Are the multiple on screen personalities of Stephen Colbert not already complex enough for you? Don’t worry, he’s just cranked it up a notch. On last night’s episode of the Late Show, Stephen Colbert revealed that Viacom lawyers contacted CBS lawyers claiming intellectual property over the character “Stephen Colbert” from The Colbert Report. The character, last seen on December 18, 2014 made a surprise appearance on the July 18, 2016 episode of the Late Show, something that seemingly was not cleared with Viacom. After declaring that “Stephen Colbert, host of The Colbert Report, will never be seen again,” Colbert introduced “his identical twin cousin, Stephen Colbert”.

How the Late Show intends on using this new character will surely play out in the coming weeks, but the most pressing question that remains: does Viacom have any legal stance over the reappearance of “Stephen Colbert” the character, and/or “Stephen Colbert, his identical twin cousin”? Eriq Gardner of ‘The Hollywood Reporter‘ answers some of these questions as he examines what “has the potential of becoming one of the all-time great cases concerning split personality”.

Intellectual property oddness has become a facet of late night television, and pretty much anytime a popular host moves, audiences get upset. Anybody remember the brouhaha caused over Conan O’Brien’s Masturbating Bear?

Of course, nothing is quite like the budding controversy over “Stephen Colbert,” which has the potential of becoming one of the all-time great cases concerning split personality, and not only due to the nature of the character itself. After all, Viacom would be suing CBS. Both companies are substantially owned by Sumner Redstone. In 2005, the same year that The Colbert Report premiered on Comedy Central, Viacom spun off from CBS. Now, Viacom’s chief Philippe Dauman is suing Redstone, and there’s plenty of speculation that if he fails, the two companies might merge again with CBS’ chief Leslie Moonves ruling both. Think about the “Colbert” controversy in that context for a moment.

Now, back to the character.

Colbert used his own name, but attempted a satire of Fox News hosts. Copyright law is thankfully loose enough to make fun of Bill O’Reilly without getting into legal trouble, but on the other hand, copyright law has something called “works made for hire,” which is not just fodder for TMZ fights, but the vehicle by which Viacom can lay claim to “Stephen Colbert.” A work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment is owned by the employer unless there’s an explicit contract to the contrary. This rule pretty much impacts everyone working for an American corporation.

Of course, there’s always wrinkles.

On last night’s show, Colbert introduced “Stephen Colbert’s identical twin cousin,” wearing a short-sleeved American flag shirt and saying, “Hello, America! Hello, Colbert country! Stay strong. Be brave.”

If Viacom did sue, it would probably prompt a fair use defense; those can be complicated, and no doubt if a judge was asked to weigh the purpose and character of the use, the nature of “Stephen Colbert,” the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and the effect of the use upon the potential market, it would add up to one helluva opinion. Colbert could also try out an argument that “Stephen Colbert’s identical twin cousin” is nothing like “Stephen Colbert” and might take heart in a 1983 decision concerning an alleged Superman rip-off on ABC. There, the 2nd Circuit justices wrote, “Stirring one’s memory of a copyrighted character is not the same as appearing to be substantially similar to that character, and only the latter is infringement.”

If Colbert emerged victorious, “Stephen Colbert’s identical twin cousin” might be entitled to its own copyright. After all, judges have ruled that parodies of parodies can gain their own protection. But Colbert probably wouldn’t own it. That’s right. It’d be CBS’ under that same work-for-hire doctrine.