Disney bought Marvel in 2009. The first Avengers porno (there are sequels) was released in 2012.
Do you REALLY think Disney is going to license the Avengers to Vivid to make a porno? NO FUCKING WAY!
Vivid has done Avengers, X-Men, Superman and Spider-Man. Maybe more. Did they get licenses from Marvel, Sony, DC and Fox? I seriously doubt it. (Yes, Marvel owns the Spider-man rights now, but Fox held them when Superman vs Spider-Man was released in 2012.)
Then there's the last paragraph of this PR statement:
You must be registered to see the links
"
Disclaimer:
Avengers vs X-Men XXX: An Axel Braun Parody is a parody movie. All characters and related materials are trademarks, copyrights and/or registered trademarks of their respective license holders and/or owners. The parody movie is not sponsored, or endorsed by, or affiliated with Marvel Characters, Inc. or its affiliates or parent company or any other company owning the trademarks of characters seen therein."
The Vivid press release SPECIFICALLY states that they don't have rights to the characters.
Excellent comment here. Yet, the final interpretation will depend on the judge if the matter is taken to a court, from the references stated, fair use depends on whether the content in question fulfills the criteria specified by the doctrine of fair use, commercialisation of the parodied content plays a big part in decision making as well.Having said that, for a take down, just showcasing the infringements to the appropriate authority is enough and if you counter claim that, and the owner has initiated a court case against the infringing content, the matter will remain pending till a judgement is served, the content stays down till then.
Vivid has 40/60 chance of winning or losing a copyright/trademark infringement case if their content is judged to be contrary of fair use, this only happens if they are taken to the court by the content owners, who ever they are.
This is an extract from an article from an IP attorney
{Creating a pornographic version of another’s work does not automatically qualify as “parody” fair use. In the 1981 case of MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, the U.S. Second Circuit Court affirmed that the defendants’ performance of the song “Cunnilingus Champion of Company C” was not fair use, and instead infringed the plaintiffs’ copyright in the song “Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy.” The court stated that “[w]e are not prepared to hold that a commercial composer can plagiarize a competitor’s copyrighted song, substitute dirty lyrics of his own, perform it for commercial gain and then escape liability by calling the end result a parody or satire on the mores of society.”}
[Along those lines, in Fifty Shades Limited et al. v. Smash Pictures Inc. et al. brought in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the defendant who had made a film, “Fifty Shades of Grey: A XXX Adaptation,” settled a copyright infringement lawsuit in 2013 instead of fighting back. An executive with Smash had reportedly described the work as “…a XXX adaption which will stay very true to the book and its S&M-themed romance.” This would not have bode well in court where a parody must transform a work into something new rather than be a “knock off,” so to speak.]
In the same article, porn parodies were also defended
You must be registered to see the links
at the end of the day, the decision remains with the content owners on what they are going to do when they come across an infringement and the law, unless the guidelines for fair use were strictly followed, will side with the content creator (more than half of the times)
Let me tell you something, I have got clients whose instagram accounts were deactivated because of multiple copyright strikes by FIFA(broadcasters), just for sharing images relating to a match and showing their appreciation for it, they were completely in fair use.... but hey, the big bad daddy said they infringe on my content, so they got to go down!
I now remember a funny infringement claim where disney warned an adult themed cosplayer of wearing the minnie hat whilst she was posing nude... She made more of them just to smite them but had to ultimately take them off.
The best course of action would be to follow the licensing way, regardless of how remote the chances are, at least make an attempt or hope and pray they don't find out about you or think of you as a tiny fella and leave you alone.... Not everyone leaves people alone lol.