Toon Zone Talkback - Fox & Cartoon Network Sued for "Family Guy" Music Spoof

[Matt Hazuda]

This is the talkback thread for Fox & Cartoon Network Sued for "Family Guy" Music Spoof (http://news.toonzone.net/article.php?ID=19235).

I really don't see how this lawsuit has any ground considering it is a parody, which is within the Family guy writer's rights.

Also, it really seems like a money-grab considering he waited so many years to file suit.

[DrTooth]

The lawsuit issued by Bourne claims that the song "I Need a Jew" which aired on the Family Guy episode "When You Wish Upon a Weinstein" was an Anti-Semetic parody of the classic Oscar winning song.


Firstly, what took them so long? It does seem like a money grab... secondly, he missed the entire point of the song.

I bet tomorrow he's going to sue Viacom for using the "When you wish upon a side of Beef" number in Ren and Stimpy back in the 90's.

[Lutochris]

Absolutely pathetic if this doesn't get thrown out. And did they really need to go with that "Anti-semetic" blast in the claim? Does that have any bearing on the infringement case? If the song didn't make fun of Jews would they not have sued?

[Peter Paltridge]

Well, here we go again....Carol Burnett's suit didn't last long, and this won't either. Kinda slow at the switch, don't you think? It's been roughly three years since that first aired.

[Discloner]

You know if they had sued them when the episode was...new; I could understand (not that I even think it's a sue-able offense; it falls under parody) - but here we are some four odd years later....

[Jeff Harris]

This charge is laughable at best. Parody is protected by the first amendment and upheld by the Supreme Court.

But if they do win, expect MC Hammer and the Estate of Rick James to sue Family Guy for "Can't Touch Me." Even though Peter explicitly said "So Hammer, you can't sue."

[Kury Wagner]

Ugh, that's ridiculous. I echo your guys' sentiments completely- sounds like a last minute, 'heyyy... we could probably try for something here.'

And it really bugs me that it was spelled 'anti-Semitic.' Peter didn't mention Arabs at all. /overly critical.

[DrTooth]

Anti-semitism, the race card. Trust me, is there anything people in the wrong don't do to try to sway people in their direction out of white guilt? The episode was far from being anti-semetic. It was more anti-catholic, if anything. The whole "nuns being depicted as warriors of the Penguin" for example.

Someone's not getting enough money from Disney, apparently.

[Moto Pete]

Family Guy sued over use of ''Wish Upon a Star''
The publishing company that owns rights to ''When You Wish Upon a Star'' is suing Fox and the producers of Family Guy over an episode that it claims parodies the song. The suit claims that ''I Need a Jew,'' sung by Peter Griffin in the episode ''When You Wish Upon a Weinstein,'' is a ''thinly veiled copy'' of the song. The episode was shot in 2000 but didn't air until 2003. Comedian Carol Burnett also filed suit this year when Family Guy lampooned her in an episode, but that lawsuit was dismissed

[Roman Legion]

They don't stand a chance. Obviously, they were making fun of Jews, which is ok, but the song used was merely instrumental to the parody, rather than the target of the parody. Thus, any claim of protection under "parody" is void, regardless of whether or not others could have sued (but didn't) for similar violations. That's how it should have gone down, anyway. On the other hand, Fox & Cartoon Network have money, so all will be well in the end.

No, I don't know whether I'm serious or not, either.

--Romey

[DrTooth]

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/44/15/23281544.jpg
Here you go. one to stand on.

[Kitschensyngk]

They might have tried this back when the show first aired. I doubt it'll do them any good to raise a stink about it now.

Besides, isn't it a parody?

[Antiyonder]

Shouldn't there be laws to prevent lawsuits against something of this nature? I mean it is a waste of manpower and resources is it not?

[Dark Fact]

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/44/15/23281544.jpg
Where's the gun that's supposed to go with the foot?

Shouldn't there be laws to prevent lawsuits against something of this nature? I mean it is a waste of manpower and resources is it not?
This is how lawyers make their money.

[William C. Maune]

Besides, isn't it a parody?

