Family Guy lawsuit filed by................

[Smed1065]

LOS ANGELES - Carol Burnett has filed a $2 million copyright infringement lawsuit against 20th Century Fox, claiming her cleaning woman character was portrayed on the animated series "Family Guy." The U.S. District Court lawsuit, which was filed Thursday, said the Fox show didn't have the 73-year-old comedian's permission to include her cleaning woman character, Charwoman, in an April 2006 episode.

The episode shows Charwoman as a porno-shop maid, and it uses what the lawsuit called an "altered version" of Burnett's theme music. The characters in the show also perform Burnett's signature ear tug, the lawsuit said.

Besides copyright infringement, Burnett alleges 20th Century Fox violated her publicity rights.

The studio said it was surprised by the lawsuit over what amounted to about an 18-second scene.

"`Family Guy,' like `The Carol Burnett Show,' is famous for its pop culture parodies and satirical jabs at celebrities. We are surprised that Ms. Burnett, who has made a career of spoofing others on television, would go so far as to sue `Family Guy' for a simple bit of comedy," said 20th Century Fox Television spokesman Chris Alexander.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sour grapes or rightful material ?

18 second skit.

[jjjayb]

It's a parody. Take a joke. I agree with fox on this one.

[Jenson71]

Someone needs some new jewelry.

[KcMizzou]

It's a parody. Take a joke. I agree with fox on this one.Indeed. If anyone should understand, she should.

[jidar]

**** that old bitch.

[el borracho]

She's still alive?

[Joie]

I love Carol Burnett. I don't remember the scene in Family Guy, so I can't say if it's a valid lawsuit or not.

[chagrin]

I know that scene; I have no idea what the law is concerning this kind of thing. I would figure that anyone who is a celebrity is a public figure, and can't sue over this thing, can they?

[Joie]

I know that scene; I have no idea what the law is concerning this kind of thing. I would figure that anyone who is a celebrity is a public figure, and can't sue over this thing, can they?
If it were something from her personal life possibly not. But, if it's from her TV show it was copyrighted.

[Valiant]

If it were something from her personal life possibly not. But, if it's from her TV show it was copyrighted.


You sure on that?? They have done tons of spoofs of movies and shows, and this is including all shows not just the Family Guy series..

I mean if you can get sued for this then carlos mencia is in trouble... :)

[Sully]

Dorf better watch his ass...

[Joie]

You sure on that?? They have done tons of spoofs of movies and shows, and this is including all shows not just the Family Guy series..

I mean if you can get sued for this then carlos mencia is in trouble... :)
Of course I'm not sure. If I were sure I'd be making millions in the legal field. Instead I'm speculating on a Chiefs website while sitting in my apartment hoping the neighbors remain quiet all night. :p

[KcMizzou]

Of course I'm not sure. If I were sure I'd be making millions in the legal field. Instead I'm speculating on a Chiefs website while sitting in my apartment hoping the neighbors remain quiet all night. :pHeh... good answer. LMAO

[Deberg_1990]

Sour Grapes......its not like she has much of a career anymore.....

[KcMizzou]

Sour Grapes......its not like she has much of a career anymore.....Hell, she shouldn't need a career at this point. And, In my opinion, she should take a current show spoofing one of her old characters as a compliment.

[Smed1065]

I love Carol Burnett. I don't remember the scene in Family Guy, so I can't say if it's a valid lawsuit or not.

I believe an 18 second skit has to be overlooked considering who is complaining, especially.

[Rain Man]

I bet they rule that it's not really a ripoff unless one of the characters pulled a Harvey Korman and started laughing in the middle of the scene.

[StcChief]

It's a principal issue. I've seen some things on Family guy while funny made me wonder about the law.

[HolmeZz]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OUdRIeSEGOw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OUdRIeSEGOw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I WONDER WHAT SHE'D TUG TO SAY GOODNIGHT TO HER DAD

giggity

[Ebolapox]

ROFL... this world never ceases to amaze me

[Bowser]

Interestingly, wan't it Carol Burnett that made suing tabloids en vogue?

[unothadeal]

uhhhhhh...tha-that's it?

[Jenson71]

Make em laugh - that's from Singin' In the Rain.

[Adept Havelock]

Sorry Carol, no dice. IIRC, Parody has been seen as protected speech under the 1'st amendment by the courts.

[Bob Dole]

Sorry Carol, no dice. IIRC, Parody has been seen as protected speech under the 1'st amendment by the courts.

Bob Dole isn't a lawyer, but has done a fair amount of research on the legal aspects of parody. Bob Dole agrees that Carol shouldn't have much of a shot at recovering anything--especially since they used an original, animated version of her copyrighted character.

[Mecca]

She's sueing over that.........so much for having a sense of humor.

[Bwana]

The silly old pathetic hide must be low on cash and figures this may be her last chance to milk the system?

Sad

[Deberg_1990]

Finally, a judge with some sanity.....thank you Lord.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070526/ap_en_tv/people_carol_burnett


LOS ANGELES - A federal judge said he will dismiss Carol Burnett's $2 million copyright infringement lawsuit over the use of her cleaning woman character in the animated series "Family Guy."

U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson said in a written tentative ruling Friday that he planned to dismiss the lawsuit against 20th Century Fox. He will issue a final ruling later.

