So you thought the new EU copyright stuff was going to see memes troubled? Turns out the US fancied some of that action first. Granted it is not the first time -- notable for around here the then popular scribblenauts series saw trouble as far back as 2013 for including the then popular nyan cat and eternally popular keyboard cat.
https://gbatemp.net/threads/scribbl...for-nyan-cat-keyboard-cat-easter-eggs.347278/
An agreement was eventually reached there http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2013/09/keyboard-cat-nyan-cat-win-warner-bros-lawsuit.html with a payment being offered to the meme copyright holders (not sure if they were one of those copyright library types in the end).
Anyway it seems the owner of the pepe the frog character decided to go up against infowars (or their parent company -- some discussion in the video below, and in the document) for featuring the pepe the frog character in the background (though clearly recognisable as such) of a poster sold and promoted by them (I don't know if it was a work for hire from or just an avenue of sales for the artist at this point). For those unfamiliar then infowars is the satirical/conspiratorial/somewhat actual news program that saw it and its host Alex Jones banned near enough simultaneously from a variety of unrelated social media websites in what is probably going to be recognised as the start of the major "unpersoning"/deplatforming pushes back in August 2018 (Twitter of all places being the last major holdout and dropping the hammer in September of the same year). Prior to that it was a very popular show (several million monthly viewers), today I am not sure of the numbers but between its audience being its audience and Streisand effect I don't imagine they are doing too badly.
From the court document "Gross revenues from sales of the MAGA poster totaled $31,407.44." so far from nothing on that one.
Poster in question. Pink ring highlights the frog.
Click for bigger
Brief history of the concept, including the ascension to "hate symbol"
If videos are not your thing then you can go more in depth on
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pepe-the-frog
Reading of and explanation the lawsuit in question by a copyright lawyer.
Short version of that then unless they come to some kind of arrangement then various summary judgements have been dismissed and upheld and a court date is likely in the future.
I found a copy of the court document itself on https://www.courthousenews.com/pepe-the-frog-v-infowars/ so attached it here as well for those that enjoy dry legal documents as much as I, or are maybe just curious. That said its pondering of fair use is quite interesting (the video above by Leonard French also covers it) and as we frequently see discussions on the matter (see the many rounds of Nintendo vs youtube/let's plays, and Nintendo vs a lot of things) then it could be of interest here for those looking to see how such things might be evaluated in the real world. Personally I still like https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ but real world also works, and is also how the courts tend to work.
For myself I am not sure where I would find myself. I would say a rendition is clearly there in a very recognisable capacity (one some of infowars' peeps recognised) and looking at the document I would need to see more to know if the pepe author essentially public domained his work (various notable quotes say yes, court document says they were satire and in fact the copyright was sought and respected all along) or was itself derived from something else (there is another popular cartoon frog made prior to the initial publication of the pepe in question from Argentina also called pepe), and beyond that it is a small part of the poster (prominent enough and not out of place for the context of the work) so we would also have to contemplate what goes on that.
https://gbatemp.net/threads/scribbl...for-nyan-cat-keyboard-cat-easter-eggs.347278/
An agreement was eventually reached there http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2013/09/keyboard-cat-nyan-cat-win-warner-bros-lawsuit.html with a payment being offered to the meme copyright holders (not sure if they were one of those copyright library types in the end).
Anyway it seems the owner of the pepe the frog character decided to go up against infowars (or their parent company -- some discussion in the video below, and in the document) for featuring the pepe the frog character in the background (though clearly recognisable as such) of a poster sold and promoted by them (I don't know if it was a work for hire from or just an avenue of sales for the artist at this point). For those unfamiliar then infowars is the satirical/conspiratorial/somewhat actual news program that saw it and its host Alex Jones banned near enough simultaneously from a variety of unrelated social media websites in what is probably going to be recognised as the start of the major "unpersoning"/deplatforming pushes back in August 2018 (Twitter of all places being the last major holdout and dropping the hammer in September of the same year). Prior to that it was a very popular show (several million monthly viewers), today I am not sure of the numbers but between its audience being its audience and Streisand effect I don't imagine they are doing too badly.
From the court document "Gross revenues from sales of the MAGA poster totaled $31,407.44." so far from nothing on that one.
Poster in question. Pink ring highlights the frog.
Click for bigger
Brief history of the concept, including the ascension to "hate symbol"
If videos are not your thing then you can go more in depth on
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pepe-the-frog
Reading of and explanation the lawsuit in question by a copyright lawyer.
Short version of that then unless they come to some kind of arrangement then various summary judgements have been dismissed and upheld and a court date is likely in the future.
I found a copy of the court document itself on https://www.courthousenews.com/pepe-the-frog-v-infowars/ so attached it here as well for those that enjoy dry legal documents as much as I, or are maybe just curious. That said its pondering of fair use is quite interesting (the video above by Leonard French also covers it) and as we frequently see discussions on the matter (see the many rounds of Nintendo vs youtube/let's plays, and Nintendo vs a lot of things) then it could be of interest here for those looking to see how such things might be evaluated in the real world. Personally I still like https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ but real world also works, and is also how the courts tend to work.
For myself I am not sure where I would find myself. I would say a rendition is clearly there in a very recognisable capacity (one some of infowars' peeps recognised) and looking at the document I would need to see more to know if the pepe author essentially public domained his work (various notable quotes say yes, court document says they were satire and in fact the copyright was sought and respected all along) or was itself derived from something else (there is another popular cartoon frog made prior to the initial publication of the pepe in question from Argentina also called pepe), and beyond that it is a small part of the poster (prominent enough and not out of place for the context of the work) so we would also have to contemplate what goes on that.