Lagy Gaga Crushes Lady Goo Goo

I have never hidden my concerns over the expanding claims of trademark and copyright protections over common names, symbols, and parodies (here and here and here and here). Now, Lady Gaga has sent in the lawyers to stomp on Lady Goo Goo, a cartoon character on Moshi Monsters, a website on which children adopt and name characters. Lady Goo Goo sings a popular parody called “Petty-razzi” below — a youtube hit.

Despite the obvious parody, Lady Gaga won an injunction banning the release of the new song by Lady Goo Goo called the Moshi Dance — defeating Moshi creators Mind Candy and 50 million users worldwide.

The Moshi Dance racked up millions of hits as a funny parody. As in the United Stats, parody is a defense under trademark laws in England. Yet, Lady Gaga was able to get a temporary injunction.

Once again, I am astonished at artists like Lady Gaga fighting such parodies and even more surprised that a court would go along. Yet our courts have reached similarly bizarre results in some cases. Past tort cases have generally favored celebrities and resulted in rulings like White v. Samsung, a perfectly ludicrous ruling where Vanna White successfully sued over the use of a robot with a blond wig turning cards as the appropriation of her name or likeness. The estate of Humphrey Bogart sued last year for over a couch simply named Bogart. California-retailer Plummers settled the lawsuit this week.

Part of the problem is that we have a large number of law firms on retainer to bring these actions and artists and companies that do little to limit them. The greatest problem is the success of this lobby in getting Congress and the Obama Administration to push through virtually any legislation that they demand — criminalizing violations, approving warrantless searches, and allowing for obscene awards.


26 thoughts on “Lagy Gaga Crushes Lady Goo Goo”

  1. More proof that Lady Gaga is a product, not an artist. I am no longer amazed that people are suckered by derivative crap like what she puts out, but I am still saddened. This reminds me of when Garth Brooks (another overhyped product) went after stores selling used CDs. It is pathetic that such talentless millionaires are so greedy.

  2. Oro Lee1, October 17, 2011 at 10:55 am

    “The lawyers are incentivized by $$$ not by doing well by society.”

    Since when has “doing well by society” been part of the Neo-American Dream? Why should only lawyers be burdened with such socialist baggage? Why should lawyers not partake as fully as any other in the capitalist (in this instance,the capital being a law license), free market system?

    Get all you can, however you can, as long as you can: Herman Can’s 1-1-1 economic policy.
    Anti-social behaviour

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Anti-social behaviour (with or without hyphen) is behaviour that lacks consideration for others and that may cause damage to society, whether intentionally or through negligence, as opposed to pro-social behaviour, behaviour that helps or benefits society.[1] Criminal and civil laws in various countries offer remedies for anti-social behaviour.

Comments are closed.