# The Grinch is copyrighted. But just how copyrighted is copyrighted?



## Tony Bertauski (May 18, 2012)

I'm tossing around an idea about a modern-day retelling of the Grinch, something completely different than anything else. I realize this is Dr. Seuss we're talking about and unless I want nasty registered letters in my mailbox, I best shelf that idea. But what if the character's name is Grinchowski. Maybe his skin is slightly green from illness. Maybe he hates Christmas, sure, but, but, but... I know, hire a copyright lawyer. Or better yet, erase the idea entirely.

Just curious, though. Any thoughts on copyright-infringement concerning characters?


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

Well, parody is protected. You'd just have to make sure that it really _is_ a parody, though. Something where Mr. Grinchowski is trying to steal the presents a rock band is collecting for charity, but it turns out his faithful sidekick Minimus is actually an FBI informant, and so he's arrested and threatened with terrorism charges and a one-way ticket to Guantanamo Bay, except it's an election year, so the government offers him a deal, whereby he gives back all the band's presents anonymously, just before election day, so as to inspire optimism and faith in humanity amongst the electorate, thereby teaching Grinchowski the important lessons that holidays exist merely as noisy and irritating opiates for the masses, and that the government is just as crooked as his too-small heart, say...


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

Sure, parody is protected speech, but what this would basically come down to is whether you could spend as much on lawyers as the Seuss estate. The first summons would likely cost far more than you'd ever earn on this.

Why even bother, when you could explore a fairly inventive idea you could make into something cool? Or stick with A Christmas Carol. The very fact that your idea depends on the Grinch makes for a pretty good civil case that you are commercially exploiting something that isn't yours. It's way easier to make something yours.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

If people call him Grinchowski because of the storybook ... I don't know. Is that different?

I always wonder about stuff like that ... like this book with George Clooney in the title.


----------



## AndreSanThomas (Jan 31, 2012)

That's not enough to get away with.  Aside from Dr. Seuss's estate's interest, there is a major motion picture studio involved.  They can make your life VERY miserable and VERY expensive.  Don't go there.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

"The Grinch" is a multi-billion dollar IP Asset. The Suess family along with Warner Bros hold various IP rights including trademark too. Anything "grinchy" is probably owned. I would get an IP lawyer period. Any "parody" must pass all legal tests.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

It's one thing for someone to be "a grinch." It's another for you to have a character who is "the Grinch."

The particular issue you're talking about falls at the intersection of copyright and trademark law. Yes, it's possible for copyright to protect characters (although unusual). Yes, copyright would likely protect these characters. But trademark definitely does.

And yes, parody is a a fair use defense to copyright infringement. But not all works that people claim are "parodies" actually are, under the law. In order to obtain the benefit of the parody defense, you must be parodying the work itself, not something else but just using the work.

Consider the seminal parody case, in which the rap group 2 Live Crew was sued by the Roy Orbison estate. 2 Live Crew had a song called "Big Hairy Woman" which was a parody of "Oh, Pretty Woman." It used the riffs, the melody, even used quite a lot of the words. The Supreme Court allowed the fair use parody defense in this instance, because the rappers were making fun of the sickeningly sweet wholesomeness of the song. The commentary was on the work itself.

Contrast this with when Dr. Seuss' estate sued someone who used "Green Eggs and Ham" as the basis for a poem about the OJ trial (Did he do it with a glove? Yes, he did it with a glove). In this case, the commentary was unrelated to the Dr. Seuss poem -- they were commenting on the OJ trial. So it was not deemed to be fair use, because it wasn't a "parody" in the sense of how that defense is understood.


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

Does anything stop you from telling your modern-day story in your own words, using a character with a name that _you've_ made up? That way, you aren't piggy-backing on the success of Theordore Geisel, which is the problem with the 'grinch' concept.


----------

