The book “The Cat NOT in th Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice” was indicted as copyright infringement for infringing the original work, “The Cat in the Hat by Dr. Seuss”. The infringing work mimicked the original author’s style and gave a poetic rendition of facts of the O.J Simpson murder case. The defendant claimed that it was a parody, and that it was of transformative nature. The Ninth Circuit court judge O’Scannlain, however, found the defendant liable for infringement for merely satirizing the O.J Simpson case itself and not the original book, and for “borrowing” the image of the distinctive red and white striped stove-pipe hat. The result of this case is significant as it clarifies the difference between satire and parody and the extent to which a derivative work has to be transformative in order to be considered as fair use. Bearing in mind the four guidelines charted by the federal law that I outlined in the first post, I am going to explore how the judge reached the decision and whether this case should be resolved in this way.
Theodore Geisel, under the pseudonym of Dr. Seuss, created this “the Cat in the Hat” children’s book series. He aimed to enhance elementary school literacy by using rhymed lines and simple words, and his books have been popular since then. The book is also mainly remembered by its main character: the tall, mischievous cat that wears a tall, red and white striped hat and a bow tie, and carries an umbrella. Part of the dispute is around the “borrowing” of this classic image. Let’s compare the covers of the two books:
On the over of the disputed work, O.J Simpson is put into the tall, striped hat. Instead of wearing a bow tie, however, he is wearing a long tie; instead of carrying an innocent umbrella, he is holding a pair of blood-dripping gloves. The word “NOT” is all capital letters and bolded, signaling its distinction from the original work. The author also chose a pseudonym that rhymes with “Seuss” in honor of the book’s rhymed poetic lines, indicating that it has “juicy” content. So let us take a look at its content to see if it’s really a “parody” as the author claims, or a satire as the court determined. The definition of “transformative use”, which is one of the four guidelines, is at the center of the whole dispute.
The disputed work recounts the trial from O.J Simpson’s perspective: “A man this famous/Never hires/Lawyers like/Jacoby Meyers/When you’re accused of a killing scheme/You need to build a real Dream Team” and “One knife?/Two knife?/Red knife/Dead wife.” The acceptable tranformative uses include but not limited to political commentaries, critical reviews or parody that ridicule the original author or work. Book reviews can use passages from the original work, as it gives a critical evaluation of the book and the author, thus stimulating intellectual exchange. Political commentaries enhance freedom of speech, as people don’t need to worry about being sued for copyright infringement while commenting on politicians’ work. All of these have one thing in common: they express their own opinions on the original work or the author. Yet in this “the Cat Not in the Hat” uses Dr.Seuss’s style, which is famous for its rhymed and easy-to-understand lines, to ridicule O.J Simpson. “Dr.Juice” satirizes his book’s main character instead of the original work or author. So the “parody” becomes mimicking the other’s style to ridicule someone who is unrelated to the original work. This is not parody. This is satire.
The second most important factor that matters here is whether it harms the original work’s potential market. Dr. Seuss’s work have occupied a large market share ever since they first greeted the market. As we have seen before, the disputed work uses the symbolic and distinctive tall, striped hat on the cover, and assumes the pseudonym “Dr. Juice” that rhymes with “Dr. Seuss”. Most importantly, it copies the original author’s style. By doing these, it gives the readers an illusion that the two books are similar and that the Dr. Seuss Enterprises have authorized that author to do so. Although I doubt that the book can have big impact on the original work’ market, since the book is in fact interesting and does have some entertainment values, it will usurp some readership away from the firm base of the original work.
And of course, Dr. Juice got the book published. It’s for commercial use.
In summary, I agree and satisfy with the court’s decision that “the Cat NOT in the Hat” infringes copyright. This case gives us a clear example of what constitutes “fair use” and of the difference between a parody and a satire. It warns people about the content they are ridiculing: it’s okay to satirize the original work or author, but merely ridiculing other unrelated stuff is a big no-no. Furthermore, it deters potential authors who want to use others’ styles but still want to squeeze into the “transformative use” slot.
Dr. Juice got to taste the “juice” of his own work.
20 responses so far ↓
Darja // Dec 20th 2009 at 10:11 am
very interesting!! I didn’t know the legal difference before..
Watch Eureka Online // Jan 7th 2010 at 11:10 pm
Excellent post, I have bookmarked this website and will read more later.
