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."

15 of 374 comments (clear)

  1. Good luck with that... by PhearoX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Good luck with that... by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Again, not necessarily: if the use of his image/likeness are clearly an inextricable part of the satire (and thus not some secondary misappropriation), he's probably doomed.

      This is, basically, no different than The Onion including an actual image of Steve Jobs in a fictional article about his latest device conquering the world. It's satire, and Jobs' image is a part of it. Here, the name and image of Chuckles is inextricable from the satire, so it shouldn't be an issue.

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
    2. Re:Good luck with that... by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 5, Insightful
      From the article:

      Some of the 'facts' in the book are racist, lewd or portray Mr. Norris as engaged in illegal activities, the lawsuit alleges.


      This is where satire ends and defamation begins. I believe I will trust the courts decision over slashdot posts.
  2. Come On Guys... by Hangtime · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Let the real Chuck Norris stand up! by mangu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My opinion is that Chuck Norris, and that entire model of what it means to be male, is stupid

    Are you aware that the whole "internet Chuck Norris" model may not represent the true person who is known as Chuck Norris?


    Strong people are aware of their feelings and thoughts

    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."


    Strong people are cooperative, not adversarial

    The same article says "He also created ... a middle school and high school-based program intended to give at-risk children a focus point in life through the martial arts."


    How does that fit with your own preconceived image of Chuck Norris?



    1. Re:Let the real Chuck Norris stand up! by bluephone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, you're dead right in what you said. He built up a macho movie image and then used that fame and fortune to help kids in many challenged walks of life. Regardless of what you think of the movies (I was never a fan), his politics (he leans right, I lean left), you have to respect him for being a stand up guy, modest, and never losing sight of what's important, which is making a positive impact on the world. He never went around begging for attention for it either, which is even better in my book.

      Also I find it fitting a poster who was bashing Chuck by his films and some internet jokes is telling us to look deeper. Would you like a dust jacket for that book cover, sir? :)

      --
      jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
  4. The sad thing.... by edwardpickman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Idiotic by AftanGustur · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The difference is, that the "Chuck Norris facts" is a fansite, he owns "the trademark" and he can "tolerate" that his name is being used by his fans.


    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
  6. Re:Idiotic by zakezuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Famous name"? Please. Chuck Norris did a cheesy 90s television show and some bad Kung Fu movies. IANACNF (I'm not a Chuck Norris fan). I think the chessy 90s television show you're talking about was Walker, Texas ranger which ran from 1993 to 2001. 5 years is a good run, this cheesy show ran for 8 years.

    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.
  7. Another aggregator gets rich off our input by svunt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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....

  8. I agree... by DG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  9. Except this ain't about satire by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:A matter of courtesy by budgenator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    Let's see if I read this correctly;
    1. A book as been written by Ian Spector and published by Penguin,
    2. the majority of the content in it has been stolen and/or plagiarized from the internet,
    3. consists tacky and rude Chuck Norris jokes,
    4. The book full of plagiarized material will surely be copyrighted

    and so;
    "Defendants have misappropriated and exploited Mr. Norris's name and likeness without authorization for their own commercial profit," ... seeks unspecified monetary damages for trademark infringement, unjust enrichment and privacy rights.

    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
  11. It isn't about the satire. by rantingkitten · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    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. :P

    --
    mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
  12. Re:Bill Brasky! by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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