Dr. Seuss Enterprises L.P v. Penguin Books USA Inc. (109 F.3d 1394, 9th Circuit, 1997)

The case of Dr. Seuss v. Penguin deals a major blow to satire's ability to claim fair use. The defendants, Penguin Books, represented a pair of authors, Alan Katz and Chris Wrinn, who had written a book called "'The Cat NOT in the Hat!' A Parody by Dr. Juice". The book was marketed as a parody of Dr. Seuss's "The Cat in the Hat" from the cover art to the rhyming style. Dr. Seuss's estate sued Penguin Books for copyright infringement, among other things, and the district court held in favor of Dr. Seuss. On appeal, the circuit court upheld the ruling.

In reaching its conclusion, the circuit court dealt with the issue of whether or not "The Cat NOT in the Hat!" could reasonably be considered a parody. Using the definitions for a successful parody laid out in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, the court decided that "The Cat NOT in the Hat!" "does broadly mimic Dr. Seuss's characteristic style" it failed to "hold his style up to ridicule." Consistently throughout the opinion, the court states that "The Cat NOT in the Hat!" does not deserve the fair use defense because "it fail[s] to target the original work." Furthermore, the court states that Penguin's fair use defense is "pure shtick" and "completely unconvincing."

 Also, the court leans heavily on the fourth factor of 17 USC 107, which discusses the potential market harm that could be inflicted on the copyright work. The court decided that due to the commercial nature of "The Cat NOT in the Hat!" as well as the predetermined non-parodic status it holds, the potential market harm was present. Therefore, between this factor and the other factors, Penguin was not entitled to claim fair use and therefore lost the suit.

Analysis of this case will be saved for the other sources, but in general, this ruling is very lethal to satire. By rejecting any claim to fair use, the court overly restricts satire. Prior cases, including Campbell and Rogers, allowed for a minimal comment on the original work to clear the fair use hurdle. Even though the court acknowledges that there is mimicry of Seuss's style, which can be construed as minimal comment, the court feels that it is insufficient. By flying in the face of Campbell and Rogers, the Ninth Circuit goes too far with its ruling and blocks satire's rightful defense.

In this case, Alan Katz and Chris Wrinn created a satire of the Simpson trial using the artistic features of Dr. Seuss’ book “The Cat in the Hat” called “The Cat NOT in the Hat!”  They used similar rhyme schemes and trademarks of Seuss to illustrate the OJ Simpson trial.  Theodor Geisel (Dr. Seuss) took the two authors to court before the book was published, citing copyright and trademark infringement.  Though the two works looked substantially similar, the details of the books that were similar could not be copyrighted.  Features such as lettering design, poetic meter, or shading can not be copyrighted and therefore were within fair use standards (section II).  When comparing the parody to fair use doctrines, it was found that the commercialism of the parodic book cut in to fair use defense, creating a weaker case for Katz and Wrinn.  The courts also found that the book did not properly parody the original work, but rather only employed the techniques of the original to satirize the Simpson trial.  This, in the opinion of the court, decreased the transformative quality of the book (Section A).  An important aspect of the case that may relate to my own project is the analysis of whether the parody would be confused with the original in the marketplace (Section A(2)).  While the courts found that there was no evidence of confusion between the two books within the marketplace, my own project may experience problems if entered into the marketplace.  As I am simply adding my own subtitles to a non-English film, it will be difficult for viewers who do not speak the original language of the film to realize that it is a parody.  I may have to add a disclaimer in the beginning of the film to bring attention to the fact that it is a parody of the original.