Kermit Parody on Saturday Night Live

[Don'tLiveonMoon]

I bet they had to pay for the song. It's not a parody, since it was actually the original music and lyrics. Even Weird Al has to pay for parody songs, since he uses the original music.

As for the skit, I thought it was okay. Not terribly offensive, not particularly funny either. Just kind of dumb and trashy actually. If you're not a muppet fan, (or maybe just a casual fan), I can see how it might have been amusing. Still, my wife and I watched Rocky Mountain Holiday last night, and so I was a little too much into the sweetness of the Muppets to appreciate the skit.

I didn't know Weird Al had to pay because of using the music, but that makes sense. I also thought the skit was very... mediocre. Personally, while I usually watch SNL, I don't find much on the show very funny these days. I wish they'd show old episodes with Dan Akroyd and John Belushi and everybody once in a while.
Erin

 

[doctorjpw]

...I have a legal question concerning this sketch. We all know that SNL makes fun of all pop culture icons, but when they make fun of say George Bush or Sharon Osborne, they're making fun of real people who are part of public domain. Even though Kermit is a cultural icon, wouldn't SNL have to get permission to use his image (even though it was a faux Kermit) because he is a licensed character owned by the Henson company? This might not apply had it been some random green frog-like puppet, but since they directly stated that it was Kermit don't copyrights and licensing come into play? Also, since they sang over half the song, wouldn't they have to pay to use Rainbow Connection? I'm just wondering because no acknowledgements were made in the credits.

Anywho, sorry if this rambled, I was just wondering about those things.

Chicagogonzo

Satire and parody is very broadly protected under "freedom of speech." Mad magazine parodied copyrighted characters like Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny and the "Archie Comics" gang back in the 1950's. SNL has presented much more repugnant character assasinations (no pun intended) in its "TV Funhouse" cartoon segment, where actual animation from Disney films and the 70's Batman TV cartoon was dubbed with new dialogue as part the "Iraqui TV Kids" lineup. Another "TV Funhouse" segment used actual footage from "Bambi" and other Disney films to spoof Disney's habit of putting their home video releases "in the vault", never to be seen again. And of course, there was the incredibly controversial "Charlie Brown Christmas" parody of last year, which presented Schulz' creations doing things I don't want to print in a family forum.

So "SNL" can basically do anything they want with coprighted characters--as long as it comes anywhere close to the legal definition of "satire" or "parody."

And now, here's my two cents on the sketch: ticked-off puppeteers who use their puppets to injure or threaten people is a schtick that's been used on "Murphy Brown," "The Dick Van Dyke Show" and several other places. Nothing new there. I personally think the sketch was inspired by some of the unfortunate treatment Kermit got during his week on "Kimmel."

And here's something to think about: "SNL" parodies what's in the public eye. These kinds of things are small price to pay for the fact that our beloved Muppets are making more and more appearances these days. And to those who seem really, really concerned by this, there's nothing I can say to turn you down a few notches. But I really think you're overreacting. Just one man's opinion.

Doc

 

[Don'tLiveonMoon]

And here's something to think about: "SNL" parodies what's in the public eye. These kinds of things are small price to pay for the fact that our beloved Muppets are making more and more appearances these days. And to those who seem really, really concerned by this, there's nothing I can say to turn you down a few notches. But I really think you're overreacting. Just one man's opinion.

Doc

I agree. I tend to get excited when I see a parody of something I love, whether it's a good parody or not. It's nice to just see that people think it's important enough to make fun of it. With Clay Aiken's album coming out this week, I'm kinda hoping SNL will do something next week making fun of it. I'm sure if they do it will in very poor taste, but I would still get a kick out of it. I saw those two Funhouse episodes you referred to, and they were pretty abhorrent. But I couldn't believe it when they did a Veggie Tales parody: The Religtables. It was horrible, all these episodes with the most violent chapters in the Bible and in church history, and the veggies happily singing away. The Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials... The worst was Armageddon, with the rivers of V8. "Armageddon's finally here." "Arm-a-geddon outta here!" It was horrific. And, I had to admit, pretty funny. I was just shocked that SNL would have ever thought to parody Veggie Tales. So as gross as it was, I got a big kick out of it.
Erin

 

[Saginaw]

Well, whatever the case may be, this has certainly generated ALOT of conversation!

Like I posted before, it's not unusual for Saturday Night Live to parody whatever floats their fancy, but I believe it would have been extremely difficult for them to acquire permission to perform 'The Rainbow Connection', unless they modified it somewhere to where it wasn't the exact same song. If that's not the case, then this could be a legal fight to watch.

You know, this sort of reminds me of the time when the late comic Andy Kaufman used to host the late night comedy show 'Fridays' (which at the time was called a West Coast rip-off of 'SNL') and he would stage unusual skits and bits that would take people by surprise. One of the last times he hosted that show he claimed that he was a born-again Christian and acted like one throughout the program. Of course he did it for laughs.

Then a few years later he died of unexpected lung cancer.

Hmmm.


--Saginaw

 

[doctorjpw]

Well, whatever the case may be, this has certainly generated ALOT of conversation!

Like I posted before, it's not unusual for Saturday Night Live to parody whatever floats their fancy, but I believe it would have been extremely difficult for them to acquire permission to perform 'The Rainbow Connection', unless they modified it somewhere to where it wasn't the exact same song. If that's not the case, then this could be a legal fight to watch.


--Saginaw

Here's a very simple explanation--not meant to be the exact answer
---but something close.

