it, do you?
The Onion is making commentary ABOUT Shell Oil in the form of satire, instead of, you know, writing a boring editorial about how SHELL destroys the planet. And that is perfectly within their right. It would be their opinion. They instead use the vehicle of comedy to slam Shell OIl.

What they are not doing is pretending to be Shell Oil to slam a third party. The fact that you see this as one in the same is the nature of our problem here.

These video makers aren’t slamming the TEA PARTY (or SHELL) with their name, which would be perfectly fine.
They are saying that CRAYOLA is slamming the TEA PARTY. It’s frightening that you think this is fair use and that CRAYOLA wouldn’t have a case if they chose to pursue it.

How about I start making slanderous videos about Obama but I make them seem like they are coming from MEDIAITE?

That’s cool, right?

Big Fur Hat, you are awesome for continuing this.

Ok, now your issue with the video is that they used Crayola’s name as a vehicle to insult someone else. That is totally reasonable. And it would be a pretty good argument. Y’know, if that kind of parody wasn’t as common as a sunset.
Let’s Google “snl commercial parodies” when we do, we might find this sketch:
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/excedrin-for-racial-tension-headaches/229057/
This commercial pretends to be made by Excedrin. It had the Excedrin name. It had the Excedrin logo. Was it making fun of Excedrin? No. The commercial was making fun of white people who can’t relate to black people well. Did Excedrin sue SNL for implying that their company doesn’t like white people? Absolutely not.
There was no scroll at the bottom of the screen screaming at audience members “DON’T WORRY! THIS WASN’T FROM EXCEDRIN! WE’RE JUST KIDDING!” No, it just cut back to SNL at the end, just like the Ginsburg piece VERY VERY clearly ended with the website’s name as a signature (and if you want to make a video parodying Mediaite that ends with the iOwntheWorld signature, that would totally be within your right).

You can tell me any way that the Ginsburg video was in any way different than millions of sketches that came before it and I will give you a link to prove you’re wrong. Because you are. The Full Ginsburg did nothing that countless other sketch groups do every single day.

But I didn’t write my post to debate the execution of sketch comedy. I wrote it to question your response to the video. You claim to be a humorist and a political satirist. However, when someone made a joke you didn’t like, you didn’t respond with a clever parody of your own. No. You threatened the Crayola company with a boycott even though you knew full well that they had nothing to do with the video. You did it so that the joke you didn’t like would go away and so that the Full Ginsburg would be punished.

You claim in your response to me that you didn’t want the video taken off YouTube. I find that hard to believe, but fine. However, you can’t claim that you didn’t want to hurt FG. You said repeatedly that you wanted Crayola to sue them. You even named your first post “Crayola Should Sue” (http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=22259). So you sent disingenuous emails to Crayola, acting like you thought they endorsed the video, all in the attempt to hurt a group of sketch comedians in their early 20s. Please, deny that that was your intention. In my opinion, that is underhanded, cruel, and cowardly.

When I first started writing this article, it wasn’t going to be about you guys. It was just going to mention that you sent the emails. It was only when I realized that you claimed to be satirists that I found it all so offensive.

You can tell me that it’s “frightening” that I don’t see how this video crossed the line but I think it’s pretty frightening that you tried to hurt a group of kids just because you didn’t like their joke.

Because Excedrin chose not to ask them to cease and desist, or sue, doesn’t change what the law is. But they certainly would have been well within their rights to demand they not use their trademark, especially if it actually offended people, which it apparently didn’t. It doesn’t offend me at all. I don’t know of anyone who ever said it offended them. So, your example is meaningless and not accurate to what the law is on infringement of trademark.
Also, I must have missed the part where the largely unknown actress came out and said that she was the CEO of Excedrin and took an unpopular political stand in Excedrin’s name while she continually called millions of people racist and stupid. I missed that.

A person can’t make a video that uses Mediaites Banner, with a spokesman by the name of Jon Bershad, and pretend they are Mediaite can they? Especially if they falsely represent you and Mediaite and say things that you would never say and find highly offensive, can they? I can imagine someone making a video in Mediaites name where Mediaite makes fun of Mohammad and denounces Islam as a gutter religion. That could be interesting.
That draw Mohammad day is coming on May 20th. I wonder how many drawing s and videos Mediaite and Jon Bershad can make by then.

Anything wrong with that?

Mr. Bershad and Mr. Cunningham what do you think of this article: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/26/climate-scientist-heated-satire-threatens-lawsuit/. Here is the jist…Mr. Mann is threatening to sue the makers of a satirical video that’s a hit on You Tube. Is he wrong? You point out that all the people who contacted Crayola and asked them to do something were wrong so shouldnt Mr. Mann be wrong? Fair is fair is it not. We can not have double standards even though some people in this country would like that.

