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."
Does Chuck Norris runs Linux ?
but Chuck Norris is already there.
Just hadta say yit
Chuck Norris can.
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.
There were jokes about Chuck Norris' kick, Chuck Norris' hair, Chuck Norris' tears, Chuck Norris'... Er, whatever. And now - jokes about Chuck Norris' lawsuits! Who's the first to try?
This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.
..he just demands, thus nobody dears opose him
Pure awesomenes
The story is available on countless other sites who don't have javascript:goToPage(2); instead of a normal hyperlink.
And I already thought the lawsuit over Lady Chatterley's Lover was ridiculous. Oh well, at least it's not the UK government that sued them this time.
Interesting detail: My web-browser corrected the spelling of Chatterley. Twice. Sheesh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
Good luck Chuck. To win this case you have to break new legal ground. You could go down in history with SCO for the creativity of your legal claims. You are a public figure. You have honed your tough guy image and profited therefrom. If comics want to satirize your actions and image, you're fair game. Not only that but Chuck Norris jokes have become something like elephant jokes. In that regard they are somewhat generic. In that regard you are in the same unfortunate condition as a company that loses its trademark because it has become generic. Suck it up tough guy.
He did not create Chuck Norris Facts. They are parody, not defamation, and just because they're discussing him, doesn't give him any real say in the copyright. More importantly, one of the claims is just ludicrous:
""Some of the 'facts' in the book are racist, lewd or portray Mr. Norris as engaged in illegal activities," the lawsuit alleges."
So then why the hell does he have a website hosting them?
.....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.
When chuck Norris does division, there are no remainders.
...because Chuck Norris won't stand for people making money off of other people's jokes! I'm sure the author(s) tracked down the origin of every one of those jokes and gave each one of them a crisp twenty dollar bill in payment.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
The names of famous people are trademarks. If I were to open a restaurant called Chuck Norris' Good Eats, I'd be infringing his trademark, not his copyright.
This even goes so far that someone else who was not famous, but happened to also be named Chuck Norris could not use his own name as a business name.
While IANAL, I heard about this on TV, so it must be true.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
...generates his own gravitational field.
...doesn't bend spoons w/his mind - he shits them out, all shiny and new, as needed.
...once completely sucked a man's eyeball clear out of the socket during a fight in the Philippines - optic never and all. He then spit it out into his hand, handed it to the poor bloke and whispered "I'm betting you NEVER look at me the same way ever again, Hector!"
...was born a woman, but decided early on he liked the thought of having hair on his back, so he willed himself into becoming the man is he today.
...took-off and landed a shot-up Cessna that had lost its landing gear simply by sticking his feet out of the cabin doors.
...chewed his own hand off to get out of hand-cuffs during a hostage situation that involved migrating pygmies. He then sewed it back on, using hair off his back as thread and a straightened paper clip - he burned a hole in one end of the paper clip by stacking disposable contacts onto his left eye, while looking at the clip and staring into the Sun.
...once rode a motorcycle backwards uphill in the desert for thirty-five miles in the dark...blind-folded. Of course drunk and with a bladder full of oxygenated white wine.
...made long distance phone calls in the 1980's using nothing but his vocal cords to hack the tone-controlled switchbanks.
...invented OBEs.
Here's his own response to those satire sites: Who knows, maybe these made up one-liners will prompt young people to seek out the real facts as found in my recent autobiographical book, "Against All Odds?" They may even be interested enough to check out my novels set in the Old West, "The Justice Riders," released this month. *rolls eyes*
This is also a blatant red herring, but he additionally don't understand evolution and think it tells how things evolve "by random chance", when in reality it of course in the opposite way (also said in response to satire): It's funny. It's cute. But here's what I really think about the theory of evolution: It's not real. It is not the way we got here. In fact, the life you see on this planet is really just a list of creatures God has allowed to live. We are not creations of random chance. We are not accidents. There is a God, a Creator, who made you and me. We were made in His image, which separates us from all other creatures. By the way, without Him, I don't have any power. But with Him, the Bible tells me, I really can do all things--and so can you." All this just adds up to me in how he's an ignorant, egoistic person who cares more about pushing his agenda -- religiously or economically -- rather than just being laid back about it all. It's just jokes, dammit.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
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.
Chuck Norris is dead... No one is strong enough to kill Chuck Norris, so he had to kill himself.
My opinion is that Chuck Norris, and that entire model of what it means to be male, is stupid. Strong people are aware of their feelings and thoughts. Strong people are cooperative, not adversarial.
As the families of more than a million Iraqis can verify, George W. Bush lives by the Chuck Norris model.
My guess is that the Chuck Norris and George W. Bush model of being male is only for profit. My guess is that Chuck Norris is not adversarial during most of the hours of his life. My guess is that when George W. Bush is alone, he is a sad, depressed, angry person with an alcoholic personality.
