Hypocrite Burnett suiing Family Guy
-
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! -
AdmrlLocke — 12 years ago(November 20, 2013 08:23 PM)
The link isn't there anymore, but I read a bit about it at http://www.tmz.com/2007/03/16/cab68rol-burnett-sues-over-family-guy-gag/. Fox actually asked her for permission to use her theme and she denied it.
I think it's different than, say, where she did a satire of "Kung Foo" called "Young Fool." If they'd said that the maid was "Barrel Curnett" or something that implied a bit of satire but didn't actually use her name, I think it would have been more acceptable and frankly funnier than saying that the maid was actually Carol Burnett, but the trial court tossed out the suit back in 2007 under the ruling in Hustler v. Falwell, a 1988 Supreme Court ruling in which the justices voted 8-0 that it was permissible for a cartoon to satirize a public figure, since "the Court found that reasonable people would not have interpreted the parody to contain factual claims." -
richard.fuller1 — 18 years ago(June 23, 2007 10:27 AM)
theni16d0nthwave: " she's obviously just doing this for publicity."
Her fortune is made, her impact on comedy is apparent (a reunion show a few years back amassed higher ratings than what normally aired in that timeslot), she set a precedent by suing the National Enquirer for saying she was drunk in a restaurant back in the 1970s and she is 74-years-old.
What possible publicity could she be wanting from suing some ripoff cartoon that resorts to cheap adolescent toilet humor or endless knowledge of programs and movies it is supposed to be parodying?
The show asked if they could use her cartoon character and she said no.
The lawsuit was thrown out, unless she decides to pursue it further.
It didn't matter if Family Guy wanted to use her cleaning lady as the Queen of England or as a depiction of God in Heaven, she told them no, they couldn't use it, and they went on ahead and did it anyway. -
czechmypockets — 18 years ago(August 28, 2007 07:40 AM)
Every idiot and his dog seems to be affiliated with Burnett on this board.
Burnett would have taken Family Guy to court to stop them from parodying her, rather than for money. It wouldn't be a publicity issue, although I can't tell - I haven't looked at the case.
Furthermore, Family Guy humour is very much situational comedy with characters from popular culture. That's a parody. The jokes that aren't parody are quite juvenile though. -
william_taylor — 18 years ago(October 08, 2007 06:48 AM)
Wiki-pedia says..
In March 2007, she sued 20th Century Fox for copyright infringement, trademark violation, statutory violation of right of privacy, and misappropriation of name and likeness over the use of an altered version 5b4of her signature closing song and the portrayal of her charwoman character in an episode of Family Guy.
As of May 26, 2007, the lawsuit has been tentatively dismissed by a Los Angeles federal judge.
Guess she is doing something to swayyyyy the judgement or else this is old news that's only been let out the bag
I dunno, I don't even know who the beep Burnett is so it's making her more popularI guess. I mean, I'm not a fan, never will be but I know she exists now. -
Itsamoomoo — 16 years ago(August 07, 2009 08:40 PM)
Carol Burnett can do anything she wants. She's one of the most gracious people to ever host her own television program, has endeared herself to the American public for years, and for anyone to even question her lawsuit and raise a stink here on the Internet Movie Data Base is only showing their intelligence, which I am afraid ain't much.
-
Galactus03 — 19 years ago(March 16, 2007 10:01 PM)
Unfortunately I dont think shes suing because of a parody of her. Family Guy used her copyrighted animated figure the cleaning woman for their show without permission. Parodies of a person are fine but using a copyrighted cartoon character without permission is not. The character looks exactly like hers even though it was meant to be a parody. She may have a case.
-
BrotherJustin — 19 years ago(March 17, 2007 06:23 AM)
Yes, that's exactly why she's suingshe can't take a joke. Family Guy parodies everything and most of their parodied subjects have taken it in stride. They have used real people, animated characters, created characters; but it doesn't matter, it's all parody. I guess if I only worked four times in five years, I'd probably be despearte enough to try and sue anyone who uttered my name. Point is, lighten up Carol and stop being a hypocrite. I hope she loses and I hope her lawyer is expensive.
The signs of the end times are all around us, etched in blood and fire by the left hand of god. -
richard.fuller1 — 18 years ago(June 23, 2007 10:38 AM)
BrotherJustin: "Yes, that's exactly why she's suingshe can't take a joke. Family Guy parodies everything and most of their parodied subjects have taken it in stride. They have used real people, animated characters, created characters; but it doesn't matter, it's all parody. I guess if I only worked four times in five years, I'd probably be despearte enough to try and sue anyone who uttered my name. Point is, lighten up Carol and stop being a hypocrite. I hope she loses and I hope her lawyer is expensive."
Hey, I'm going to make me a cartoon character and call it Brother Justin.
You don't mind, do you, Justin?
What? You do?
Well, guess what? I'll do it ANYWAY!
Think you will sue?
Then follow your own advice and lighten up.
The majority of persons or characters parodied on Family Guy I can tell you matter-of-factly don't watch the show and don't care to hear anything about it, so they aren't 'taking it in stride'. They just aren't interested in the program.
Fact is Carol was asked if they could use her character and she said no. What was the point of asking if they were going to do it anyway?
As to her not working in five years, how old are you, buddy?
She's made her fortune. Anything she does lately, from when she appeared on Mad About You to Desperate Housewives, she is probably donating to a charity somewhere. She doesnt NEED the money.
As to an expensive lawyer, yea, lawyers are expensive, but guess what, she wasn't doing it for the money when she sued the National Enquirer for running a story about her being drunk 30 YEARS AGO, so why do you think she would be doing this for the money?
When she wrote her auto-bio 20 YEARS AGO, the ending caption was that she divides her time between California and Hawaii. You think she needs Family Guy to pay for plane tickets?
Try to learn something about a person before you go making wild posts about them. -
supergiantbugkiller — 19 years ago(March 17, 2007 09:47 AM)
you don't know the law. there is such a thing as 'fair use' when it comes to parody/criticism - otherwise you'd probably s5b4ee Saturday Night Live (especiallY Robert Smigels' cartoons), and just about every political cartoonist in the country (who very frequently use trademarks and logos and characters to make allegories to current events) would be bankrupt.
She has no case, and she's just going to (rightfully) make herself look dumber than Family Guy could have ever hoped to acheive. -
harleydd — 19 years ago(April 01, 2007 05:02 AM)
I agree with you "daro3".
She is well within her legal rights, her character "was" copied - and she owns the rights to it.
I believe the main reason she is sueing is because her character was used in such a perverted way. I hope she wins! GO CAROL~! You've given us many hours of fun and laughter in the past - and you are a kind a decent person! -
raphael65 — 18 years ago(June 06, 2007 02:00 PM)
I have a feeling that Larry, daro, you, Carol's other "supporters," and I are 30+ (I'm 39) and admirers of both her witty and slapstick but always hilarious humour, as opposed to the juvenile, filthy toilet humour found in "South Park." As for "Family Guy," I have not seen it, and am even less inclined to now, given the fact that its makers were so presumptuous as to appropriate Carol's character.
-
LadyJaneGrey — 18 years ago(November 07, 2007 01:49 PM)
Wrong. Although Carol did play the char woman character on hre show, it was also a cartoon used to open the syndicated "Carol Burnett and1354 Friends."
Picture here: http://www.junebaldwinbork.com/carol/cbcarton.JPG
Personally, I feel it is an infringement of Burnett's property to use her charwoman cartoon without permission.
Am I anywhere near the imaginary cliff?