@bulletoftruth: I’m neither of those you addressed, but I don’t see where the scientist has the grounds for a lawsuit and I assume he’s been told the same by his attorney’s, which is probably why he hasn’t sued.

Bullet of Truth, I’m so glad you posted that video because I think it’s absolutely great. Because, you know what, I’m not here to defend parodies of any one political persuasion. I don’t view things in the simplistic prism or Right vs. Left or Us vs. Them. That video can be posted anywhere you want. That piece, like the Full Ginsburg one, ended with the signature of the people who made it. It makes no attempt to trick viewers into thinking that it was made by the scientist.
I have to say, I prefer the original version of the song though. Also, those fake teeth were gross.

As for Big Fur Hat, I’m no longer responding to him. As much as I want to, the Muhammed Day threats are where I drop out. If anyone has read my writing on this site, they would know that I am completely against the ridiculous hypocrisy that you can’t make fun of Muhammed. It’s absurd. Just read my articles last week where I defended South Park and linked to places where you can see the uncensored episodes. However, Hat is threatening to raise the ire of terrorists under my name and that’s even more unhinged than raising the ire of a corporation to get them to sue a sketch group. What kind of “satirist” would do these things? That’s not fighting with humor. That’s fighting with threats.

So, I’m done. I’ve got more articles to write anyway.

So in Bershad’s roundabout way, albeit completely naively, he is admitting that making a parody about the Tea Party is benign in that they are not a threat to anyone and not “terrorists.” Unlike the assessment of the entire MSM, Bill Clinton, Janet Napolitano, etc. It’s actually a group they have no fear of and will rough up at will.
So, thank you for that admission.

If I mention that I will exercise my FREE SPEECH and make an exact Full Ginsberg-type video where I assign my opinions of Islam but project them through the mouth of Bershad he goes apoplectic. Does he object on the grounds that that wouldn’t be ethical, perhaps illegal? No, he won’t go there because he knows he’s been completely check-mated. He objects on the grounds that it would be dangerous to him.
So we’ve established that this technique that TFG has employed is SHITTY, unethical, perhaps libelous, we are merely grappling over the degree as to how shitty it is. The real tenor of Bershad’s position is that putting words in the mouth of a third party to make your political point is perfectly fine if it’s slamming the TEA PARTY because
“everyone hates the TEA PARTY.” Why would Crayola object to that??? Unless of course some “unhinged” TEA PARTY member (they exist) burns down Crayola headquarters. And according to you, CRAYOLA, if this is their fear (like your fear of ISLAM) does not want this political point of view attributed to them via a third party – TOUGH SHIT. You are so wrong on this issue it’s in the realm of absurdity. But you will never see it.

And of course I would never make such a video, so you can SHOUT OUT the skidmark in your panties, I’m not anywhere near the asshole The Full Ginsberg troupe is. I’m an asshole, I’ve said it a million times on my own blog. You just don’t see how how much of an asshole the Full Ginsberg is because you’re partisan. It’s like not being able to smell your own bad breath. (Pick up some Scope when you buy that Shout.)

Errrrgh…controlling fingers……not going to respond……….that guy is crazy……..doesn’t understand the difference between making a parody and signing it with your name and flat out saying something while pretending to be someone else……..willpower weakening………..his idea of satire is photoshopped pictures of the president picking his nose……….he never responded to any of my allegations and puts words in my mouth…….he can’t understand that, unlike him, I defend people from both sides…..gotta stop responding…….I promised……….I’m bad at this “not responding” thing………lord help me……….enjoying his continued patronage and page hits though………..this article’s doing really well……………as is the video from the “assholes” he tried to silence………way to go, dude……..

Oh.. no, you don’t understand Bershad (as usual.) I would sign the end of he video with a tiny little disclaimer that it was a parody. I just hope for your sake the terrorists watched the entire video, or understood that it was a parody.
See, idiot. You’re wrong again.

And, for the record, I didn’t do the nose picking picture. SEEEEEEEEEE. you didn’t read the credits!!!!! DOH!

And as long as you’re going to pull the ol “I’m enjoying the hits” card. I figured I would just let everyone see what you characterize as my nose-picking satire.
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?page_id=383

Sigh, but you all posted it on your site.

If you signed the video with you name then you could do it. It’s in your right. Patrick Henry and all. That’s what I’m trying to tell you. People are allowed to make satire. You tried to take away their ability. That is my problem with what you did.

My issue, as I’ve stated a hundred times, has nothing to do with your politics or the stuff you have posted on your site in the past and will in the future. My problem is that you tried to get a corporation to sue a sketch group. It seemed, to me and many other people, to be a ridiculously cruel stunt and the fact that you lied in your emails to Hallmark made it worse.

