Star Wars "didn't approve, participate in or condone the inappropriate use of our characters in this manner"


#1

[Read the post]


#2

Dear Lucasfilm and Disney,

No duh.

Regards,
Everyone


#3

Someone somewhere has the issue of Playboy with Little Annie Fanny on a Star Wars set. I’m sure my father got rid of his copy when he moved. I seem to remember C-3PO with a thermometer on his crotch, but it’s been a very long time and I was very young only reading the articles.


#4

“We didn’t approve or condone or participate in this, because we couldn’t find a way to make any money doing it”


#5

Dear Disney,

Where Star Wars is concerned, you haven’t yet earned the right to be such spoilsports. Show us that you can do something brilliant with the license, and maybe then we’ll care what you think about what we do with these bits of our cultural heritage that you think it’s possible to “own”.

Love,
The Fans


#6

They have the right to fuss about it; and to make it abundantly clear that they have nothing to do with it; but I’d be a bit concerned if they advanced the claim of actually having legally compelling veto power.


#7

Somehow, I suspect that GQ Magazine will not go the way of “Air Pirates Funnies.”


#8

Just because they "didn’t approve, participate in or condone the inappropriate use of their characters in this manner” doesn’t mean they didn’t know about it.

“Hey GQ, this is Disney. We’re gonna go on record saying we didn’t approve, participate in or condone the inappropriate use of our characters for your Amy Schumer feature. But OFF the record, nice job. Everyone and their mother is talking about it.”


#9

But Disney DOES own Star Wars. It absolutely 100% owns every one of the characters in those photos aside from Schumer. This isn’t open for discussion.


#10

Let’s take a moment to remember the official seal of Star Wars approval has been stamped on much worse.


#11

They might own the characters, but that doesn’t really matter in this case.

At least in the USA parodies are legal and protected under the fair use doctrine.


#12

Oh Amy! How can we not love you?


#13


#14

And I never suggested otherwise. Despite the fact that go_robot_go may thinks it isn’t possible to own cultural heritage, Disney most certainly does own the Star Wars characters.


#15

Nothing wrong with the Holiday Special. Nothing wrong with the GQ spread either, as far as I’m concerned.


#16

“Hey GQ, this is Disney. We’re gonna go on record saying we didn’t approve, participate in or condone the inappropriate use of our characters for your Amy Schumer feature. But OFF the record, nice job. Everyone and their mother is talking about it.”

This, exactly.

I’m going to assume that anyone who thinks Disney is actually upset about this (as opposed to simply registering the pro forma public objection necessary for defense of trademark and defusing puritans’ objections) has never actually worked for a Hollywood studio.

Pro tip: When dealing with Disney, a public “we don’t approve” disclaimer on Twitter is defense-of-trademark and defense-against-puritans, and little else.

If they’re actually upset with you, it starts with lawyers and subpoenas, not Tweeted disclaimers.


#17

Somebody gonna get sued


#18

that lightsaber image is wrong in so many ways.


#19

I never questioned Disney’s ownership of the SW license, despite what you might have decided to read into my comment. But whether they own the license or not, they don’t and can’t own Star Wars’ place in pop culture. They can’t prevent fair use of the themes, names, or character images, and they can’t prevent parody. Having to sit back and helplessly watch the fans remix your property is the price of trying to own something that is so ingrained within the cultural zeitgeist.


#20

Because of the parody section under Fair Use? Someone’s going to have to look pretty hard to find a lawyer to take this one.