Carol Burnett sues Family Guy

[GoPackGo]

Link

So Carol Burnett is suing over copyright infringement for using the cleaning woman from her show in cartoon form.

Sounds like this is satire / parody to me. As such its protected by the first ammendment according to the USSC.

Copyright has gone TOO FAR.

 

[Harvey]

It's going to depend on what intellectual property rights she can establish for the character. The reason we have civil courts is to resolve matters like this. It's better than shooting it out.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Harvey
It's going to depend on what intellectual property rights she can establish for the character. The reason we have civil courts is to resolve matters like this. It's better than shooting it out.

Ahh but if there was a shoot out I bet fox would pay for the broadcast rights.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Harvey
It's going to depend on what intellectual property rights she can establish for the character. The reason we have civil courts is to resolve matters like this. It's better than shooting it out.

IP doesn't matter. Parody is protected.

The United States Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) stated in no uncertain terms that a parody as a form of criticism or comment could be fair use of a copyrighted work.

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Harvey
It's going to depend on what intellectual property rights she can establish for the character. The reason we have civil courts is to resolve matters like this. It's better than shooting it out.

Ahh but if there was a shoot out I bet fox would pay for the broadcast rights.

and bill o'reilly will immediately bring on to his show dick cheney and all the honchos from the NRA to defend the shooters rights to have the weapons that they need to shoot each other in the face and not get prosecuted for it.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

IP doesn't matter. Parody is protected.

The United States Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) stated in no uncertain terms that a parody as a form of criticism or comment could be fair use of a copyrighted work.

Good to know. She must be desperate for money.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Harvey
It's going to depend on what intellectual property rights she can establish for the character. The reason we have civil courts is to resolve matters like this. It's better than shooting it out.

IP doesn't matter. Parody is protected.

The United States Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) stated in no uncertain terms that a parody as a form of criticism or comment could be fair use of a copyrighted work.

You're drawing an overly-broad conclusion. The bolded portion of your statement merely means that if Family Guy is engaging in criticism or comment about Carol Burnett (or something related), then the parody is probably protected.

I haven't ever watched Family Guy, so I don't know what form this parody took. But if Family Guy is merely ripping off a character from Carol Burnett and using it in a humorous way that isn't criticism or comment, then Family Guy may NOT have engaged in fair use and Carol Burnett may have a legitimate cause of action.

 

[palehorse]

the old washed-up hag must be desperate for $....

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
the old washed-up hag must be desperate for $....

Can't see it any other way.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Harvey
It's going to depend on what intellectual property rights she can establish for the character. The reason we have civil courts is to resolve matters like this. It's better than shooting it out.

IP doesn't matter. Parody is protected.

The United States Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) stated in no uncertain terms that a parody as a form of criticism or comment could be fair use of a copyrighted work.

You're drawing an overly-broad conclusion. The bolded portion of your statement merely means that if Family Guy is engaging in criticism or comment about Carol Burnett (or something related), then the parody is probably protected.

I haven't ever watched Family Guy, so I don't know what form this parody took. But if Family Guy is merely ripping off a character from Carol Burnett and using it in a humorous way that isn't criticism or comment, then Family Guy may NOT have engaged in fair use and Carol Burnett may have a legitimate cause of action.

Family Guy does it all the time, as does South Park and many other comedy programs.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: shira
I haven't ever watched Family Guy, so I don't know what form this parody took. But if Family Guy is merely ripping off a character from Carol Burnett and using it in a humorous way that isn't criticism or comment, then Family Guy may NOT have engaged in fair use and Carol Burnett may have a legitimate cause of action.

Bingo! Parody must be concerning the artwork or the author, or at least have a shred of relevance to them.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: shira
I haven't ever watched Family Guy, so I don't know what form this parody took. But if Family Guy is merely ripping off a character from Carol Burnett and using it in a humorous way that isn't criticism or comment, then Family Guy may NOT have engaged in fair use and Carol Burnett may have a legitimate cause of action.

