Spitting Image vs Paddington Bear, Satire vs IP rights

When does satire become infringement? That is the question at the centre of StudioCanal v Spitting Image, now before the High Court.

In an article for Creative Bloq, Spencer West Partner Howard Ricklow analyses the case brought by StudioCanal, the company behind the Paddington films, against comedians Al Murray and Matt Forde. The dispute arose after the pair portrayed Paddington as a foul-mouthed, illicit drug-taking character in their satirical YouTube podcast The Rest is Bulls*!t.

StudioCanal claims copyright and design infringement, while the comedians argue their work is protected parody. The follow-up video, which removes Paddington’s hat and duffle coat, raises questions over how minor design changes can influence whether a parody crosses the legal line.

Howard explores how this case tests the boundaries between intellectual property protection and freedom of expression. He also considers the implications for creators using parody and pastiche, and the possible limits of the “fair dealing” defence under UK law.

Read the full article on Creative Bloq: Spitting Image vs Paddington Bear: the legal spat raises interesting questions