{"id":27,"date":"2007-03-20T21:18:32","date_gmt":"2007-03-21T01:18:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/fkatz\/2007\/03\/20\/so-glad-we-had-this-time-together-eh-no"},"modified":"2007-03-22T17:08:35","modified_gmt":"2007-03-22T21:08:35","slug":"so-glad-we-had-this-time-together-eh-not-so-much","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/fkatz\/2007\/03\/20\/so-glad-we-had-this-time-together-eh-not-so-much\/","title":{"rendered":"So glad we had this time together? Eh, not so much."},"content":{"rendered":"

Jokes on the animated sitcom “The Family Guy” <\/a>ususally go by so fast, only the most astute student of pop culture can catch them all. Well, make that astute students of pop culture and Carol Burnett’s lawyers.<\/p>\n

Burnett, a comedic icon has had amazing career that includes her own hit 1970s self-titled TV show. Boomer readers will remember Burnett’s hilarious send-ups of “Gone with the Wind” and “Sunset Boulevard.” She also did a skit of a charwoman in blue cap with a mop and pail. She feels that the charwoman image so represents her that she owns the copyright and trademark rights to the image as well as the theme music from her TV show.
\nIn just one episode of “The Family Guy” a quick homage<\/em> to Ms. Burnett and her charwoman character and a variation on her theme music (also protected by copyright) is dropped in as Peter and his entourage visit and adult video store. I don’t have a stop watch but the reference can’t last more than 20 seconds. Maybe.<\/em><\/p>\n

The clip and the accompanying complaint <\/a>are on the The Smoking Gun Web site.<\/p>\n

Burnett alleges that to an ordinary viewer, these 18 seconds — of one of the many throwaway references that makes “Family Guy” so unique is a violation of Section 1125 of the Lanham Act,<\/a> alleging copyright infringement and trademark dilution, among other things. Her claim maintaints viewers of this particular episode will cause consumer confusion and lead innocent viewers to think that Carol Burnett has some sort of relationship or has given her charwoman’s seal of approval to the Fox sitcom. As a result of this, apparently those who are familiar with Ms. Burnett’s work will now think less of her and more importantly think less of her work.<\/p>\n

You think? I mean honestly?<\/p>\n

Granted, it’s not the most tasetful reference, but c’mon people. This is the definition of trademark fair use<\/a>.<\/a> I wouldn’t even want to hazzard a guess as to the number of people who would shoot their dogs (but not Brian!) to have themselves referenced on “The Family Guy.” Given the show’s demographic, Ms. Burnett’s name and mark may have become familiar to several new generations of viewers. “Family Guy” and Fox may have done more good than harm.<\/p>\n

So why the suit? Tastelessness, particularly on “Family Guy” is incredibly subjective and the brief nod to Ms. Burnett (in an adult video store) may have just insulted her personally. As she says in her complaint, perhaps, consumers will really be confused and think Ms. Burnett has some sort of “blue” reputation and will leave viewers unfamiliar with her work with an impression of her that she believes (correctly,I think) is misleading.<\/p>\n

Still, her claims sound a little hollow, shrill and dare I say it , humorless. As studio spokesman Chris Alexander told the San Francisco Chronicle “We are surprised that Ms. Burnett, who has made a career of spoofing others on television, would go so far as to sue ‘Family Guy’ for a simple bit of comedy.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jokes on the animated sitcom “The Family Guy” ususally go by so fast, only the most astute student of pop culture can catch them all. Well, make that astute students of pop culture and Carol Burnett’s lawyers. Burnett, a comedic icon has had amazing career that includes her own hit 1970s self-titled TV show. Boomer […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":432,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[65,907,568],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-copyright-law","category-must-see-tv","category-trademark"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/fkatz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/fkatz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/fkatz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/fkatz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/432"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/fkatz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/fkatz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/fkatz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/fkatz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/fkatz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}