Chuck Norris wants to be seen as someone with that idea of "strong" to make money from films. George W. Bush wants to make money from getting control of, and restricting the supply of, oil. They are both weak losers.
..chuck norris can do everything except take a joke :)
it's an upside DOWn kingdumb (Score:)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by Anonymous Coward on whenever robbIE's patentdead PostBlock device fails
aka: robbIE goofs up his decaying blog for more clicks & censorship, as advertisers like it that way.
we're intending for the deceptive murderous life0cidal corepirate nazi execrable to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather'.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying
meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US;
gov. bush denies health care for the little ones
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html
whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven
(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on/.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece
consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?
He harnesses it's deadly power as a weapon against terrorists.
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?
Chuck Norris has already won and now owns Penguin. The string of fate flows through his third eye thus making him omnipotent. Any thought, action or desire is his simply by willing it. Chuck Norris will pile-drive you into a human fence post surrounding his expansive fortress in the north pole if you don't agree.
Really, income from this wave of Chuck Norris jokes is about all he's got left, give the man his cut from the book sales and move on.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
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.
Weird Al Yankovic makes money by parodying other artists. Probably no artist would be successful in sueing him, but usually they don't even think about it because he has decency of letting them know in advance of the parody and ask for their approval. There were exceptions, but those were not intentional. TFA doesn't go into details, but I'm guessing Chuck never knew about the book before its announcement.
Sueing is a bit extreme, but Spector deserves an earpull. He let his greed overcome his politeness.
you can sue Chuck Norris
Parent Moderation, 2007-12-23, 07:17 PST:
50% Troll
50% Informative
Note that the parent comment intended to express an opinion about how Chuck Norris tries to portray himself. So, it should have said, "... the way Chuck Norris wants you to think about him, and that entire model of what it means to be male, is stupid."
... is that this book is satire, and thus obviously protected as such, so there's no grounds for a lawsuit here.
Then I realized... it's not satire if it's all TRUE!
Well geez, Chuck Norris suing somebody pretty much destroys the tough guy image. I've read the online "facts" before and I'm pretty sure there aren't any that approach, "When Chuck Norris gets mad, he sues."
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.
... will be if he can go back in time and relive his life so that he does not end up a washed-up, litigious, witless never-was whose only real claim to fame was getting beaten up by Bruce Lee in a bad Bruce Lee movie.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Sorry, chucky boy.. but satire is considered fair use.
Be happy someone still cares enough to use your name, considering you are pretty much a has-been at this point.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
When Chuck Norris sues, he brings the verdict, not the charges.
Wouldn't this fall under the category of parody? I mean, all the publisher should have to do is put a disclaimer on the front to the effect of "This book is not affiliated with Chuck Norris." It should be clear to anyone reading those "facts" that they're not true. This should be thrown out of court, and Chuck should be laughed at. In fact, he's done a bit of parody of his internet fame himself--- that Huckabee ad ("How would I deal with terrorism? Two words- Chuck Norris) clearly exploits it. Go back to curing cancer, Walker Texas Ranger.
No portion of this post may be rebroadcast without the express, written consent of Major League Baseball.
Why doesn't he just go and kick their butts?? He is Chuck Norris after all.
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.
he never cries!!!
Ha! I've been saying it all along, and now it just proves that Chuck Norris is, in fact, a giant wuss. He's such a goddamned crybaby that he has to sue people making a satirical book about him.
Look for him to be shilling for ambulance chasers soon.
He did take it well.
Norris even cited the facts he likes best.
But they are not publishing the book as some joke, these are not a bunch of teens that happen to like Norris jokes and just give out copies of their collection.
It's a bunch of businessmen, that are about to make good money on the back of Norris and the people that wrote all those jokes.
My Starcraft 2 Blog
Isn't this kind of hypocritical since he allowed Mike Huckabee to take advantage of that same reputation using those same exact "Chuck Norris Facts" in one of his ad campaigns? Just search on youtube for chuck norris.
The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.
...he doesn't need lawyers. He's his own lawyer, defendant, and prosecutor.
The USPTO lists a number of trademarks owned by Mr Norris including:
Chuck Norris is... "The Fact"
Chuck Norris Facts
Chuck Norris Approved
Chuck Norris
He is as is required by trademark law, defending his trademark in order to prevent it becoming generic. He is concerned that his name is being attached to rascist versions of these jokes. It damages his mark to be assosiated with these unauthorised versions. A trademark is a sign of origin for a customer, he does not want customers to be confused at the origin of these unauthorised versions. All he has to do to win is prove that he did not authorise this book.
He's used the Chuck Norris jokes in an op-ed piece to further his christianist agenda: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52567
And he's appeared in a Mike Huckabee advertisement also involving the jokes.
IAAL. He's gonna lose.
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?
Part of the lawsuit distinguishes between legitimate satire and libel. First is the problem with the title:
The Truth About Chuck Norris: 400 facts about the World's Greatest Human
which is not clearly satire. Ditto for the site also in the suit: www.truthaboutchuck.com.