"The Rainbow Connection", like nearly all pieces of popular music, was written by a songwriter affiliated with ASCAP or BMI, the two major songwriters' unions. Each year millions of entities (radio stations, TV networks, theme parks, even restaurants with juke boxes) pay a rights fee to these organizations. The fee covers every song written by a member of the organization.

By tracking sales of CDs, cassettes, videos, DVDs, etc--and through random audits of radio stations and other music outlets-- the unions see to it that the songwriters get paid residuals for their creations. This is why Dolly Parton, the writer of "I Will Always Love You," made a nice hunk of change even when Whitney Houston recorded the song. It's also the whole hullaballoo behind the songwriters' crusade against Napster and the like--if you can download a song for free (in the process denying the songwriter his residuals), why should you buy the CD?

So, clutching the wheel in a desperate grasp to keep this on-topic, SNL has every right to use "The Rainbow Connection" as long as the production company (in this case NBC) pays its annual rights fees to BMI and ASCAP.

I only know all of this useless information because in my radio job, about 4 times a year, I have to sit down and write out the title and songwriter of every song I play on my show for BMI. It's a real pain, but if it means Paul
Williams gets some lunch money it's well worth it.

Doc

 

[chicagogonzo]

Satire and parody is very broadly protected under "freedom of speech." Doc

While I certainly agree with freedom of speech and find parody/satire extremely entertaining, I'm not sure if I enjoy the atmospere that this law creates. If I understand it correctly (which I'm in no way claiming), it seems that I can use any images, sounds, characters, etc. without permission if I am making fun of said image, sound, character, etc. under the banner of parody. However, if I just wanted to use the character because I enjoy it and want to put the character into a story or performance of my own creation, I run the risk of being sued heavily if I don't get permission. This reminds me of the stories of nursery schools that painted pictures of Disney characters on their walls without permission that were in turn threatened with lawsuits from Disney if they did not remove the images. It almost seems that if the picture of Mickey Mouse had been giving the middle finger, while certainly not appropriate for children, the nursery schools would have been able to claim that the picture was a Mickey parody. Also, I forget the name of the company, but I went into a puppet making shop at the Bristol Renaissance Faire. They said that they could make custom puppets of any character, including Superman and Kermit, but that they would have to change certain things such as color schemes so that their puppets would be just different enough from the actual characters to avoid a legal mess. Even though they charged an arm and a leg for the puppets, they seemed to be doing the work just for love of puppetry. It upsets me that these people can't blatantly copy characters, but satirists have free reign to do just that in the name of "making fun."
Chicagogonzo

 

[Buck-Beaver]

Also, I have a legal question concerning this sketch. We all know that SNL makes fun of all pop culture icons, but when they make fun of say George Bush or Sharon Osborne, they're making fun of real people who are part of public domain. Even though Kermit is a cultural icon, wouldn't SNL have to get permission to use his image (even though it was a faux Kermit) because he is a licensed character owned by the Henson company? This might not apply had it been some random green frog-like puppet, but since they directly stated that it was Kermit don't copyrights and licensing come into play? Also, since they sang over half the song, wouldn't they have to pay to use Rainbow Connection? I'm just wondering because no acknowledgements were made in the credits.

I think some others already kind of answered this, but no they don't need permission. You can do a parody of trademarked characters, but it has to be clear to the audience you are doing a parody. SNL cannot lead its audience to believe they have the real Kermit on, creating confusion. Since SNL is well know for this sort of thing they don't really have a problem.

Also, all TV stations pay licensing fees for music. To perform a song like "Rainbow Connection" royalties get paid to the songwriters (I believe this even holds true for song parodies). No acknowledgement in the credits for a TV show is not uncommon, but credits are usually given in movies. I think it could be a union thing.

 

[Erine81981]

Oh well it was proubley pretty funny. They had that one thing on SNL where those ugly character from JMC were made for SNL so knowing that they had permsion to do that so I don't think they wouldn't mind that they did that.

 

[Dilbertos2]

saturday night live

Kermit's line to justin "you, me and p diddy should cut an album" wasn't right with me because of what happened to p diddy a few years ago. the muppets don't need to assoicated with that. another example is that the muppets cut snoop doggy dog from "a very muppet christmas" snoop dog has got in a lot of trouble for what he has said and done.

 

[doctorjpw]

While I certainly agree with freedom of speech and find parody/satire extremely entertaining, I'm not sure if I enjoy the atmospere that this law creates. If I understand it correctly (which I'm in no way claiming), it seems that I can use any images, sounds, characters, etc. without permission if I am making fun of said image, sound, character, etc. under the banner of parody. However, if I just wanted to use the character because I enjoy it and want to put the character into a story or performance of my own creation, I run the risk of being sued heavily if I don't get permission. This reminds me of the stories of nursery schools that painted pictures of Disney characters on their walls without permission that were in turn threatened with lawsuits from Disney if they did not remove the images. It almost seems that if the picture of Mickey Mouse had been giving the middle finger, while certainly not appropriate for children, the nursery schools would have been able to claim that the picture was a Mickey parody. Chicagogonzo

It's funny you mention Disney...despite the fact that those "TV Funhouse" parodies I referred to slipped by, Disney is notorious for their dogged pursuit of copyright violators--from the harmless uses you describe to parody and satire that should be covered under the First Amendment. Disney is big enough, strong enough, and doggone it, people like them! (Sorry.) They have a seemingly bottomless legal budget for striking down things like counterfeit merchandise and-- in a pretty well-publicized case back in the 70's-- underground comix showing Mickey and his gang doing some pretty raw stuff.

Doc