Not Parody

Miss Piggy baring her breast does not comment on Janet Jackson's exposed breast. The work shown here is quite simply infringement.

The problem here as in the Dr. Seuss case that Martin Schwimmer cites is that the supposed parodist merely use the work [Miss Piggy] as a vehicle to satirize something completely different [Miss Nasty].

The discussion continues... Ernest Miller disagrees. He says that it is "a fairly clear case of parody of a parody" and provides plenty of examples to support his position:

Miss Piggy clearly is meant to parody the sexuality of modern female celebrity-dom. Nevertheless, like all the Muppets, Miss Piggy's parody is sanitized for family consumption. Clearly, such sanitized family entertainment is itself ripe for parody, see, for example, directorial genius Peter Jackson's Muppet parody Meet the Feebles, in which Muppet-like creatures do drugs, porn and engage in other degenerate acts.

And what Ernest says makes sense, especially in the context of the Muppets and Miss Piggy's prior exploits in particular, as opposed to O.J. and Dr. Seuss, a crucial element that I may have failed to consider. While there may be a better case for a parody in this instance, I still feel that this much exposure for Piggy makes it questionable.

Calblog chimes in:

The fact of the matter is that the "Cat in Not in the Hat!" case was wrongly decided. Any subsequent argument that doesn't recognize this simple fact will then start off with a false premise that will only lead to ridiculous (and freedom stifling) conclusions.

Marty has the final say.

FCC's Industry Guidance On the Commission's Case Law Interpreting 18 U.S.C. ? 1464 and Enforcement Policies Regarding Broadcast Indecency

Complaints Pour in to FCC Over Super Bowl Flash

Does the First Amendment Protect Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake? | Nipplegate and the Dangers of Chilling Free Speech

My Hero, Janet Jackson

Janet, Justin Sued Over Boobgate

Boobsuit Deconstructed

Nasty, Nasty Boobs: Don't Mean a Thing