Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Entertainment Law & FinanceKickerFeaturesTopicsLitigationSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Decision of Note: Carol Burnett Loses Claims over TV-Show Parody

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
June 28, 2007

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

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

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.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

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.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?