Answers in Nemesis


They say that sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. But for our good friends at Answers in Genesis (AiG), fiction and truth are freely interchangeable. The latest bit of hilarity comes courtesy of AiG's legal counsel, who, aside from not being able to take a joke, apparently has a poor grasp of both the legal and ethical meaning of intellectual (sic) property law.

To begin with the beginning, AiG is America's leading young-earth creationist outfit, and like all high-caliber scientific organizations, it has its own resident cartoonist. Dan Lietha writes two cartoon series which appear on AiG's website: CreationWise and After Eden. The drawings are kind of nice in an Ziggy sort of way, but they're not quite as funny as Mary Worth. Basically, they're not much more than inane creationist claims made to look cartoonish. . . um, that is, being made into visual form. But they certainly contain lots of unintentional humor, so there's only one thing left to do: Poke fun at them.

Making parodies of visual materials over the web is hardly a new thing, and as anyone familiar with the frequent Photoshop contests on can tell you, they're a great venue for fun and artistic talent. So when participants of the Humor forum of the Internet Infidels Discussion Board (IIDB) decided to do a parody of AiG's cartoons, they were just having harmless, legally permissible fun. Right?

Before I continue, let me give a couple of quick disclaimers. First of all, we here at the Panda's Thumb do not necessarily endorse the activities of IIDB, nor the content of the cartoon parodies in particular. This is in fact one of the salient points here, that the parodies can only be construed as reflecting their authors' own (sometimes twisted) sense of humor. Secondly, I myself made a few of the parodies in question. And it's likely that mine were the most offensive to AiG's prudish sensibilities, or at least I hope so.

Now in case you haven't figured it out, the people at AiG aren't the kind who know how to take a joke. One would imagine that a thread on a relatively low-traffic discussion board wouldn't be worth making a fuss over, but it somehow garnered AiG's attention. And they wasted no time in threatening to sue IIDB, having their lawyers send a letter demanding that the entire thread be removed. Among other things, AiG's lawyers claim that the parodies are "clearly likely to cause confusion as to the affiliation between your client and my client...." This is not only just plain absurd, it's also self-degrading on the part of AiG, because they're essentially saying that their cartoons are so bad that a reasonable person (a bit of legalese which may not apply to creationists) would confuse the IIDB parodies with the originals. Yeah, parodies that contain cuss words and sex jokes, according to AiG, are likely to be confused with their own cartoons. This despite the fact that most of the parodies were clearly labeled "parody" (juxtaposed with the original), that the thread was titled "AiG Cartoon Parody Contest", and that it was located in a forum called the humor forum. This is somewhat reminiscent of Fox News' lawsuit against Al Franken, which was literally laughed out of court, but even more brain-dead.

Now, there is some potential merit in AiG's complaint (at least legally meritorious, if still unreasonable to the average biped), and that is the issue of copyright and trademark infringement. AiG and Dan Lietha have the right to insist that their trademarks and copyrights don't appear on material that they find objectionable, and many of the parodies simply left those in place, changing only the content of the cartoon. I'm no lawyer (perhaps Tim Sandefur can chime in on this), so I don't know if they had a legitimate case or not, but IIDB decided to accommodate them anyway by asking each of the participants to remove all trademarks and copyrights from their parodies by a certain date. IIDB also deleted any attachments that were stored on their server. That's why the thread looks so chopped up and piecemeal. Unfortunately, a lot of good parodies were lost in the process, but that's just the way things go. End of story, right?

Well, it turns out that you just can't overestimate the hypocrisy of AiG. Never one to pass up an opportunity to beg for money, the organization used this little tempest in a teapot in one of their recent fundraising letters. The letter starts off:

Dear friend,

How would you like it if you went to a website and saw our wonderful After Eden cartoon strips - featuring AiG's website address - but the cartoons presented:

sexual acts
  • incredibly blasphemous statements
  • homosexual behavior
  • 'R' to ‘X'-rated language - even depicting God with sexual organs
  • We just had to deal with such a shocking, disgusting situation. For the sake of the name of our Lord, His Word and the integrity of AiG's name, we had to involve attorneys. Let me fill you in about an incredible episode involving some ‘God-haters.'

