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

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.



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.
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top