Hypocrite Burnett suiing Family Guy
-
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! -
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.