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

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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....
 
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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
23281544.jpg

Here you go. one to stand on.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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:



(The above is borrowed from Wikipedia, 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.



Not any lawyers I know.
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
Back
Top