Carol Burnett Sues Over Family Guy Gag.- Page 2

[Liverpool]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 4:10pm

"Maybe she objected to the fact that her character "Charwoman", the mention of her trademark ear tug and the use of a slightly altered version of her theme was used (after the original request was denied) with the context of a porn shop."

or maybe carol just has sand in her vagina.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 4:12pm

ya know it aint the jizz.

"I say, give me the old days when sperm was free!"
Suzanne Sugarbaker

[fflagg]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 4:14pm

Carol Burnett is going to be 74 years old. Bless her.

Perhaps she feels at her age that the show crossed a line? She comes from a different, and dare I say, classier era of parody and spoof. Her spoofs are in no way the same as the FAMILY GUY.

Would it have killed the producers to spoof something else? Or maybe to invite her to join the show and cowrite a different spoof?

The other issue could be her younger husband who might be out for publicity.

Who knows? But Ms. Burnett is a classy lady who would not sue for money.

You all should know better.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 4:19pm

"Would it have killed the producers to spoof something else? Or maybe to invite her to join the show and cowrite a different spoof?"

Well the thing about this is that it took place in the real world.

[lildogs]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 4:22pm

And you don't see Bea Arthur suing all the guys on the comedy roasts who say WAY worse things about her than have ever been said about Carol.

I'm just disappointed that a comedy legend takes herself so seriously.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 4:22pm

I think there is a principle involved as well. They asked for use of her signature character and trademark move-she declined. They used it anyway. They were in the wrong and there is a papertrail to prove it.

Apparently, she didn't want her images or likeness associated with the show. I am sure she has a grasp on parody. I think it is brazen disrespect and unauthorized use she has a problem with.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 4:26pm

but here in the real world
it's not that easy at all
cause when hearts get broken
it's real tears that fall
and darlin' it's hardly bliss
but the one thing i've learned from this
is how the jokes don't always please char girl
here in the real world

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 4:27pm

You all should know better.

Should we? Is there a section of the FAQ devoted to Carol Burnett's Character and Integrity?

[lildogs]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 4:33pm

I think it's silly, permission or not. She suffered NOTHING from what amounted to a few seconds of animation. It's foolish to take up valuable court time on this nonsense.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 4:34pm

kringas, it's part of the by-laws that are pending. it's up for a vote in the rules committee right after my addition which can be found in paragraph 9, subsection dd - new member girly booty clause: all doable female posters over the age of 18 must submit full body front and back nude photos to papalovesmambo within 30 days of registering with broadwayworld.com or lose their membership, be forever banned, have their families shunned and their friends stoned to death by midget porn stars.

Updated On: 3/16/07 at 04:34 PM

[lildogs]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 4:35pm

You need some 'tang papa...that's all there is to it.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 4:37pm

That bylaw would never pass without a clear definition of "doable."

[fflagg]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 4:38pm

It's called stop acting like a queen and beating an issue to death.

Worry more about finding an umbrella to get through this awful storm than about this nice lady.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 4:40pm

that point was raised in committee and it's quite possible that the final version will have that word stricken in favor of more open legged, i mean, inclusive language.

Updated On: 3/16/07 at 04:40 PM

[DAME]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 4:41pm

Again; I think there is a lot more to this lawsuit.

[DG]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 4:42pm

Permission for usage had been denied, which is her right. She turned down payment for that use by denying that right. But they did it anyway, possibly without payment.

With her history, I would find it hard to believe she would be offended by satire, no matter how blue - she herself walked that line many times. BUT, I think she possibly DOES have a problem with someone using her copyrighted material without payment.

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 4:50pm

Permission for usage had been denied, which is her right. She turned down payment for that use by denying that right. But they did it anyway, possibly without payment.

Granted, it's just TMZ, but all that article says is that they asked for permission to use the song and were denied.

And fflagg telling someone to stop acting like a queen is like the ascot calling the tiara black. Or pink. Or sour apple.

Updated On: 3/16/07 at 04:50 PM

[DAME]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 4:53pm

"And fflag telling someone to stop acting like a queen is like the ascot calling the tiara black. Or pink. Or sour apple."

I think I found my new quote.

[kyguy78]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 5:01pm

Isn't that an older episode of Family Guy? Why is she just now getting around to suing?

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 5:03pm

One man's satire is another man's slander.

I don't think Carol's parodies ever involved tarnishing a real person's character (which is what slander is). To spoof Joan Crawford in a bad wig, overacting from Torch Song isn't the same thing as implying that she, the actress, had sex with donkeys (for example)... or cleaned up jizz in a porn shop... or that she yanked something private of her father's whenever she wanted to say goodnight to him.

This is what I mean (and I've said it before, on occasion) that this country as a whole has lost its sense of humor. It doesn't know what humor is anymore. Here's a tiny hint: It shouldn't be abusive to others intrinsically.

Updated On: 3/16/07 at 05:03 PM

[BDavis0092]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 5:06pm

I just don't understand people sometimes. Everyone needs to laugh at themself every now and then.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 5:10pm

"Everyone needs to laugh at themself every now and then."


BDavis0092 --- Absolutely!

As long as you're telling the joke... and it's not someone you don't know hinting that you might have performed sex acts on your dad.

Updated On: 3/16/07 at 05:10 PM

[lildogs]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 5:11pm

But you don't like mean-spirited humor, best12...or at least you lead me to think that (what with the BORAT and JACKASS debates we've had)

Yes, it may be more graphic that what Carol did in the 70s, but that was the 70s.

It IS an homage, maybe not Carol's perfect idea of one, but I think it was done out of admiration.

I think the problem is that they shouldn't have asked her in the first place. That MIGHT get them into trouble, but the act itself shouldn't.

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 5:24pm

The Smoking Gun has a copy of the complaint, plus the scene in question, although on my computer I could just get the audio.

I'm so glad we mopped this spooge together

Updated On: 3/16/07 at 05:24 PM

[tazber]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 5:32pm

The parody adds up to under 4 seconds of screen time. I adore Carol, and I LOVE Family Guy. Seth McFarlane admits that Carol is one of his inspirations.
Also, if anyone knows the law as far as using a likeness of someone or their work it's the censors at Fox. There is no way they would have allowed the show to do this if there was a question.
I think Family Guy is one of the sharpest programs in comedy today and Carol can not be upset about this enough to sue.
Something is rotten in Denmark.
There is more to this than meets the eye.