South Park's 'What What (In the Butt) Parody Ruled Fair Use

In 2008, South Park released another of their typically absurd, yet sophomorically humorous takes on a contemporary social issue: viral internet videos. The storyline boiled down to Canada going on strike over not receiving any part of the money made from these videos. Meanwhile, nine-year-old Butters is convinced by classmates to make a viral video, entitled “What What (In the Butt)”.

Yep. And it’s exactly what you’d imagine. According to Courthouse News, the odd video satirizes another video and, as Judge Posner put it, is a “paean to anal sex.”



The video, while incredibly weird, isn’t much weirder than the video it satirizes, Samwell’s own “What What (In the Butt).” Take a gander yourself, but be forewarned that it might damage your psyche.



So, what was the issue? After watching both, it’s obvious parody, right? You’d think so, as would most. So did the court. The original court ruled that it was parody, and therefore fair use, but Brownmark Films, who own the rights to the video, maintained that such a ruling could only be made after a full trial.

When cases are as obvious as this, they are often dismissed in summary judgment motions. Summary judgment is a court’s way of saying that the plaintiff is — for lack of legal terms — full of it, and has no case whatsoever.

A judge, deciding whether to dismiss a case in a motion for summary judgment, takes every possible assumption in favor of the plaintiff and weighs whether there is even a chance of a legitimate case. If not, the case is done.

In the lower court case, which was filed in Milwaukee, the court agreed with South Park that the plaintiffs didn’t have a case. The appellate court affirmed the lower court decision earlier this week.

The appellate court also benchslapped Brownmark for their extensive discovery requests, referring to them as “copyright trolls”. The court noted that these cases are often meritless and use the litigation process, including extensive digging through the discovery process, to rack up costs and force a settlement.

What is intriguing is not just the law of the case, but that the message board and internet slang, “troll” has now made it into an appeals court opinion. Justice Posner continues to impress. They also pointed out that by satirizing the video, the South Park creators likely increased traffic to the original, which means more advertising dollars and no real injury.

And if you were still wondering what happened to Canada in the South Park episode, well, we’d hate to be a spoiler. Check out the episode at South Park Studios.

Related Resources:


Find a Chicago Personal Injury Attorney (FindLaw)
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (FindLaw’s LawBrain)
Avoiding Infringement Problems (FindLaw’s Learn About the Law)
Michael Jordan China Lawsuit a Go After All (FindLaw’s Chicago Personal Injury Law Blog)
Angelina Jolie Copyright Lawsuit to be Transferred Out of Illinois? (FindLaw’s Chicago Personal Injury Law Blog)


The Chicago Personal Injury Law Blog

View this post on my blog: http://onlinefindlawyers.com/find-lawyers/south-parks-what-what-in-the-butt-parody-ruled-fair-use.html