Scott Kurtz's parody strips are usually awful

[Kupek]

They're usually cheap, easy parodies with unfunny jokes.

Today's, however, is the best parody he's done: http://www.pvponline.com/2009/03/02/ombudsmen/

[RentCavalier]

lol Scott Kurtz.

I have a weird love/hate thing with PvP. I used to really love it, then stopped once it became more character-driven than anything else, then got back into it again when I realized that he actually has entertaining characters.

Then I stopped when I realized that he's been making the SAME GOD DAMN JOKES FOR ALMOST TEN YEARS.

[Kupek]

I usually have no patience for his parody strips. They're usually just him reveling in a fictional world he enjoys, which is probably fun for him, but makes for a terrible read as it's creatively bankrupt. But these two parodies are actually good.

The rest of the strip is hit-or-miss, but when it hits, I think it works well, so it's worth checking.

[Zeus]

If something is creatively bankrupt, wouldn't that make it more artistic since there's no money "tainting" it? :-)

[Kupek]

It's a shame that disapproving glares don't work on the internet.

[SineSwiper]

"You stopped drawing". LOL. Seriously, has he actually drawn any more panels or just recycle the ones he's already made?

[Chris]

[Zeus]

It's a shame that disapproving glares don't work on the internet.

Same with wry smiles :-)

[Zeus]

I just saved that photo for future use. That's awesome :-)

[Mental]

You know, PvP was always fairly character-driven, but it was simpler back at the beginning. It seemed like he wasn't trying so hard at times, didn't have to reach so far for the gags.

Still one of the best comics on the internet, I feel. This Ombudsmen thing is pretty funny, I admit.

He and Jim Davis have corresponded a bit, so he probably won't get sued, unless UFS feels like being a little bitch.

[SineSwiper]

He and Jim Davis have corresponded a bit, so he probably won't get sued, unless UFS feels like being a little bitch. :)

Parody precedent would overturn any attempt at a lawsuit. I wish more people knew that.

[Kupek]

Maybe not. If you recall the trouble Penny Arcade went through with Whatshisname McGee and Strawberry Shortcake, they were told it was a losing battle. The problem was they were parodying McGee, and not Strawberry Shortcake.

[Mental]

Maybe not. If you recall the trouble Penny Arcade went through with Whatshisname McGee and Strawberry Shortcake, they were told it was a losing battle. The problem was they were parodying McGee, and not Strawberry Shortcake.

Yeah.

I still maintain that the relevant principle in America is "if you can afford hire a lawyer, you can bring a lawsuit against someone, no matter how stupid it is."

If you have money, you can sue. The legal industry fights very hard to make sure it can sue people very hard at any time it likes, collectively, as it's a very lucrative business for the lawyers.

In this case, by the way, the same principle would apply - Kurtz is parodying Watchmen, and not Garfield itself.

I'm not saying you're wrong, Sine, just that the actual relevant legal principle happens to become irrelevant if you piss someone off, usually.

[Mental]

http://www.pvponline.com/2009/03/03/ombudsmen-part-2/

Kurtz ought to write Dagwood. That just did something for me that roughly seventy years of syndicated formulaic strips didn't.

[Don]

I think you'll have a problem when you simply use the likeness of various copyrighted characters like the way PvP is going.

Let's say I'm going to parody Street Fighter, and assigned the following characters:

Ryu = Cloud Strife
Ken = Sephiroth
Bison = Solid Snake
Vega = Link
Sagat = Mario

We'll ignore for a moment on whether any of these assignment even makes a meaningful story. The fact that I am parodying Street Fighter doesn't give me unrestricted access to these fairly well known icons in video gaming. Depending on how clever the actual parody is I might be able to get away with this, but I might not.

If you look at something like Sergent Frog that makes a parody of practically everything, the guy owns all the character he is using. When Tamama or Keroro gets spiky golden hair and starts shooting fireballs, they are still frogs and there's no possible way you can confuse them with Goku of Dragonball. Indeed there is no one with the likeness of Goku in the entire Sergent Frog even though random characters are infused with the essence of Goku every 3 chapters. There is a recurring character that looks like a caricature of Freeza in Sergeant Frog and whenever he shows up he's referred to as 'some villian from Dra *** ball'. Again the writer of Sergeant Frog does not own the rights to Freeza of Dragonball. If they actually say this guy is Freeza they could get in trouble, and if they actually draw the guy to look like Freeza it'd be even worse.

[Tessian]

Something tells me Scott Kurtz is more aware of copyright law than you, Don. I'm sure he knows full well this isn't covered as parody and I bet you chances are he got permission from the artists to use their characters. Either that or he doesn't believe any of them will care or take offense enough to take legal action. Unless you're talking about the Watchmen copyright, in which case I can guarantee you that Alan Moore and co. are NOT going to file suit against Scott for giving them free publicity right before their movie is released.

Sometimes I wonder if you think so much you don't end up thinking at all...

