Trademarked Characters in Literary Content

[iagffa]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? I'm in Canada, but I will be publishing through a U.S. publisher.

Hello all. I have a book I'm seeking to get self-published. In one part of the book, I have a trademarked group of characters show up for one paragraph/two sentences. They state their collective name and that's the end of it. The chapter switches. I don't say anything else about the characters, I don't give opinions, I don't slander. It's nothing more than a walk-on appearance. Would this be considered litigious? The book is a comedy, and I use the characters in much the same way Family Guy, Robot Chicken, Saturday Night Live, or South Park would parody a property. I know the makers of Family Guy got sued on some occasions, so I have to assume either (1) they don't seek legal permission, (2) their legal department let a few slip past, or (3) they're covered under some law that allows them to use trademarks in a certain way. But I'm not sure how they can get away with 99% of what they do.

If this is a bad idea, would I be okay just to leave out or slightly alter the group name of the characters?

Can anyone give any advice? I can give more details if I need to clarify anything.

Thanks, all.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? I'm in Canada, but I will be publishing through a U.S. publisher.

Hello all. I have a book I'm seeking to get self-published. In one part of the book, I have a trademarked group of characters show up for one paragraph/two sentences. They state their collective name and that's the end of it. The chapter switches. I don't say anything else about the characters, I don't give opinions, I don't slander. It's nothing more than a walk-on appearance. Would this be considered litigious? The book is a comedy, and I use the characters in much the same way Family Guy, Robot Chicken, Saturday Night Live, or South Park would parody a property. I know the makers of Family Guy got sued on some occasions, so I have to assume either (1) they don't seek legal permission, (2) their legal department let a few slip past, or (3) they're covered under some law that allows them to use trademarks in a certain way. But I'm not sure how they can get away with 99% of what they do.

Can anyone give any advice? I can give more details if I need to clarify anything.

Thanks, all.

Merely referring by name to characters who are protected under trademark law should not violate any of the rights of a trademark holder. You are allowed to speak of what exists by name (a Ford Mustang is a Ford Mustang).

In mentioning anything rights-protected, however, you need to be careful how you handle the "reputation" of what it is that is protected. You would be smart to have a publishing law professional review the context in which the trademarks appear, to ensure you are not on shaky legal ground. Even if your mention of the characters falls within fair use, this does not prevent an overly-litigious rights-holder from suing. It just means there is little likelihood a suit would have any success.

The makers of programs like South Park and Family Guy parody people, products and property on a regular basis, but these programs have huge teams of lawyers and vast amounts of money to handle any lawsuit lobbed in their direction, and they are also very good at what they do. The Simpson's have been genius in that the people they parody often appear on their shows as parodies of themselves. This eliminates any threat of legal action.

Parodies can be difficult to do. A good parody is a combination of both art and skill. For those less skilled, it can be smart to get permission beforehand from the one or ones you intend to parody. Weird Al Yankovic, who has both the art and skill to craft a good parody, has always sought permission (and been granted it) and he has never been sued as a result.