Editing Mad (magazine) (section)

==Legal disputes==
The magazine has been involved in various legal actions over the decades, some of which have reached the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]]. The most far-reaching was ''[[Berlin v. E.C. Publications, Inc.|Irving Berlin et al. v. E.C. Publications, Inc.]]'' In 1961, a group of music publishers representing songwriters such as [[Irving Berlin]], [[Richard Rodgers]], and [[Cole Porter]] filed a $25&nbsp;million lawsuit against ''Mad'' for [[copyright infringement]] following "Sing Along With ''Mad''", a collection of parody lyrics which the magazine said could be "sung to the tune of" many popular songs. The publishing group hoped to establish a legal precedent that only a song's composers retained the right to parody that song. Judge Charles Metzner of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled largely in favor of ''Mad'' in 1963, affirming its right to print 23 of the 25 song parodies under dispute. However, in the case of two parodies, "Always" (sung to the tune of "[[Always (1925 song)|Always]]") and "There's No Business Like No Business" (sung to the tune of "[[There's No Business Like Show Business]]"), Judge Metzner decided that the issue of [[copyright infringement]] was closer, requiring a trial because in each case the parodies relied on the same verbal hooks ("always" and "business") as the originals. The music publishers appealed the ruling, but the U.S. Court of Appeals not only upheld the pro-''Mad'' decision in regard to the 23 songs, it adopted an approach that was broad enough to strip the publishers of their limited victory regarding the remaining two songs. Writing a unanimous opinion for the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]], Circuit Judge [[Irving Kaufman]] observed, "We doubt that even so eminent a composer as plaintiff Irving Berlin should be permitted to claim a property interest in [[iambic pentameter]]."<ref name="mcir_Musi">{{cite court |litigants=<nowiki>Irving Berlin et al. v. E.C. Publications, Inc.</nowiki> |vol=329 |reporter=F. 2d 541 |court=2d Cir. |date=1964 |url=https://blogs.law.gwu.edu/mcir/case/irving-berlin-et-al-v-e-c-publications-inc/ |archive-date=August 15, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200815053849/https://blogs.law.gwu.edu/mcir/case/irving-berlin-et-al-v-e-c-publications-inc/ |url-status=bot: unknown }}Retrieved on November 20, 2020. via —[[George Washington University]] Music Copyright Infringement Resource.  from the original on August 15, 2020.</ref> The publishers again appealed, but the Supreme Court refused to hear it, allowing the decision to stand.<ref name=jac>{{cite book | author-link= Frank Jacobs | first= Frank | last= Jacobs | title= The Mad World of William M. Gaines | publisher = [[Lyle Stuart, Inc.]] | year= 1972 | page = ???}} Library of Congress Card No 72-91781</ref>

This precedent-setting 1964 ruling established the rights of parodists and satirists to mimic the meter of popular songs. However, the "Sing Along With ''Mad''" songbook was not the magazine's first venture into musical parody. In 1960, ''Mad'' had published "My Fair Ad-Man", a full advertising-based spoof of the hit Broadway musical ''[[My Fair Lady]]''. In 1959, "If [[Gilbert and Sullivan|Gilbert & Sullivan]] wrote ''[[Dick Tracy]]''" was one of the speculative pairings in "If Famous Authors Wrote the Comics".

In 1966, a series of copyright infringement lawsuits against the magazine regarding ownership of the [[Alfred E. Neuman]] image eventually reached the appellate level. Although Harry Stuff had copyrighted the image in 1914, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that, by allowing many copies of the image to circulate without any copyright notice, the owner of the copyright had allowed the image to pass into the public domain, thus establishing the right of ''Mad''—or anyone else—to use the image. In addition, ''Mad'' established that Stuff was not himself the creator of the image, by producing numerous other examples dating back to the late 19th century. This decision was also allowed to stand.<ref name=maria>Reidelbach, Maria. ''Completely Mad'', New York: Little Brown, 1991. {{ISBN|0-316-73890-5}}</ref>

Other legal disputes were settled more easily. Following the magazine's parody of the film ''[[The Empire Strikes Back]]'', a letter from [[George Lucas]]'s lawyers arrived in ''Mad'''s offices demanding that the issue be recalled for infringement on copyrighted figures. The letter further demanded that the printing plates be destroyed, and that [[Lucasfilm]] must receive all revenue from the issue plus additional punitive damages.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.starwars.com/news/mad-about-star-wars|title=MAD about Star Wars|date=June 23, 2014|website=StarWars.com}}</ref> Unbeknownst to Lucas' lawyers, ''Mad'' had received a letter weeks earlier from Lucas himself, expressing delight over the parody and calling artist [[Mort Drucker]] and writer [[Dick DeBartolo]] "the [[Leonardo da Vinci]] and [[George Bernard Shaw]] of comic satire."<ref>{{Cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mS-OOULG_IcC&q=debartolo+lucas+lawyer+star+bores&pg=PA32 | title=Mad About Star Wars| isbn=9780345501646| last1=Bresman| first1=Jonathan| year=2007| publisher=Del Rey/Ballantine Books}}</ref> Publisher Bill Gaines made a copy of Lucas' letter, added the handwritten notation "Gee, your boss George liked it!" across the top, and mailed it to the lawyers. Said DeBartolo, "We never heard from them again."<ref>{{Cite news|url= https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1995-11-26-9511260063-story.html|title=Good Days and Mad [book review]| first=Clarence|last=Petersen|newspaper=[[Chicago Tribune]]|location=Illinois|date=November 26, 1995|archive-date= September 28, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200928063905/https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1995-11-26-9511260063-story.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

''Mad'' was one of several parties that filed ''[[amicus curiae]]'' briefs with the Supreme Court in support of [[2 Live Crew]] and its disputed song parody, during the 1993 ''[[Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.]]'' case.<ref>{{cite web|last=Hamby |first=Barbara |url=http://writersalmanac.publicradio.org/index.php?date=2008/03/07 |title=Vex Me by Barbara Hamby &#124; The Writer's Almanac with Garrison Keillor |publisher=Writersalmanac.publicradio.org |date=March 7, 2008 |access-date= February 2, 2011}}</ref>