[Don]

Something tells me Scott Kurtz is more aware of copyright law than you, Don. I'm sure he knows full well this isn't covered as parody and I bet you chances are he got permission from the artists to use their characters. Either that or he doesn't believe any of them will care or take offense enough to take legal action. Unless you're talking about the Watchmen copyright, in which case I can guarantee you that Alan Moore and co. are NOT going to file suit against Scott for giving them free publicity right before their movie is released.

Sometimes I wonder if you think so much you don't end up thinking at all...

Why on earth would you assume a random guy on the Net that draws comics knows more about copyright than any other random guy on the Net? It's appealing for authority when there is zero correlation between webcomic artist and copyright expert. Scott Kurtz is just as much an armchair lawyer as any of us.

It's pretty clear he wouldn't get in trouble with Watchman. That part is obvious because it's a parody on Watchman, and nobody is going to mistake any of the characters he used for their actual counterparts.

The part is not clear is that the other characters he used aren't his to begin with. If the characters used were PvP characters that'd have been fine because those are Scott Kurtz's characters, but Dilbert certainly doesn't belong Scott Kurtz.

You surmise all these guys are probably not going to sue Scott Kurtz for this. That's certainly the likely outcome, but why do you believe that is the ONLY outcome? It is entirely possible Scott Adams doesn't even know PvP exists, but that doesn't mean it's right.

If I recall, usually in these kind of stuff there's always a disclaimer like: "All characters portrayed here are reprinted with permission of their owners." The lack of such a disclaimer suggests that he did not ask for permissions.

[Tessian]

My point was that you're assuming Scott's an idiot who doesn't know copyright law and that's a pretty poor assumption to make. I assume he knows more about copyright law than you because being a popular internet cartoonist (whether you like him or not you have to admit he's one of the most popular webcomics in existence) he's had to deal with copyright issues a LOT more often than you.

We're not talking about some random guy online who draws comics. Scott has been around for a looong time and is well known in the industry. I would hazard that only the most ignorant of cartoon artists (the ones that do newspaper comics) would not know of Kurtz or at least heard his name before.

[Kupek]

Did you just not see the part there where I said he most likely got permission from most of the artists?

I didn't assume that, and I don't see any reason to do so. Alan Moore also doesn't want anything to do with the movie, and the copyright to Watchmen is probably owned by DC, not Moore or Gibbons.

Anyway, this technical discussion is less interesting than discussion of the content. He punched it well. I thought the strip that actually had The Comedian/Charlie Brown was weaker than the rest, but for the first time, Kurtz pulled of a series of parody strips that can stand on its own.

[SineSwiper]

They are parodying both Watchmen and the characters. After all, the characters are talking about their lives in newspaper. This is a common practice in parodies. I fathom that if there is a lawsuit, Scott will stick to his guns. Parody 'law' needs to be re-explained to the public and defended.

[Mental]

They are parodying both Watchmen and the characters. After all, the characters are talking about their lives in newspaper. This is a common practice in parodies. I fathom that if there is a lawsuit, Scott will stick to his guns. Parody 'law' needs to be re-explained to the public and defended.

It's not the public you need to explain it to, it's the corporate lawyers...

[Chris]

My point was that you're assuming Scott's an idiot who doesn't know copyright law and that's a pretty poor assumption to make. I assume he knows more about copyright law than you because being a popular internet cartoonist (whether you like him or not you have to admit he's one of the most popular webcomics in existence) he's had to deal with copyright issues a LOT more often than you.

We're not talking about some random guy online who draws comics. Scott has been around for a looong time and is well known in the industry. I would hazard that only the most ignorant of cartoon artists (the ones that do newspaper comics) would not know of Kurtz or at least heard his name before.

oh scott is an idiot. more in the pompous douchebag sense than intelligence level though. when it comes to this he knows his shit. I still don't like him though.

[Kupek]

They are parodying both Watchmen and the characters. After all, the characters are talking about their lives in newspaper. This is a common practice in parodies. I fathom that if there is a lawsuit, Scott will stick to his guns. Parody 'law' needs to be re-explained to the public and defended.

Again, read up on what Gabe and Tycho have said about their circumstances. The legal precedents were not in their favor.

[SineSwiper]

Again, read up on what Gabe and Tycho have said about their circumstances. The legal precedents were not in their favor.

That's because it was a single frame comic, without the chance to prove that they were parodying Strawberry Shortcake. In any case, the precedents need to be re-established, and in all of the different lawsuits that get brought up for this suit, they all buckle down. That's why the corps bring it up, despite haven't no chance of winning.

This is basic Freedom of Speech, and touches on cases like People vs Larry Flint, and SNL's entire skit library.

[Mental]

I came across this while browing the archives, and I know it's out of date, but I think this is actually the best parody Kurtz has done.

<img src="http://www.pvponline.com/comics/pvp20081105.gif"></img>

I can almost see Berkeley Breathed having drawn that strip himself. Bloom County is still probably my favorite comic of all time and the best Breathed did by far, better than Outland, and better than Opus. I still have never seen sarcasm done quite as well as Breathed or anyone come up with goofy non sequiturs with bite like that. Breathed was the David Letterman of daily comic strips.