CNN has a description of the scene.

Originally posted by: CNN
"As aired on April 23, 2006, the opening scene of the 'Peterotica' episode of 'Family Guy' shows Peter entering a porn shop with several other characters, including a character named Quagmire. As they enter the porn shop, Peter comments that he expected the porn shop to be dirty.

"Quagmire responds that the porn shop is clean because 'Carol Burnett works part-time as a janitor,"' the suit continues. "The camera then shifts to show Ms. Burnett's 'Charwoman' character complete with trademarked blue bonnet, bucket and mop, mopping the floor of the porn shop in front of a row of blow-up dolls while a slightly altered version of 'Carol's Theme' is playing. One of the other characters then says, 'You know when she tugged her ear at the end of that show, she was really saying goodnight to her mom.' Quagmire then makes a vulgar reference to Ms. Burnett and her father, responding, 'I wonder what she tugged to say goodnight to her dad.' "

I don't immediately see how it's a parody, since it's not criticizing anything.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: shira
I haven't ever watched Family Guy, so I don't know what form this parody took. But if Family Guy is merely ripping off a character from Carol Burnett and using it in a humorous way that isn't criticism or comment, then Family Guy may NOT have engaged in fair use and Carol Burnett may have a legitimate cause of action.

CNN has a description of the scene.

Originally posted by: CNN
"As aired on April 23, 2006, the opening scene of the 'Peterotica' episode of 'Family Guy' shows Peter entering a porn shop with several other characters, including a character named Quagmire. As they enter the porn shop, Peter comments that he expected the porn shop to be dirty.

"Quagmire responds that the porn shop is clean because 'Carol Burnett works part-time as a janitor,"' the suit continues. "The camera then shifts to show Ms. Burnett's 'Charwoman' character complete with trademarked blue bonnet, bucket and mop, mopping the floor of the porn shop in front of a row of blow-up dolls while a slightly altered version of 'Carol's Theme' is playing. One of the other characters then says, 'You know when she tugged her ear at the end of that show, she was really saying goodnight to her mom.' Quagmire then makes a vulgar reference to Ms. Burnett and her father, responding, 'I wonder what she tugged to say goodnight to her dad.' "

I don't immediately see how it's a parody, since it's not criticizing anything.

Uhh... since when does a parody have to criticize someone?

 

[spittledip]

She is going to lose her little lawsuit if that scene is all she has.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: palehorse74
the old washed-up hag must be desperate for $....

Can't see it any other way.

Or she's really pissed and wants revenge

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

This is probably protected as parody, but I can see why she'd be offended, and given that she is still well-regarded in Hollywood I'd expect to see Fox settle with her and agree to pull the episode. If this case survived summary judgment I could easily imagine a jury finding in her favor. Actually I think the right judge would be fairly likely to deny summary judgment, in that this really isn't "satire" in the sense that it has an underlying point - it's more just mean-spirited, gratuitous mockery. Members here can call her a "washed-up old hag," but I doubt you'd say the same if your mother or grandmother were mocked this way, for no reason.

On a related note, Family Guy really is crap as far as I'm concerned. I am not squeamish when it comes to adult humor (I am a fanatical Howard Stern fan, actually), but IMO Family Guy is all shock value and pointless "comic" non sequiturs. It can be funny from time to time, but for the most part I think FG, like South Park, is really over-reliant on shock as a substitute for wit.

 

[40sTheme]

Originally posted by: tweaker2

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Harvey
It's going to depend on what intellectual property rights she can establish for the character. The reason we have civil courts is to resolve matters like this. It's better than shooting it out.

Ahh but if there was a shoot out I bet fox would pay for the broadcast rights.

and bill o'reilly will immediately bring on to his show dick cheney and all the honchos from the NRA to defend the shooters rights to have the weapons that they need to shoot each other in the face and not get prosecuted for it.

Mwhahaha!
You've seen the Robot Chicken NRA Kid's Club, right? Thinking about that makes this quote line even funnier..