Not really in the legal sense, which I believe is what Romey was also getting at. Here is what the Supreme Court had to say about Parody in regards to Fair Use:


parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works."

(The above is borrowed from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody#Copyright_issues), but I've studied the case previously and that is what the case says)

The song in Family Guy didn't really comment on or have anything to do with the previous song. Instead, it used the tune of the previous song to comment on something unrelated. In that case it probably doesn't legally qualify as parody and thus the person who wrote the original tune deserves to be compensated.

In other words, the important thing to keep in mind is that just because something is funny doesn't mean it is parody. If someone writes a tune (that hasn't passed into the public domain) and someone else uses it, the writer is legally entitled to be compensated. For instance, I can't simply take a Deathlok tune, rerecord it with my own different lyrics and release it myself. That would be infringing on Deathlok.


This is how lawyers make their money.

Not any lawyers I know.

[The Myst]

Not any lawyers I know.

Hollywood lawyers?

[Slane]

The song in Family Guy didn't really comment on or have anything to do with the previous song. Instead, it used the tune of the previous song to comment on something unrelated. In that case it probably doesn't legally qualify as parody and thus the person who wrote the original tune deserves to be compensated.

Under that argument, wouldn't many of Weird Al's songs no longer be considered parody? "Amish Paradise" certainly responded to "Gangsta's," but what connection is there between "Hey Mickey" and "Hey Ricky" or any of the musician's even sillier songs?

If the Family Guy case goes forward, what effect could it have on other parodies?

[Roman Legion]

Under that argument, wouldn't many of Weird Al's songs no longer be considered parody? "Amish Paradise" certainly responded to "Gangsta's," but what connection is there between "Hey Mickey" and "Hey Ricky" or any of the musician's even sillier songs?As far as I know, Al typically obtains permission for everything, so it's not an issue. The "Amish Paradise" incident was the result of miscommunication, but legal permission had still been obtained. In his case, I think it's a matter of professionalism (as in, not needlessly pissing people off) as much as it is for legal safety.

--Romey

[DrTooth]

The song in Family Guy didn't really comment on or have anything to do with the previous song. Instead, it used the tune of the previous song to comment on something unrelated. In that case it probably doesn't legally qualify as parody and thus the person who wrote the original tune deserves to be compensated.




Even still, the Family Guy song was a sound alike, that may follow the rhyme scheme of the real song, but the tune is clearly different. They just happened to make a sound alike. Sesame Street does it, Animainacs did it... a lot of people use soundalikes.

They might as well have the people who wrote Grease sue over the give up the toad song. It is ment as a parody of the song in terms of tune, but it conveys a different message.

This is a money grab. Nothing more. Maybe something to do with an offended jew or something. Other than that.... they might as well sue McD's for getting coffee on themselves.

[Matt Hazuda]

This is a money grab. Nothing more. Maybe something to do with an offended jew or something. Other than that.... they might as well sue McD's for getting coffee on themselves.It'll be even funnier if the Family guy people have a bunch of jewish lawyers defending them.

[William C. Maune]

Under that argument, wouldn't many of Weird Al's songs no longer be considered parody? "Amish Paradise" certainly responded to "Gangsta's," but what connection is there between "Hey Mickey" and "Hey Ricky" or any of the musician's even sillier songs?

As mentioned by Romey, Weird Al gets permission for all his parodies. He does this to be professional, but it does have the added bonus of protecting him if anyone would ever challenge him in court.


Even still, the Family Guy song was a sound alike, that may follow the rhyme scheme of the real song, but the tune is clearly different. They just happened to make a sound alike. Sesame Street does it, Animainacs did it... a lot of people use soundalikes.

They might as well have the people who wrote Grease sue over the give up the toad song. It is ment as a parody of the song in terms of tune, but it conveys a different message.

This is a money grab. Nothing more. Maybe something to do with an offended jew or something. Other than that.... they might as well sue McD's for getting coffee on themselves.

It may be a money grab, but it is possible for it to not be. The episode was produced to make money and I'm not so sure the tune was completely different. Somebody else's prior work was used to make the version of the song that aired work. Thus, a case might not actually win, but a case could certainly be made.

