Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Linus responds to Blanche and the POS. . . (Original Post) Stargleamer Sunday OP
Great cartoon LetMyPeopleVote Sunday #1
Copyright violation by whoever did that cartoon, unless they had permission. highplainsdem Sunday #2
Correct but Lifeafter70 Sunday #5
What we're seeing used here are the Peanuts characters, not the clearly different characters from highplainsdem Sunday #6
I agree Lifeafter70 Sunday #7
Not an intellectual property attorney, but fair law for memes seems to be a gray area currently. Ilikepurple Sunday #8
Out of the mouths of babes... surfered Sunday #3
See reply 2. Most popular cartoon characters are not in the public domain. highplainsdem Sunday #4

Lifeafter70

(1,282 posts)
5. Correct but
Sun Jun 28, 2026, 10:54 PM
Sunday

Charles schulz early cartoon strip "lil folks" is in the public domain. He did not copyright it before publishing that cartoon strip. You can use those original characters but not the names.

highplainsdem

(63,852 posts)
6. What we're seeing used here are the Peanuts characters, not the clearly different characters from
Sun Jun 28, 2026, 11:05 PM
Sunday

Li'l Folks, and it is a copyright violation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%27l_Folks

It isn't necessary to rip off copyrighted cartoon characters to get messages across.

Ilikepurple

(832 posts)
8. Not an intellectual property attorney, but fair law for memes seems to be a gray area currently.
Sun Jun 28, 2026, 11:59 PM
Sunday

I won’t venture to guess what the ultimate determination would be here because I’m not qualified to apply the 4-factor test provided in 17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 ). I’m guessing few, if any, are qualified until we get a more settled caselaw in this area. Im not sure why there isn’t more caselaw in this area. I’m guessing there would be more suits if copyright owners were as concerned as you are about this issue or not as sure of the legal win or effect on Q score? The infringement on trademarked name “Linus” in the title is probably an easier argument.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Linus responds to Blanche...