Slashdot Mirror
Chuck Norris Sues Publisher, Tears Don't Cure Cancer
Google85 writes "Chuck Norris sued publisher Penguin on Friday over a book he claims unfairly exploits his famous name, based on a satirical Internet list of "mythical facts" about him. The book capitalizes on "mythical facts" that have been circulating on the Internet since 2005 that poke fun at Norris' tough-guy image and super-human abilities, the suit said."
Yeahhhhhh good luck with suing someone over what is clearly (read: the very *definition* of) satire.
Satire is one of those things that has been so thoroughly proven to be protected, Chuck is a fool to file suit unless this book reaches the point of slander.
.....that were it not for these jokes many people wouldn't even know that he was still alive, or that he even exists at all. Come on now, he sells exercise equipment on infomercials, he doesn't HAVE a "good name" to take advantage of.
Norris has had good fun with Chuck Norris facts even going as far to cite the ones he liked the most. He has been very hands off when it came to the Internet world. You step over the line when you try to make a book and start selling for a profit. Without his likeness there is no Chuck Norris facts and they can be construed as derogatory. I see no problem here whipping out the lawsuit stick unless the publisher is ready to cut Chuck in for a good portion of the proceeds.
Are you aware that the whole "internet Chuck Norris" model may not represent the true person who is known as Chuck Norris?
His wikipedia article says that "Norris mentioned in his autobiography that his father had a very serious problem with drinking and "wasn't there" a lot for him growing up. Norris admitted that he loved his father but did not like him. However, he professed that he only felt pity for the man because "that was just how he was, and he missed so much."
The same article says "He also created
How does that fit with your own preconceived image of Chuck Norris?
is he has become a joke but unlike most of the Hollywood hero types he is the real deal. He's won more Karate championships than anyone and is a legitimate star athlete in the sport. His films were rarely all that serious other than maybe the one with Bruce Lee. He had fun making some silly movies and an even sillier TV series but it's sad it's damaged his name. He's not an actor and has terrible tastes in what projects he's taken on. He's made a lot of money at it and not really harmed anyone along the way, with his films and TV series anyway, so I say more power to him. He worked hard for his name for better or worse so he has the right to protect it. It's just too bad he'll be remembered as a third rate action hero instead of the world class athlete he is.
It's a totally different story when someone turns out a book/movie which exploits his name, then it's no longer a fan based material, and I totally agree with him in suing the bastard.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Well, it seems to me that parody at least ought to enjoy the same protection against trademarks as it does from copyright -- if anything even more so.
The purpose of a trademark is to identify goods; the law protects trademarks so that consumers can know whose goods they are buying. If I (being unconnected to MS or Ubuntu whatsoever) marketed a product labeled "Genuine Microsoft Ubuntu", then there are some people who might think that they were buying a Microsoft product which might be more copatible with other MS products. Trademark is ultimately about protecting consumers; and while businesses get certain protections against competitors monkeying with the value of their trademarks, it doesn't preclude commercially valuable, non-commercial speech which might damage the value of a trademark.
It seems to me that a trademark holder would only have a complaint about a parody if it was represented in a way that might cause the false impression that this book was written or endorsed by the trademark holder. Free expression making use of trademarks in a way not likely to cause commercial confusion shouldn't be considered an infringement. There was a case a few years ago brought against an artist who was modifyig Barbie (tm) dolls, paring them down in a work about anorexia. The court dismissed both the copyright and the trademark claims based on a parody defense.
What would be interesting is the use of a trademarked persona which was in itself paradoxical. William Shatner has made a second career of mocking himself. While this doesn't necessarily preclude somebody else being paid to mock him, they'd have to be careful to make it clear that they weren't selling genuine William Shatner brand self-parody.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
As far bad Kung Fu movies, it would see he played in Meng long guo jiang(1972) and a couple of Bruce Lee documentaries. It would seem they often trained together. There would also seem to be a cheesy CB/trucker movie in his history. If it wasn't for Chuck Norris Facts, he would have faded into an obscurity brought about by late-night reruns and informercials for TotalGym. Since 2001 he's done two movies, and two made for TV things. He is an action superstar.
I'm not a fan of the guy, nor his politics, but i'm not going to knock the guy either. He has a very respectable career, and is a very accomplished martial-artist. So then why the hell does he have a website hosting them? Near as I'm aware he doesn't host them.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Is it just me, or are other people getting kind of sick of providing all the material for someone else to make money from? I know Norris will lose this, and rightly so, but I'm just getting a bit tired off all the pricks capitalizing on our creativity. Off topic, I know....
