StudioCanal is suing Avalon after their Spitting Image YouTube present, The Rest is Bulls*!t, depicted Paddington Bear as a crude podcaster.

Featured Video

According to Deadline, StudioCanal, the corporate that produces the Paddington movies, has employed the legislation agency Edwin Coe for its swimsuit. The High Court grievance cites copyright and design rights as the primary points. While Avalon’s model of the bear does resemble Paddington, will probably be attention-grabbing to see if StudioCanal’s swimsuit will arise towards parody legal guidelines.

“I don’t really talk like Ben Whishaw,” Paddington says within the sketch. “I am from Peru, [expletive]. I am Paddington Bear from Peru.”

What is The Rest is Bulls*!t?

Spitting Image is a satirical sketch present starring puppets that debuted in 2020. The program is a reboot of the 1984 collection of the identical identify. The present was canceled by ITV in 2022, however was revived as a YouTube collection referred to as The Rest is Bulls*!t in 2025.

There are solely 4 The Rest is Bulls*!t movies up on YouTube, however the collection has had greater than 10 million views because it debuted in July.

When Spitting Image returned, many followers took to YouTube to specific their pleasure. “British Comedy is back in its purest form. Love this so much,” one fan wrote within the feedback.

“What a breath of fresh air! This is just what we need! Raw satire. Just like the 80s-style Spitting Image! It’ll be trending like never before,” one other individual added.

“The USA has South Park. In the UK, we have Spitting Image. Good to see you again,” one commenter shared.

What are folks saying about StudioCanal’s lawsuit?

Fans have quite a bit to say in regards to the StudioCanal lawsuit, particularly in relation to parody legislation.

“This is wild! Suing over a satirical depiction of Paddington as a foul-mouthed podcast host on Spitting Image? Seems like some people can’t bear a bit of irreverent humor,” an account that makes a speciality of parody wrote.

“Since when is parody not an exemption? Which precedent is there for this? Suing for copyright & design breach in a parody?!!! Why is there an attempt to reverse parody exemption & establish this?” somebody commented.

However, not everyone seems to be in favor of utilizing a personality’s likeness in parody. One individual even went so far as to say it’s “exactly as bad as AI.”

“Well, if Paddington is a registered trademark, they have a case. You can parody living people and the dead, for that matter, but by owning this brand, they might have a case saying it’s damaging to Paddington’s wholesome image and, of course, used without permission,” one individual argued.

Parody legislation within the UK

You can learn the official tips for parody legislation within the UK from gov.uk under:

“There is an exception to copyright that permits people to use limited amounts of copyright material without the owner’s permission for the purpose of parody, caricature, or pastiche.

For example, a comedian may use a few lines from a film or song for a parody sketch; a cartoonist may reference a well-known artwork or illustration for a caricature; an artist may use small fragments from a range of films to compose a larger pastiche artwork.

It is important to understand, however, that this exception only permits use for the purposes of caricature, parody, or pastiche to the extent that it is fair dealing.”

The web is chaotic—however we’ll break it down for you in a single every day e-mail. Sign up for the Daily Dot’s e-newsletter right here.