Author: parminder-dyal

Spitting Image’s Paddington sketch caused controversy over how it represented the beloved bear. In our latest blog, Parminder Dyal, Associate and Trade Mark Attorney explores the borders between parody and IP, and how brands and creators can effectively navigate this complex grey area.

If you tuned in to a recent episode of the revamped satirical puppet show Spitting Image, you may have come across a familiar red hat and blue duffle coat. What was less familiar, however, was the show’s presentation of Britain’s most polite bear. Alongside a caricature of Prince Harry, Spitting Image portrays Paddington as a foul-mouthed and drug-fueled podcast co-host in the spoof series ‘The Rest Is Bullsh*t’.

The sketch and its mature re-imagining of the children’s character drew swift criticism from StudioCanal, which controls the rights to Paddington, and from the estate of Michael Bond, the character’s late creator. The dispute quickly escalated into a High Court complaint citing copyright and design rights concerns. Avalon, the company behind Spitting Image, were accused of “distortion or mutilation” of the established portrayal of Paddington, which has been the basis of numerous adaptations across books and screen across the last 70 years.

Spitting Image’s Paddington sketch has highlighted the tension between parody and the protection of intellectual property. Here, Parminder Dyal, Associate and Trade Mark Attorney sheds light onto how brands and creators can effectively navigate this complex grey area.

Parody and the legal framework

Under UK law, limited use of copyright material is permitted without the owner’s consent for the purpose of parody and caricature. However, this exception only applies to the extent that a parody is what is known as ‘fair dealing’.

Fair dealing is tightly constrained and is only applicable when the use of copyright material is genuinely transformative, not excessive, and does not harm the market for the original work or its reputation. In the Paddington dispute, the key question is whether the Spitting Image sketch can be considered a legitimate parody under this exception, or whether it veers into an unfair exploitation of a protected character. When this loosely defined grey area becomes a legal uncertainty, creators and brands must tread carefully in deciding how to proceed.

Paddington has not been the only classic childhood figure to find themselves embroiled in a fair dealing dispute. In June this year, Enoch Company Ltd, the maker of the Sylvanian Families toys, filed a copyright infringement case against the owner of the ‘Sylvanian Drama’ social media accounts which used the dolls to recreate scenes more suited in a soap opera. Enoch cited “irreparable injury” to its reputation, while the creator argued the accounts to be a parody. The case was later dropped, but exposed how the fragility between legally protected parody and the intellectual property rights of owners can have repercussions for both parties when not handled carefully.

The risks for brands and creators
 
For intellectual property owners and brands, uncertainty around fair dealing calls for careful and measured decision-making. Heavy-handed action can risk criticism or unintended publicity, whilst failure to act on unfair distortion could lead to undermining of established images, especially in protecting family-friendly branding such as in the case of Paddington.

With the Spitting Image case, the co-creators Matt Forde and Al Murray lashed out at the plaintiffs. Forde stated that StudioCanal and the Bond estate had “fallen into a bear trap of their own making”, with the sketch getting far more views as a result of the publicity from the lawsuit. Forde and Murray also voiced their concerns over what the lawsuit would mean for the future of parody and freedom of speech.

The repercussions for parody creators are more obvious. As alluded to by Murray and Forde, the legal uncertainty for parody can be as threatening as it is restrictive. Fear of costly and damaging litigation may discourage creators from utilising certain brands, characters or individuals in their content. What one party considers fair dealing may be viewed very differently by the rights holder. For this reason, exercising caution in line with clear legal advice remains the most effective way to balance protection of intellectual property with respect for legitimate and fair parody.

The growing importance of legal advice

The Spitting Image sketch underscores the need to carefully navigate the grey area separating parody from infringement of intellectual property, as missteps can have consequences for both creators and brands. This is set to become even more complex in the age of generative AI, which makes it easier to create parody content that draws from copyrighted material.

For both brands and creators, proactive legal strategies and clear guidance will be an essential part of navigating the complex intersection of the creation of satirical content and the safeguarding of IP law. If you have concerns or would like advice on how to protect your IP assets, get in touch to book a free legal consultation.