The 74-year-old comedian sued the studio in March, contending that the Fox show didn't have her permission to include her Charwoman character in an April 2006 episode.

The episode portrayed the character as a cleaning woman in a sex shop and also used a version of the theme music to her old TV series without permission, the lawsuit claimed.

At the time, the studio said it was surprised by the lawsuit over what amounted to about an 18-second scene.

A call to 20th Century Fox Television spokesman Chris Alexander on Friday was not immediately returned.

Burnett's attorney, Robert Denton, could not immediately be reached for comment.

[the Talking Can]

Sorry Carol, no dice. IIRC, Parody has been seen as protected speech under the 1'st amendment by the courts.

yes


stupid bitch.....there would be no comedy - SNL, MadTV, Simpsons, etc - if her claims were valid...

wrinkly old forgotten bitter whore

[banyon]

Finally, a judge with some sanity.....thank you Lord.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070526/ap_en_tv/people_carol_burnett


LOS ANGELES - A federal judge said he will dismiss Carol Burnett's $2 million copyright infringement lawsuit over the use of her cleaning woman character in the animated series "Family Guy."

U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson said in a written tentative ruling Friday that he planned to dismiss the lawsuit against 20th Century Fox. He will issue a final ruling later.

The 74-year-old comedian sued the studio in March, contending that the Fox show didn't have her permission to include her Charwoman character in an April 2006 episode.

The episode portrayed the character as a cleaning woman in a sex shop and also used a version of the theme music to her old TV series without permission, the lawsuit claimed.

At the time, the studio said it was surprised by the lawsuit over what amounted to about an 18-second scene.

A call to 20th Century Fox Television spokesman Chris Alexander on Friday was not immediately returned.

Burnett's attorney, Robert Denton, could not immediately be reached for comment.


He probably wasted $10 K of Burnett's $ filing and preparing this suit which is obviously fair use to even a first year law student.

[Rain Man]

Bob Dole isn't a lawyer, but has done a fair amount of research on the legal aspects of parody. Bob Dole agrees that Carol shouldn't have much of a shot at recovering anything--especially since they used an original, animated version of her copyrighted character.

So the real Bob Dole sued you, eh?

[Bob Dole]

So the real Bob Dole sued you, eh?

Not exactly.

[Anyong Bluth]

California has pretty progressive rights to publicity and copyright laws in comparison to most states, sans NY, that are a bit more in like with a number of Western European countries that protect artistic expression and one's personality as an asset. However, I've taken a few law classes on these topics, and the B*tch didn't have a puncher's chance in getting a dime. Parody is 1st Am. freedom of speech protection which means it is held to the most strict judicial scrutiny, which was spelled out in a number of cases starting in the 50's, and parody was specifically addressed in the 80's when Jerry Fallwell sued Penthouse when they ran a spoof about him that made claims that he screwed his mom and lived in an outhouse etc... etc.... Right to Publicity is a claim in protecting your likeness when used in commercial gain, i.e. endorsements or merchandising.

I think she must be hard up for some $$$ and thought they'd settle b/c she had 0 shot to win.

If I was Fox I'd seek full restitution for legal costs and file a 12(b)(6) for filing a frivilous lawsuit.

[Deberg_1990]

California has pretty progressive rights to publicity and copyright laws in comparison to most states, sans NY, that are a bit more in like with a number of Western European countries that protect artistic expression and one's personality as an asset. However, I've taken a few law classes on these topics, and the B*tch didn't have a puncher's chance in getting a dime. Parody is 1st Am. freedom of speech protection which means it is held to the most strict judicial scrutiny, which was spelled out in a number of cases starting in the 50's, and parody was specifically addressed in the 80's when Jerry Fallwell sued Penthouse when they ran a spoof about him that made claims that he screwed his mom and lived in an outhouse etc... etc.... Right to Publicity is a claim in protecting your likeness when used in commercial gain, i.e. endorsements or merchandising.

I think she must be hard up for some $$$ and thought they'd settle b/c she had 0 shot to win.

If I was Fox I'd seek full restitution for legal costs and file a 12(b)(6) for filing a frivilous lawsuit.

The worst part about the whole deal for me was that as a comedien herself, you would think she would have been able to appreaciate parody and understand the laws? WTF??

[the Talking Can]

California has pretty progressive rights to publicity and copyright laws in comparison to most states, sans NY, that are a bit more in like with a number of Western European countries that protect artistic expression and one's personality as an asset. However, I've taken a few law classes on these topics, and the B*tch didn't have a puncher's chance in getting a dime. Parody is 1st Am. freedom of speech protection which means it is held to the most strict judicial scrutiny, which was spelled out in a number of cases starting in the 50's, and parody was specifically addressed in the 80's when Jerry Fallwell sued Penthouse when they ran a spoof about him that made claims that he screwed his mom and lived in an outhouse etc... etc.... Right to Publicity is a claim in protecting your likeness when used in commercial gain, i.e. endorsements or merchandising.

I think she must be hard up for some $$$ and thought they'd settle b/c she had 0 shot to win.

If I was Fox I'd seek full restitution for legal costs and file a 12(b)(6) for filing a frivilous lawsuit.

and the Too Live Crew case..."Pretty Woman..suck my ^%@!"....or something like that lol