Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Decision of Note: Carol Burnett Loses Claims over TV-Show Parody
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California decided that the brief inclusion ' in a segment of the animated TV-series 'Family Guy' ' of a 'Charwoman'-like character from and a theme similar to the 'Carol Burnett Show' constituted a copyright fair use. Burnett v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., CV 07-01723 DDP. Under the fair-use test of Sec. 107 of the Copyright Act, the district court noted: 'As defendant correctly notes, it is immaterial whether the target of Family Guy's 'crude joke' was Burnett, the Carol Burnett Show, the Charwoman, Carol's Theme Music or all four. The eighteen-second clip of the animated figure resembling the 'Charwoman,' mopping the floor next to 'blow-up dolls,' a rack of 'XXX' movies, and 'video booths' in a porn shop is clearly designed to 'imitate[ ] the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effort or ridicule.' ' The episode at issue put a cartoon version of Carol Burnett/the Charwoman in an awkward, ridiculous, crude, and absurd situation in order to lampoon and parody her as a public figure.'
The court, commenting on the impact of the defendant's use on the potential market for Burnett's copyright interest, noted that 'commercial substitution is not likely in this case. Defendant is correct that the market demand for a non-parodic use of the Charwoman would not be fulfilled by a use that has the character in front of 'blow-up' dolls and 'XXX movies' ' [P]laintiffs raise the issue that the Family Guy's use of the Charwoman inflicts harm on the good will and reputation associated with the copyrighted work. However, a 'parody may quite legitimately aim at garroting the original, destroying it commercially as well as artistically.' '
Burnett alleged a claim under the federal Lanham Act of likelihood of public confusion as to her affiliation with or sponsorship of the 'Family Guy' segment. But the district court emphasized that 'no reasonable viewer would mistake the Charwoman or Carol Burnett as anything other than the target of a Family Guy parody.'
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?