Bert K // Feb 3rd 2010 at 9:22 pm
One small addition: the name of the mock author, Dr. Juice, is itself a reference to O.J. Simpson, as Juice was his nickname!
PSP 3000 // Oct 4th 2010 at 11:14 am
I found your blog Wednesday and started follow your posts regularly. I have not commented on any blog just yet but I was contemplating I would love to. It’s very exciting to actually contribute to a article even if it’s only a blog. I really don’t know exactly what to write other than I actually enjoyed reading through 7 of the posts. Nice articles indeed. I sure will keep visiting your blog regularly. I learned quite a bit from you. Thx!
Therese Mcguirt // Oct 26th 2010 at 11:46 am
What youre stating is totally true. I know that everybody must say the same thing, but I just believe that you put it in a way that everyone can comprehend. I also love the images you place in here. They fit so well with what youre attempting to say. Im sure youll reach a lot of individuals with what youve got to say.
furniture lounges // Nov 26th 2010 at 11:21 am
hi thanks for the blog, It was great to finally read a good article that actually makes sense. I will be back in a bit to read some more. Nice writing
Lizabeth Kauffman // Nov 29th 2010 at 2:12 pm
I was looking for new information and came to your website by using google. You continue being a perfect source of information.
Terri Folk // Nov 29th 2010 at 8:11 pm
You made a few fine points there. I did a search on the topic and found mainly persons will agree with your blog.
Buy multi car insurance // Apr 28th 2012 at 12:34 pm
Hi! Someone in my Facebook group shared this website with us so I came to take a look. I’m definitely loving the information. I’m book-marking and will be tweeting this to my followers! Exceptional blog and excellent design.
fiverr // May 3rd 2012 at 10:51 pm
I must thank you for those results you cash in on on paper this amazing guide. I’m hoping a similar best work from you in the foreseeable future too. In reality your own effective website writing skills has inspired my opinion to get started on my very own Drupal post at this point ,. Really the vehemently can be thinning out it is wings very quickly. Your article is really a first-class instance of the program.
Graham Townes // May 14th 2012 at 12:31 pm
I am often to running a blog and i really appreciate your content. The article has actually peaks my interest. I am going to bookmark your web site and preserve checking for brand new information.
Loraine Mattson // Jun 26th 2012 at 10:33 pm
I had fun understanding this post. I want to see more on this subject.. Thanks for writing this respectable article.. In Any Event, I’m going to subscribe to your rss and I wish you write great articles again soon.
Sulema Kofoid // Jun 27th 2012 at 10:30 pm
When I open up your RSS feed it just gives me a whole lot of trash, is the deal on my side?
datca pension // Jul 1st 2012 at 4:44 am
I’m not sure the place you’re getting your info, however great topic. I must spend a while learning more or working out more. Thanks for magnificent information I was in search of this information for my mission.
Natisha Ashbaugh // Jul 15th 2012 at 6:54 am
Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wished to say that I’ve truly loved surfing around your blog posts. After all I will be subscribing on your feed and I am hoping you write once more soon!
http://iniciativasambientales.novaxove.com/2011/02/01/brasil-ensaya-la-alfabetizacion-con-flores-y-poesia/ // Jul 23rd 2012 at 11:31 pm
I truly appreciate this post. I¡¦ve been looking all over for this! Thank goodness I found it on Bing. You’ve made my day! Thx again
flippo86 // Aug 13th 2012 at 11:58 am
I and also my guys came examining the good guidelines from your website and then got a terrible suspicion I had not thanked the web site owner for those tips. Those young boys were absolutely passionate to learn all of them and now have in actuality been tapping into these things. Appreciation for actually being considerably thoughtful and then for considering variety of great subject areas most people are really desirous to learn about. My honest regret for not saying thanks to you earlier.
ramalan jodoh // Nov 7th 2012 at 10:25 pm
Thanks on your marvelous posting! I genuinely enjoyed reading it, you could be a great author.I will be sure to bookmark your blog and may come back in the future. I want to encourage you to definitely continue your great job, have a nice weekend!
Bed and Breakfast // Nov 25th 2012 at 8:33 pm
That was a really good post. You made some really good points and I am grateful for for your research! Take care!
new launch // Jan 2nd 2013 at 6:25 am
Good website! I truly love how it is simple on my eyes and the data are well written. I’m wondering how I might be notified whenever a new post has been made. I’ve subscribed to your feed which must do the trick! Have a great day!