Hypocrite Burnett suiing Family Guy
-
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. -
baran_erik — 9 years ago(February 10, 2017 09:26 PM)
Pretty much anything CAN be done for the sake of comedy, And your sense of humor is not the standard by which all comedy should be judged. What is it about you blue-noses and reductio ad absurdum?
Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something. -
richard.fuller1 — 18 years ago(June 23, 2007 11:06 AM)
Viginiti_Tres: "you never know what to expect from a Family Guy episode."
I watched it, before it was cancelled the first time, and quickly caught on to waht to expect.
Simpsons ripoffs in style, cheap, adolescent humor (if it can even be called humor), lame jokes, basically a waste of time.
To each his own, I guess, but the show is so predictable, . . . . well, no sense finishing that. -
richard.fuller1 — 18 years ago(June 23, 2007 11:02 AM)
Viginit_Tres: "Have you not seen Family Guy's scene of Britney on the phone, stubbing cigarettes out on her baby's head, and then dropping it on it's face? Why should they be sued for this rather than that?"
What, is there a line for what can be sued over in what order?
I doubt the show contacted Britney's people and said 'can we show Britney as a bad mother on our show,' and Brit's folks said 'sure' nor did they say 'absolutely not!' but FG went on ahead and did the depiction anyway.
But Carol, nor anyone else, should base what offends them on how much or how little someone else is put out by a depiction.
"Hey, I told FG not to use my likeness or my theme song, but they did anyway, but I can't sue because Britney was depicted in a much more offensive manner."
That's ridiculous.
FG could show Britney eating her baby, if she doesn't sue, she doesn't sue.
It has nothing to do with what Carol does and doesn't sue over. -
-
GMEllis625 — 12 years ago(April 08, 2013 06:10 AM)
The story "The Little Mermaid" is in the public domain. The cartoon Disney created depicting the Little Mermaid named Ariel is Disney's property. I am very sure Disney would sue in an instant if Ariel appeared on Family Guypositive or negative depictionwithout their permission.
-
south_paw81 — 11 years ago(January 30, 2015 08:37 AM)
You are
exactly
correct. Spoofing a character or performance is
one
thing, using copyrighted material without permission is entirely
another
. I'm sure if they had spoofed one or 2 of the characters of her show (say Eunice & Mama) it would have been an entirely different situation. I love Seth MacFarlane and
Family Guy
, but he is savvy enough to have known better than to have used copyrighted material without permission - and that pirating is illegal. -
jejozi — 13 years ago(May 17, 2012 08:35 PM)
The only person here that's petty is the little dirt bag Seth MacFarlane. This wasn't done as a "spoof" "with purely comical intent." It was done because Burnet didn't give him permission to use her intellectual property. So he showed what a juvenile he is by trashing her in the most crude way possible; by insinuating a sexual relationship between her and her father. What a guy.
This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here. -
cobaltdestroyer — 19 years ago(March 19, 2007 07:09 PM)
Having the right to be mad and having the right argument to win this case are two very different things. Probably a large number of celebrities get mad at being spoofed by Family Guy. That doesn't mean they should sue and it certainly doesn't mean they should win their frivolous lawsuits.
-
richard.fuller1 — 18 years ago(June 23, 2007 10:44 AM)
cobaltdestroyer: "Probably a large number of celebrities get mad at being spoofed by Family Guy."
No.
The majority of 'targets' by Family Guy couldn't care less how this show depicts them. They probably don't watch it or see it for the rehashed juvenile humor it offers. -
PatrynXX — 19 years ago(March 19, 2007 07:18 PM)
Not sure what your reading, but it's clear from the link you sent that the bit was a parody and while she can be mad, she won't win. Probably tossed out of court. All the while being a hypocrite.
Books are meant to be read, if not, they'll die and so will we!