Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Friday, March 22, 2019
Saturday Night Live Embroiled in Pumpkin-Fucking Plagiarism Scandal
jezebel.com: A New York sketch comedy troupe is accusing SNL writers of cribbing their pumpkin orgy material and giving the world not one, but two sketches exploring the hilarity inherent in the idea of putting a dick in a pumpkin.
4 comments:
Elizabeth P
said...
I am a huge fan of SNL and have been for a very long time, and this wouldn't be the first time that they have used other writers materials in their own sketches. In comedy, unfortunately it is not uncommon for writers to take jokes from others and modify them for their own sets. It's never a great feeling to see something that you may have put any amount of work into gaining more recognition coming from someone else. Even if the content is unfunny, there is still no excuse to let someone slide when it comes to plagiarizing work. The difficult thing about comedy writing is that it truly is a response to everything, if you see something on the street or watch something on tv, the source content is never original, and two people may have the same thoughts. This case will likely be messy because Temple Horses wants to protect their own comedic identity, but they will have difficulty doing that with SNL seemingly ripping off their work. I think that there are many cases where similar sketches exist because of the similar source material and ideas. I think this is a matter of watching the clips yourself and deciding on whether or not you think they are simply copies of each other.
This is obviously a copyright or intellectual property issue, but it makes me think about the phenomenon of multiple discovery or simultaneous invention. There have been a number of times throughout history when people have come up with an idea completely independently and yet more or less simultaneously. Examples range from inventions to art to even just the names of things. In recent years, these events have been marked by lawsuits, and repercussions can be devastating. Saturday Night Live, in recent years, has faced a lot of criticism from people in power. Generally, however, the sense is that they can get away with anything. Temple Horses is drawing a line at stealing from other artists, which is great in theory, but worrisome in practice. NBC has a lot of money, and likely a lot of lawyers, and it is certainly dangerous to go up against them. From the article, it seems like Temple Horses has a strong case, but they are at risk of running themselves out of business in this pursuit.
These are similar enough that I definitely think that SNL copied Temple Horse, and I would imagine that Temple Horses have a pretty strong case if SNL didn’t give them any credit at all. Elizabeth does bring up a good point though, that almost all comedy is inherently reactive. Creating it is still a creative process, but it’s not a standalone; comedy lives within its context. I don’t think that it’s necessarily wrong of SNL to use concepts created by others, but there should be attribution, and really there should be permission. A ‘works cited’ or bibliography or some sort of citing sources is common, expected practice for middle schoolers, so why shouldn’t professional comedians be held to the same standard? Even with a bibliography though, this is not a derivative work, and I’m not sure that it would be sufficient. It is a copy, and SNL really should have gotten permission from Temple Horses to use their content.
This is a tough subject. Plagiarism is a serious issue, and copyright infringement laws are one of the few things protecting us as artists. However SNL is a long time running show, with enough money to probably give some money to the group with the original idea. They were able to produce their versions as higher quality, and I believe that although they took the original joke, a deal could have been struck with the original creators. Hiding behind not using someone else's idea seems foolish. The puppy one is unlikely, I think that the idea is basic enough for anyone to really think up, but they did their own original take. Its difficult to choose these things when the ideas they are based off of are small existing jokes. Then I ask, who is actually the original creator? Just because one group was the first to actually create a sketch based on the oke, is it still more public? I feel worried to the ability for us to feel free to make jokes we think we are funny, if we have to constantly worry about if the jokes been made before.
4 comments:
I am a huge fan of SNL and have been for a very long time, and this wouldn't be the first time that they have used other writers materials in their own sketches. In comedy, unfortunately it is not uncommon for writers to take jokes from others and modify them for their own sets. It's never a great feeling to see something that you may have put any amount of work into gaining more recognition coming from someone else. Even if the content is unfunny, there is still no excuse to let someone slide when it comes to plagiarizing work. The difficult thing about comedy writing is that it truly is a response to everything, if you see something on the street or watch something on tv, the source content is never original, and two people may have the same thoughts. This case will likely be messy because Temple Horses wants to protect their own comedic identity, but they will have difficulty doing that with SNL seemingly ripping off their work. I think that there are many cases where similar sketches exist because of the similar source material and ideas. I think this is a matter of watching the clips yourself and deciding on whether or not you think they are simply copies of each other.
This is obviously a copyright or intellectual property issue, but it makes me think about the phenomenon of multiple discovery or simultaneous invention. There have been a number of times throughout history when people have come up with an idea completely independently and yet more or less simultaneously. Examples range from inventions to art to even just the names of things. In recent years, these events have been marked by lawsuits, and repercussions can be devastating. Saturday Night Live, in recent years, has faced a lot of criticism from people in power. Generally, however, the sense is that they can get away with anything. Temple Horses is drawing a line at stealing from other artists, which is great in theory, but worrisome in practice. NBC has a lot of money, and likely a lot of lawyers, and it is certainly dangerous to go up against them. From the article, it seems like Temple Horses has a strong case, but they are at risk of running themselves out of business in this pursuit.
These are similar enough that I definitely think that SNL copied Temple Horse, and I would imagine that Temple Horses have a pretty strong case if SNL didn’t give them any credit at all. Elizabeth does bring up a good point though, that almost all comedy is inherently reactive. Creating it is still a creative process, but it’s not a standalone; comedy lives within its context. I don’t think that it’s necessarily wrong of SNL to use concepts created by others, but there should be attribution, and really there should be permission. A ‘works cited’ or bibliography or some sort of citing sources is common, expected practice for middle schoolers, so why shouldn’t professional comedians be held to the same standard? Even with a bibliography though, this is not a derivative work, and I’m not sure that it would be sufficient. It is a copy, and SNL really should have gotten permission from Temple Horses to use their content.
This is a tough subject. Plagiarism is a serious issue, and copyright infringement laws are one of the few things protecting us as artists. However SNL is a long time running show, with enough money to probably give some money to the group with the original idea. They were able to produce their versions as higher quality, and I believe that although they took the original joke, a deal could have been struck with the original creators. Hiding behind not using someone else's idea seems foolish. The puppy one is unlikely, I think that the idea is basic enough for anyone to really think up, but they did their own original take. Its difficult to choose these things when the ideas they are based off of are small existing jokes. Then I ask, who is actually the original creator? Just because one group was the first to actually create a sketch based on the oke, is it still more public? I feel worried to the ability for us to feel free to make jokes we think we are funny, if we have to constantly worry about if the jokes been made before.
Post a Comment