As for the coffee, that's another misunderstood case. The woman who spilled it received burns bad enough that her clothes melted to her skin and they had to be surgically removed. In that case, the coffee is too hot.

[Zorak Masaki]

Didnt 2 Live Crew do a parody of "Pretty Woman" that they were sued over, only for the court to claim that the song was a parody and therefore protected? Its not like their pretty woman parody commented on the original song.

[William C. Maune]

Didnt 2 Live Crew do a parody of "Pretty Woman" that they were sued over, only for the court to claim that the song was a parody and therefore protected? Its not like their pretty woman parody commented on the original song.

That is the main supreme court case on parody (I quoted it earlier in the thread). The court ruled that 2 Live Crew's song contained parody commenting on and criticizing the original work.

[jbanks97]

You're taking the "comment on" portion of the Luther Campbell case way too literally. The standard is not strict it's merely "reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original [Oh, Pretty Woman] or criticizing it, to some degree." http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Oct/1/130292.html
There is no requiement how much the parody has to comment on the original as long as it's sufficiently different (using the fair use analysis from the linked article ........really dull stuff don't read unless you want to do this for a job). In other words, if you can make a reasonable argument it merely comments on the original...........it's protected as fair use.

If I were FG's lawyer I'd say......The main characters in Family Guy and Pinnochio are both searching for supernatural assistance with their probelms. The song parodies the original because the goal of the FG character is ridiculous while the goal of the Disney character is noble. ...........and then I would file an immediate motion to dismiss.

[DrTooth]

I do not understand how it's possible for a song's tune to be a parody with different lyrics.

Besides, he did refference the actual song. If that's what it needs to be a parody, then here we go...

nothing else has worked so far, so I'm wishing on a star.... That's all they need to know.

[William C. Maune]

You're taking the "comment on" portion of the Luther Campbell case way too literally. The standard is not strict it's merely "reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original [Oh, Pretty Woman] or criticizing it, to some degree." http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Oct/1/130292.html
There is no requiement how much the parody has to comment on the original as long as it's sufficiently different (using the fair use analysis from the linked article ........really dull stuff don't read unless you want to do this for a job). In other words, if you can make a reasonable argument it merely comments on the original...........it's protected as fair use.

If I were FG's lawyer I'd say......The main characters in Family Guy and Pinnochio are both searching for supernatural assistance with their probelms. The song parodies the original because the goal of the FG character is ridiculous while the goal of the Disney character is noble. ...........and then I would file an immediate motion to dismiss.

I may be taking it too literally, but you are taking it too lightly if you truly think there is no argument to be made here and that it is an open and shut case. In the end, fair use, including the parody part, is a balancing test. As such, both sides must be weighed through the test and while Family Guy may prevail in the end, it is not a slam dunk.

[Master Toon]

Isn't AS a network? Why do they keep saying they're sueing CN, shouldn't they be sueing AS?

[Scythemantis]

How is the song even remotely "anti-semitic?" Peter innocently believes cultural stereotypes. He made no indication of hating anyone.

[Master Toon]

Peter innocently believes cultural stereotypes. He made no indication of hating anyone.

That's the same excuse everyone gives for when cartoons say racist stuff.

[DrTooth]

How is the song even remotely "anti-semitic?" Peter innocently believes cultural stereotypes. He made no indication of hating anyone.

If they didn't throw in something that characterises the Family Guy writing staff as "anti-semetic", or "Racist" then there's no way they could sway a jury of morons to think they're in the right.

They even changed the line "even though they killed my Lord" (A hillarious send up of Christians who hate jews for the stupid reason that the Romans killed the king of the Jews, blaming the jews) to "I don't think they killed my Lord" when it was finally broadcast.

Funny they bring anti-semetism up, considering who used the song....

[Tay the Cat]

Isn't AS a network? Why do they keep saying they're sueing CN, shouldn't they be sueing AS?
In ratings sense, they are a network, but they share a channel with CN, so CN gets hit as a result.