    And so it continues. What's most incredible, however, is that the fundraising letter includes a reproduction of one of the parodies without attribution and without permission of the author. And this is in the same letter that they're complaining about copyright infringement! Unlike the IIDB cartoon parodies (sans trademarks), this particular infringement is almost certainly actionable. Furthermore, it's at least as ethically bad if not much worse than what they're complaining about. You really gotta wonder about these people. Here's the original that was parodied (it's funnier if you view the original first) and here's the image they reproduced below:

    This was done by IIDB member "Enigma", and yes, I got his permission. The image in the AiG fundraising has Dan Lietha's name and the AiG copyright still in it; that particular image is no longer in the IIDB thread. The one above has had all the copyrights and trademarks removed (thanks to IIDB member ApostateAbe), so I'm confident that it can be posted here without earning a letter from AiG's lawyers (though it would be cool if I got one anyway, bring it on!) But if Enigma cares to, he can pursue legal action against AiG for using his artwork without his permission and without attribution.

    Here's AiG's caption:

    This was one of the ‘tamer' - but still disgusting - cartoons illegally altered by some ‘God-haters'.

    Now, the cartoon wasn't illegally altered, because there's no law against altering something for the purpose of parody. At most, only the failure to remove Dan Lietha's name and the AiG copyright gives AiG's claims any legal standing, and that was remedied easily enough. Aside from the blatant hypocrisy in reproducing one of the parodies (twice) without permission, the fundraising letter also neglects to inform its victims that IIDB complied with AiG's request to remove the copyrights and trademarks (the letter says, specifically, that their request was not complied with); that AiG's first course of action (to present the gospel to the "blasphemers") was to call its lawyers; that IIDB did not create the parodies, does not store them on disk, nor does it have control over what the creators decide to do with them; and furthermore, the letter doesn't even mention IIDB by name or provide the url of the thread, referring only to them as 'God-haters', which is hardly an accurate description of atheists and agnostics. Worst of all, it begs for money on the premise that AiG might need to take the case to court, even though the issue has been settled. My, my, bearing false witness in order to extract money from the flock. Jesus must be rolling over in his grave.

    Sadly, this isn't the only manner in which AiG shows itself to be a blatant hypocrite concerning issues of copyright infringement. In July of 2002, Scientific American published an article titled 15 Ways to Refute Creationist Nonsense. AiG decided to publish its own poorly written rebuttal, which as it turns out, reproduced the entire Sci-Am article without permission. (And this was a mere 3 days after the Sci-Am article came out, which aside from indicating that AiG didn't put too much thought into it, had the potential to cause financial harm to Sci-Am.) Now, AiG claims that their use of the article falls under the "fair use" provision of copyright law; however, fair use only allows for some of the work to be reproduced for commentary or criticism, not the entire thing, which was Sci-Am's complaint. This is different from a parody in which "fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted ... in order to 'conjure up' the original." (See Copyright & Fair Use by Stanford University Libraries for more.) But when Sci-Am asked them to remove the article contents from the AiG website, AiG responded with an ugly screed accusing Sci-Am of censorship in which they made use of an extended ad hominem claiming that the only reason why Sci-Am objected to having its article reproduced was that it couldn't handle AiG's "devastating rebuttals". And yes, they turned that into an opportunity to beg for money too.

    So I guess by AiG's own standards, we are to assume that they are guilty of censorship by threatening to sue IIDB, and that the only reason for pursuing this line of action is that they can't handle the "devastating rebuttals" offered by the parodies of their cartoons. Chutzpah aside, one has to wonder if AiG has any real respect for the law, or if they just see it as a club to wield against "the enemy" (their phrase) whenever convenient, but are happy to disobey it as soon as it's to their advantage.

    Oh, and if this blog entry has been a blessing to you and you wish us to continue our important work, please send money to...


    More evidence that AiG are not the biblical literalists they claim to be.

    I wonder why “depicting god with sexual organs” was one of their complaints. Isn’t Man, by their own beliefs, made in the image of God? Don’t they usually refer to God as masculine? Or do they think of him as a big Ken doll in the sky?