The fact that you’re still hanging around this comments section only proves that you have a hard time handling it when people say mean things about you. Our readers here say mean things about each writer all the time because we differ in opinion frequently. I don’t go seeking them out and having them injured financially.

I just can’t understand why you, as a satirist, couldn’t handle a little of your own medicine from the Full Ginsburg. If I believed that you would treat a parody mocking Obama the same way (with a corporation mentioned and all), I never would have written this article the way I did. But I don’t believe that. I don’t believe that you care one iota about trademark law. You care that some sketch group said something you didn’t like and then you went out of your way to hurt them.

I compared you to a tattle tale above but you’re not just that. You’re tattle tale AND a bully, which is an impressive combination. And, like all bullies, you can dish it out but you can’t take it. Your pseudonym is a constant reminder of that.

You won’t prove me wrong by making videos parodying me. The only way you will prove wrong the content and allegations in this article and many other articles I’ve seen online, is by going after a conservative sketch group with the same fervor you went after the Full Ginsburg. Let me know the day that happens and I will offer you a hearty apology. Maybe I’ll even make you a card with crayons!

Now you’re just becoming hysterical and unglued.

Perusing the internet I have come across many, many sites where leftists are saying that they are now going to boycott Hallmark and Crayola for pulling the video.
So who is to blame?
heheh.

Who is to blame for groups that I have nothing to do with repeating your actions as a response to something you did? I don’t know. I guess them?

Like I said in my post, I think most boycotts are silly. While I don’t support whoever it is you’re talking about, at least they’re boycotting for something the company actually did. Unlike you who were going to boycott them for something you knew they had nothing to do with.

Hilarious. You’re ridiculous views has you sympathizing more with a group that would boycott a company for wanting to protect their trademark,
You’re lost, pal.
See ya.

Yes, I have more empathy for someone who boycotts a company over something they actually did (whatever it may be) than I have for someone who boycotts a company merely as a way to punish someone who the company has no connection with. Because that second person would be craaaaaaaazy.

If you were a general, you’d drop a nuke on France if Ahmadinejad mentioned them in a speech.

Adios, Hat. It sure has been nice talking to you. It’s given me great practice for if I ever have to debate a rock.

You’re making an ass of yourself with all these proclamations while you can’t even make a proper analogy. Your original piece draws an analogy to having liberals whine to the communist party to have Victoria Jackson pulled off YouTube for Calling Obama a communist???!!?? Seriously, someone pays you for these thoughts? That analogy is not anywhere close to the realm of what is going on in this story.

And then you end with the ridiculous General/France/Ahmadinejad anaology ??!?? Again, so far afield people can finally not smell you. You want the proper analogy using those players?

France releases a speech pretending to be Ahmadinejad where France has him saying that pro Mousavi Iranians are illiterate, racist morons – France being the dummass worm instigator using someone else’s personage. (In case you can’t follow along, the worm is the Doucheburg Group, or whatever their name is.)
But even in trying to untangle your stupid analogies they still don’t work, because all the players should be Americans.
And in that analogy the Doucheberg group is intentionally antagonizing the TEA PARTY members (something you denounce when it’s antagonizing Muslims) but hiding behind CRAYOLA to do it.

You do a lot of talking about principles and taking stands, but it has to be the right ingredients before you’re consistent.
Antagonizing Muslims = very, very bad and stupid.
Antagonizing the Tea Party = HILARIOUS!

Boycotting = very, very bad and stupid
Liberals Boycotting a company for not wanting the Doucheberg Group antagonize the Tea Party with their Trademark = I can sorta see that one, it’s not all bad

You’re a joke. You’re a partisan hack, LIKE ME, pretending you’re not.

And seriously, neither of us has the time to spare to continue this. Thanks for enduring me this long and providing me a forum to try and explain my point of view. You’ve been a patient host.
Carry on with whatever you have to do to get this country to go in the direction you want it to go.

“You do a lot of talking about principles and taking stands, but it has to be the right ingredients before you’re consistent.
Antagonizing Muslims = very, very bad and stupid.
Antagonizing the Tea Party = HILARIOUS!”

http://www.mediaite.com/online/south-parks-mohammed-episode-censored-by-comedy-central/

Nope. I agree with free speech every time. Always have.
…Not that anyone besides you and I has been reading these comments for hours anyway. :)

Anyway, good day to you, Hat. May your posts have many readers.

C’mon… even if you think it’s okay to parody religion it’s stretching it a bit to equate mocking a political party with mocking a religion. Nevertheless, I think it’s totally fine to parody religion.

Ah, humor can have such healing qualities to it…

2011 new style !

http://www.nike4world.com