Dear Rich,

I am writing a series of articles for an industry publication widely read by compliance officers in which I make up hypothetical situations using copyrighted cartoon and comic book characters such as Charlie Brown gang, The Marvel superheroes, the Archie comic book gang, Scooby-Doo and other well-known characters in an introductory paragraph assigning the characters roles and motivations in the hypothetical. 

I would hardly be convincing to these compliance officers that I knew what I was talking about with respect to legal compliance if I didn’t know enough to comply with intellectual property law by making proper attribution.Remember the law school hypotheticals?

I used comic book names.

My first article uses Thor and the Marvelous universe of investment as an example and other Marvel trademarked and copyrighted characters. I think the mythical character of Thor is in the public domain, but it’s actually the Marvel universe that sets the stage for my hypotheticals – Asgaard as the ideal, Thor as the Investment Advisor Representative changing firms with lofty sounding names, Tony Stark as the lawyer Iron Man.

I understand there is a “fair use” exception in intellectual property law that allows me to use copyrighted characters to “make funny” as in a parody or social commentary rather than for commercial purposes, but I am not sure how far it goes. There is no compensation for the article. It would appear in a trade magazine such as that produced by the trade member organization and perhaps be reprinted someday on the website of the law firm I work for as a paralegal. The second article uses Charlie Brown characters. The object of the article is to convey some dry material in a light amusing charming manner to lift the mood of the piece and provide a different perspective than is usually addressed in the industry where the salesman is usually seen as the most likely to be at fault when something goes wrong. Charlie Brown is the oft maligned Investment Advisor Rep and Lucy is the one who keeps fooling him into trusting her by feeding him confusing information or regulations he can’t figure out how to use. I have attached a really early draft of the first article. The second is still awaiting the legal hypothetical to be assigned to me.

What do you think? I am definitely benefiting from the popularity of these characters, with proper attribution to their creators, to get attention to the more serious issues of fiduciary duty to brokerage and investment advisor customers. And to overcome the stigma of Investment Advisor Reps always being seen as the bad guy.

Next question – how do I source the proper attribution language for each set of characters and is that enough?  Is it something easy to do on the internet? I understand The Walt Disney company owns the Marvel characters. Is it as easy as googling? The characters of Peanuts and related intellectual property are reputedly owned by Peanuts Worldwide, which is 41% owned by WildBrain Ltd., 39% owned by Sony Music Entertainment (Japan) Inc., and 20% owned by the family of Charles M. Do I just say this as my “attribution” in a footnote? If it’s not, if it requires permission, I doubt my boss will allow me to go this route. We’re not profiting from it, so there wouldn’t be any royalties involved. Although if we reprint it on our website, that could be considered lawyer “advertising.”

I understand the 4 fair use exceptions to copyright are: Fair use of copyrighted works, as stated in US copyright law, “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” The trade organization makes copies of the articles in its member publication (annual dues $475 are usually paid by the firms that employ the compliance professionals) available to members and while it doesn’t offer them individually for sale that I know of, it does charge membership fees and its subscription is one of the benefits to members.