My take on this is that Chuck isn't so much looking for a cut of the proceeds, but objects to the idea of somebody taking an Internet meme and attempting to sell it.
If that is the case, I'm behind him 100%.
Not that Chuck needs my support...
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
If you actually knew anything about the story you would know that Chuck Norris never had a problem with the mythical facts satire itself, he even has quoted his favorites on occasion. He is fine with the satire bit. What he is NOT fine with is that this book by Penguin has collected these facts/jokes about him (jokes the author collected, NOT wrote himself) and now published them for profit using his name (a trademark) and likeness.
I am also not quite sure that original creators of the various facts appreciate having their work printed without getting a share.
This seems to be a publisher wanting to make a quick buck of someone elses work using someone elses reputation. Somehow I can't see a jury having much sympathy for them.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I was reading up on the gent IMDB and it would seem there is this bit of trivia
In the past it would seem Mr. Norris took "facts" about him very lightly and even commented on his favorites. But to someone who's strongly religious it's often pretty offensive to suggest they are some sort of prophet or have some supernatural ability.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Let's see if I read this correctly;
and so;
"Defendants have misappropriated and exploited Mr. Norris's name and likeness without authorization for their own commercial profit,"
Weird Al Yankovic makes money by parodying other artists; but the key concept is he does it, by creating the parody himself with his own sick-warped genius; He doesn't steal other peoples parodies.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Notice how Chuck and his lawyers haven't made a peep about this until someone tried to cash in on an Internet phenomenon. Someone is trying to make a quick buck out of Chuck Norris' fame (i.e. his likeness) without his permission.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
He's not suing over the jokes. In fact he's always seemed to take them in pretty good humor and I believe he's quoted some of his favorites in interviews before. The satire aspect doesn't appear to be what has Norris in a snit.
:P
He's suing some guy who took a bunch of jokes other people wrote, and is now trying to turn those jokes into a profitable venture. Satire is one thing, but unauthorized use of a celebrity's name or likeness for profit is something else entirely.
It may turn out to be protected speech, as there are a lot of gray areas here. For example, I doubt the National Enquirer gets permission from Brad Pitt (for example) every time they run some BS story about him, but they're capitalizing on his name to sell their magazine.
I guess we'll just have to see what the courts decide, but it's just incorrect to suggest that Norris is suing random people over some jokes. He's never really complained about any of them until the moment someone tried to use his name for profit, and that's really a different bag.
And, furthermore, you could argue that since every one of the statements about Chuck Norris is completely true, it isn't satire, but an unauthorized biography of his life.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
...Which in turn were Paul Bunyan jokes, which in turn were inspired by countless other competitive American legend jokes, which in turn were inspired by countless European tall tale jokes (Baron Münchhausen), which in turn were inspired by countless fantasy folk tales, going back and back to the likes of the Epic of Gilgamesh (about a couple of men so tough, it really does rival Chuck Norris stories) , and likely much further, to the dawn of boasting and storytelling itself. Ryan Fenton
Do you really think that Pam Anderson, who has been said to suffer from one of the worst treatments of American society -- that is, to be famous but not wealthy -- has actually had an image boost by doing charity work? Similarly, I'm sure Paris Hilton has publicists. Why isn't she out there pounding in nails for Habitat for Humanity?
I think you're being OVERLY cynical in this regard. Sure, there's reason to be a cynic when it comes it American celebrity. But to suggest that wealthy, famous people could not POSSIBLY want to help there mere plebes at the bottom of the foodchain, that just overlooks the fact that there are a lot of genuinely good people who just so happen to be successful.
So what? IF the book violates copyrights, which is not stated in the suit, they are not Chuck Norris's copyrights; he has no standing to sue. There isn't some kind of legal right to control what jokes can be published about you. Especially when you're a public figure. This is so absurd, I have to wonder if he's getting royalties in exchange for filing the suit, to generate publicity.
Actually, I do know that, I just don't care. I don't care why people do good things, I'm just glad when they do. I'd even have given Paris Hilton the benefit of the doubt had she come through on her word to help ease the transit from jail to the real world for women. She didn't, so fuck her. As for Bill Gates, I think he's a ruthless business man who will do whatever he can to win the game, but I also genuinely appreciate what he's doing in his charitable ventures, and wish him the best there.
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]