Hypocrite Burnett suiing Family Guy
-
Therese_Letanche36 — 19 years ago(March 16, 2007 04:46 PM)
http://wjz.com/entertainment/entertainment_story_075070631.html
Go there and read a little about it. . .in my opinion, she has the right to be mad. I think she should win the case.
"Who said nights were for sleep?"
-Marilyn Monroe -
Gillian708 — 19 years ago(March 17, 2007 08:52 AM)
Nothing I read that article invoked me to believe she has the right to be mad.
The spoof was done with purely comical intent; it seems petty and hypocritical of Ms. Burnett to bring about a lawsuit regarding it.
As a comedienne who has always been 'of the people' it seems out of character and perhaps a desperate cloy for publicity or monetary gain.
What a bad sport you have turned out to be Ms. Burnette. -
Larry-115 — 18 years ago(April 26, 2007 12:09 PM)
The reality shouldn't be any more complicated than this;
a joke is a joke.
that's it. it's not any more complicated than that.
You'd change your tune pretty fast if you had a copyrighted image and someone came along and used it to sell goods without your knowledge or consent.
What you people seem not to realize is that the cartoon character is a product, a thing that can be, and is, owned. This is not satire of a person or their performance, it's misuse of a copyrighted work.
Meanwhile, what do you geniuses think would happen if someone was selling a cartoon of the Little Mermaid givin7ecg blowjobs? Use your imagination when trying to figure out how many seconds it would be before the infringer was in court. -
Larry-115 — 18 years ago(May 02, 2007 02:59 PM)
The Family Guy writers did not include this scene in order to sell more DVD's. They put it in as a joke. Family Guy is already popular and will sell regardless of this scene.
What is there to say to someone so ignorant that he doesn't realize that everything in a cartoon is in there to help sell that cartoon? -
James_E_Burnett — 18 years ago(May 09, 2007 11:38 AM)
Funny is funny,
So in your oppinion anything can be done for the sake of comedy?
Including taking a charachter that you painstakingly made to remind you of your mother who passed away. The fond memories of that charachter to be dragged through the mud of a Porn shop for the sake of Comedy
No, Carol Burnett spoofed characters that is for certain but in a tasteful manner unlike the immature producers of the Family guy
But obviously Immature comedy no matter how tasteless is great in your eyes, after all it's funny to you right
Well it is not funny to everyone especially those that have respect for other peoples rights and privacy, and rights to keep what they have created clean and still in intelligent good humor
How about the producers of Family Guy come into your house and spank thier monkey in front of your family for the sake of comedy, after all it's Funny, right? Or have the baby humping the dog over one of your dead relatives tombstone? After all it would be in the name of Comedy
Jim -
marcellarw — 18 years ago(May 09, 2007 05:11 PM)
Bravo
Jim
! Bravo!
Marcella
www.carolburnettfan.com
www.itsthecarolburnettshow.com -
Digital-Technic — 18 years ago(May 29, 2007 07:14 AM)
Well it is not funny to everyone especially those that have respect for other peoples rights and privacy, and rights to keep what they have created clean and still in intelligent good humor
It's a parody, there is no copyright infringement. So there goes your rights comment out the window. According to your logic Weird Al Yankovic and John Valby should be shot dead -
James_E_Burnett — 18 years ago(May 29, 2007 06:27 PM)
Haha, Mysterio Western Prudish society
What do you still bow to a queen, or are you one of the Descendants of rapist and murderers banished to the Kangaroo Outbackand is wanker still used? That is comical in itself you should write for family guy
Being Intelligent and being a prude are two different things hence the two different words that are spelled completely different
I don't watch family guy to answer your quip. I would absolutely feel less inteligent after forcing myself to watch such an imature show Actually Sponge Bob Square pants if quite a bit more funnier than the so called adult cartoon Wittier as well
Everyone seems to think that it is legal to parody anything out there, without the owners permission, well guess what no you can't and I am sure it will be proven in court A parody is a reference to an owned property, and if the owned property is reproduced for a paying audience without the owners permission or fees paid for using such owned property not paid to the original owner then they have a right to sue. Because the parody would make no sense if it was not based on an ORIGINAL OWNED PROPERTY I stress the word OWNED
If not how about I copy "GONE WITH THE WIND" reproduce the whole film with new actors and call it a parody and make money off it, without a dime going to the original owners of the Actual porperty it is based off of
So what's the difference it is just a parody right? No one has any rights to property if someone wants to make fun of an intelectual property then make money at making fun of a well known owned material
It's basically 238copying someone elses Idea adding some immature humor and trying to make money (ratings) from it. Carol will win this battle and if she doesn't they might as well throw all the copyright laws out the window afterwards
JIm -
czechmypockets — 18 years ago(August 28, 2007 07:31 AM)
Jim, you obviously have NO idea about copyrights or the laws surrounding them.
As several people have already mentioned, parody is protected under US Trademark laws. It comes under a section called 'Fair Use', whereby you can reproduce copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research. Thats not to say it's a blanket rule, it has to fall under certain guidelines to meet the above.
Just for the sake of it, since you insulted Australia in a particularly moronic and ignorant way, there was a novel called 'THE WIND DONE GONE' which reused several characters from your 'GONE WITH THE WIND' story that you know, only it told it from the perspective of the slaves rather than the slaveholders. The publisher was sued for breach of copyright, and since it was a parody, can you guess who won?
The publisher. Look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suntrust_v._Houghton_Mifflin
Wanker. -
richard.fuller1 — 18 years ago(June 23, 2007 11:09 AM)
James_E_Burnett: "Including taking a charachter that you painstakingly made to remind you of your mother who passed away."
It wasn't her mother, it was her grandmother, Nanny, who used to clean studio offices at one time, emptying wastebaskets and 'swiping at the desks with a dust cloth' as Carol described it.
Also the Carol Burnett show would come about virtually the following year after Nanny's death, while Carol's mother had passed away about a good decade earlier, I believe. Or toward the early 1960s anyway.
I think Nanny outlived Carol's mother by a good ten years.