He also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings claiming the work is, on its face, a parody and/or highly transformative. Seuss Enterprises, the playwright sought a declaratory judgment finding that the play does not infringe on Seuss’s intellectual property rights. The playwright, Matthew Lombardo, characterizes his play as “a dark comedic work with explicit language geared towards only adult audiences.” ProcessĪfter receiving a cease and desist letter from Dr. He impregnated her, married her, took her from her family to his Mount Crumpit cave, and perpetrated domestic violence, precipitating his murder. Cindy-Lou is an embittered adult just released from prison for murdering her husband, the Grinch. The play at the center of the case, “Who’s Holiday!” fast-forwards 43 years from the story. In the end, swayed by the cheerfulness of Cindy-Lou and the denizens of Whoville, the Grinch returns all their presents and even carves the “roast beast.” The Grinch calms her, saying he’s just taking the tree to repair it. Two-year-old Cindy-Lou Who comes upon the Grinch taking her family’s Christmas tree. Seuss’ children’s book, “The Grinch That Stole Christmas,” the green, non-human Grinch attempts to ruin Christmas for the always-cheerful citizens of Whoville. The case may test the boundaries of what is parody, what is transformative, and how much taking is “fair.” The plots
The Southern District of New York is now considering a case that centers on a play that presents a wicked spin on a classic childhood storybook.
While not a license to take liberally from another work, the fair use test has often tilted in favor of the parodic or transformative second work.
Acuff-Rose Music landmark decision, courts have expanded fair use protection. Since the Supreme Court’s 1994 Campbell v.