    My thoughts turn to an old exchange between a lawyer and the British satirical magazine Private Eye.……

    It seems that people nowadays seriously lost their sense of humour: AiG should take a leaf out of Jonathan Swift’s formidable satires and parodies, and appreciate the subtle yet devastating power of humour. And he’s a clergyman, fancy that!

    ” For the sake of the name of our Lord, His Word and the integrity of AiG’s name, we had to involve attorneys.”

    Wow, have they even read the Bible? I think there’s something relevant in there.

    I must say that I find nothing amusing in the modified cartoon. Most children outgrow poopy jokes around 10 or 11 years old.

    That does not detract at all from the AiG’s hypocritical stance that challenge to their violation of copyright is censorship. “Do on to others” and all that.

    “For the sake of the name of our Lord, His Word and the integrity of AiG?s name, we had to involve attorneys.”

    Wow, have they even read the Bible? I think there’s something relevant in there.

    I’m sure there is something relevant in there. After all, it’s a really big book with lots of chapters and verses. Now, if there weren’t anything relevant, then one could always pretend there is something which is relevant. In addition, when faced with two relevancies which are opposites, it is up to the discretion of the reader to determine which one is the one that counts the most.

    So it is a win-win situation all around no matter what it is that the believer is trying to justify. All he has to do is pick out some favorite relevancies or simply pretend some into existence.

    Those cartoons are so bad they almost do not need parodies to demean them…

    “Have we trials and temptations? Is there trouble anywhere? We should never be discouraged; Take it to the Law in prayer.”

    (Apologies to Joseph M Scriven)

    What Jacob said. Creating parodies implies that their atrocious lie-peddling (and blatant misogyny, if you browse through some of those “After Eden” entries) isn’t depressingly self-evident. Besides, cartoons are the perfect format through which to proselytise YEC. You don’t even have to be fully literate.

    It never ceases to amaze me how this religious and political majority, that wields so much more money, power, and influence than one would think appropriate for humble followers of Jesus, can routinely convince themselves that they are the victims of worldly persecution, time after time after time. It isn’t just the creationists: this is a driving force behind Christian fundamentalism. I’ve seen their preachers and teachers testify in church about things that almost certainly never happened in a public school or in public life that make martyrs out of them one and all. So, the trait of “no sense of humor” is a cultivated one: it brings converts and dollars to the persecuted and martyred underdogs who just deserve better than the wicked world gives them…

    That said, parodies like those discussed here do only serve to empower Creationists and help them paint scientists as “god-haters” by association with the “mocking” atheist groups. As much as I am sure this serves as an outlet for the frustrations of the people at infidels, I’m not sure that it isn’t helping the anti-evolutionists’ cause.

    “Do on to others” and all that.

    Whoops! Time for a new keyboard…

    I don’t play one on TV, but I am an IP lawyer. I think the conclusion that AiG has nothing to complain about from a legal perspective is correct, but I have a couple of quibbles with the analysis�one of which could be important in other contexts.

    * The standard for confusion is not the “reasonable person,” but the “unsophisticated consumer” (sometimes the “least sophisticated consumer”). What that means is that if a consumer slightly above the legal definition of “moron” could confuse the sources of the materials, a jury must decide on the particular evidence whether he would reasonably do so. In this instance, not even a baboon�<sarcasm> oops, we descended from baboons, so maybe they’re the unsophisticated consumers?</sarcasm>�could confuse these parodies with something from AiG, so that’s not an issue. (The problem is that the source material is so bad that it doesn’t stand up to parody; but that’s something still being fought out in the law reviews that has not really been tested in court.)

    * Parody is not a right. It is a variety of a fair-use defense, whether in copyright or by analogy in trademark. Before “parody” even becomes an issue, one must determine that the target is even eligible for protection. It is possible that juxtaposition of public-domain “designs” like the Jesus fish and the Darwin fish (the latter is public domain only through consent of the C/creator) is sufficiently original to qualify for copyright protection; it is virtually certain that it is not distinctive enough to qualify for trademark protection, even under lax common-law trademark standards. So, if the target of the parody isn’t protected, one need not even determine if the “parody” is indeed properly “targetted” (see Penguin v Dr. Seuss Enters.), which is the usual problem with “parody defenses”�at least in the Ninth Circuit.


    That said, parodies like those discussed here do only serve to empower Creationists and help them paint scientists as “god-haters” by association with the “mocking” atheist groups. As much as I am sure this serves as an outlet for the frustrations of the people at infidels, I’m not sure that it isn’t helping the anti-evolutionists’ cause.

    I don’t think anybody intended these parodies to be seen by AiG, and certainly didn’t intend them to be the centerpiece in an ongoing legal spate. They were just intended for the amusement of the forum participants, and thus didn’t really have anything to do with helping or hurting any sort of “cause”.

    AiG, of course, will turn just about anything into part of “the cause”. Narrow-minded ideologues see everything as a political battle, so there’s not much you can do about it. You ignore them, they claim that you can’t answer them. You criticize them, they claim that you’re persecuting them. You can’t let their inanities determine what you will or won’t do for your own self-fulfillment.


    I must say that I find nothing amusing in the modified cartoon. Most children outgrow poopy jokes around 10 or 11 years old.

    Well, I think it’s funny, but only when contrasted to the sanctimonious original.

    I should have mentioned that Enigma gave a preemptive apology on the thread to any theistic evolutionists who might find it offensive. That one does look rather anti-theistic, which is probably why AiG chose to steal it. Seeing Jesus’ name in a pile of poo-poo must have sent them into unimaginable fits of rage, sent blood pressure measurements shooting through the roof, and caused a few teeth to crack from having been clenched too hard. It probably shaved several years off their lifespans. Who says we’re not helping “the cause”? ;)

    Maybe it is because I spend so much time studying shit:

    1996 “Digestive Modification of Bone by Fish.” Southern California Academy of Science, Annual meeting, May. “Raptor Prey Bone Accumulations from a Nest Area.” G. S. Hurd, M. S. Pyatt. Southern California Academy of Science, Annual meeting, May. “Deer Bone Accumulations from Mountain Lion Kills. Rick Travis and G. S. Hurd. Southern California Academy of Science, Annual meeting, May.

    “The Archaeological Recovery and Interpretation of Frass.” Brian Stokes and G. S. Hurd. Southern California Academy of Science, Annual meeting, May.


    “Bone Modification and Deposition by Raptors” Mike Pyatt, Melissa Pryor, Gary Hurd. Society for Californian Archaeology. “Rockshelter Deposition of Insect Remains By Fox and Mouse” Matt Ritter, Gary Hurd. Society for Californian Archaeology.

    “Primary and Secondary Predation Patterns of Avian Bone,” Ken Reddell, G. S. Hurd, Society for Californian Archaeology.

    Off topic, but World O’ Crap ( has an interesting run-down on former Discovery Institute chair Tom Alberg’s son, who was recently charged with possession of ricin and made comments regarding the poisoning of water supplies.

    Which I’m sure he intended to do only in a scripturally correct fashion.

    This is a bit off topic but does anyone know where there is an analysis to the rebuttal to the “15 Ways to Refute Creationist Nonsense” Article? I have some of my own ideas but was interested if there was a point by point analysis with more scientific experience than me. Thanks

    To be honest, the original Rennie article isn’t very good (for one, it buys into the ridiculous false dichotomy between ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ evolution).

    The best place to go for a comprehensive rebuttal to creationist claims is:

    (or just click on my name)

    Mark Isaak’s more-than-comprehensive list covers all of creationism’s greatest hits, from moon dust to ocean salinity to short-period comets to the Poynting-Robertson effect to the Paluxy man-tracks to… well, you get the idea.

    What I can’t figure out is why whoever did the cartoon parody thought it was even remotely funny or clever. As Gary said, most people outgrow poopie jokes relatively young. It’s not funny, it’s not clever, it’s just juvenile and stupid.

    You can find a full refutation of Sarfati’s book at this URL:

    Nuts. The site I mentioned was taken off. Try this instead to examine Sarfati’s claims.

    Also, check out>Science Building~~>Natural Sciences forum, to see how bad he does there.

    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Steve Reuland published on April 13, 2004 3:32 PM.

    The Federalist Society and ID was the previous entry in this blog.

    Limb Loss in Vertebrates is the next entry in this blog.

    Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



    Author Archives

    Powered by Movable Type 4.381

    Site Meter