Alternatives that would have prevented this suit:
- 400 Things You Wish You Knew About Chuck
- 400 Chuck Norris Jokes
- The Norris 400
The problem is that they don't have the same punch as calling them "facts" which is because, of course they are not facts, which makes the title of the book and site misleading. It is a portrayal of the jokes as facts, not just for humor. Since that portrayal is intended for marketing, it crosses the line from satire into libel.Maybe it is legitimate satire, maybe it is libel, but it's in the realm of plausible that trying to sell the book by using a misleading title is in fact taking advantage of Chuck's likeness. Whether he wins the suit or not, Norris has a reasonable argument.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Chuck Norris movie fan, but I do think he is a decent guy trying to deal the hand he was dealt in a responsible way and for that I respect him.
Back in my day when we chiseled our bits into stone and sent them by mule train from village to village...
...Chuck Norris's law will suit YOU!
...may have something to do w/being kicked/punched/head-butted in the head/face/jaw/mouth thousands of times, over the last 40 years and that's not counting the bricks, floors, walls, doors and dashboards he has taken t' the face....?
...raw postscript.
...all international barcodes.
...two separate Morse code streams - one with each eye...while sending two separate Morse code streams, one with each eyelid, all at one time.
...palms with his tongue.
...minds with his palms.
...braille with the inside surfaces of his toes.
...smoke signals in the dark.
Or - he had that lisp when young and was teased about it and bullied - he eventually took self-defense lessons, which led to the current fame and fortune.
Chuck Norris can read:
He started going downhill when he announced his support for Mike Huckabee.
Maybe this is just a political move to rewrite "Chuck Norris facts" as actual facts, not comedy.
He's going for the death penalty.
In this case, the publisher is making *money* off of it. It's one thing to spout those off for fun on forums and the like, it's another to capitalize on it.
And I have seen at least one commercial recently where he actively participates in a sort of parody. So he isn't shy of the jokes, just doesn't want other people to profit off him without letting him in.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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.
...cut Chuck in for a good portion of the proceeds. Five to one says it settles out of court with just such an arrangement.If anyone should sue, it's NBC. Half of the "Chuck Norris" jokes are really "Bill Brasky" jokes - in fact the whole meme is a ripoff of those sketches from the late 90's.
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try."
...eats rocks and shits lightning bolts.
i've had just about enough of your vassar bashing.
He came out to our camp in Iraq and I was left with one impression.
Chuck Norris has soft hands.
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
Had they instead tried to release a book based on the
Bruce Schneier Facts, when they tried to print it they'd have discovered the text was encrypted.
Thanks for the laugh man
it wasn't long ago when chuck norris was ok with the chuck norris facts... he even rated a bunch... unless that's just hear say. but i guess he does have a point since they're going to make money from this... perhaps he is more pissed off that the community isnt going to benefit from it.
Why UNIX?
People should also be aware that Chuck Norris supports right-wing whacko Mike Huckabee.
So Chuck, just like other people (Ted Nugent, Charlton Heston, Ronald Reagan), becomes far less of an interesting character with the more you learn about them. Yeah, they may be famous, but they just happen to support a hate-based belief system.
It's very sad, actually. Sad that a person of such low moral character became famous, and can now use that fame to promote their whacky and stupid belief system.
Wait, Chuck Norris is a real person, noes ways!
Does US Weekly or The Enquirer need to pay Lindsay Lohan because they profit off selling articles and pictures of her breasts popping out of her shirt? Does the Onion need to pay Bush royalties because they make ad revenue through a readership that wants to read the latest fake Bushism?
No? Then put the lawsuit stick back in your pants, tough guy.
Chuck can have his roundhouse kicks. Bruce Schneier is the /. role model of choice.
http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/fact/921/
Here's a quote from 2005, from Chuck's own website on the "Chuck Norris Facts" phenomenon: "I'm aware of the made up declarations about me that have recently begun to appear on the Internet and in emails as "Chuck Norris facts." I've seen some of them. Some are funny. Some are pretty far out. Being more a student of the Wild West than the wild world of the Internet, I'm not quite sure what to make of it. It's quite surprising. I do know that boys will be boys, and I neither take offense nor take these things too seriously. Who knows, maybe these made up one-liners will prompt young people to seek out the real facts as found in my recent autobiographical book, "Against All Odds?" They may even be interested enough to check out my novels set in the Old West, "The Justice Riders," released this month. I'm very proud of these literary efforts." Here is Chuck reading a top ten list of the quotes, cracking up as he does so on "The Best Damn Sports Show Ever": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8QAeoFdM5g Maddox had an entire chapter in his book "The Alphabet of Manliness" dedicated to Chuck Norris related humor. Yet no lawsuit then. The site that created the phenomenon, http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/ has been selling shirts with his face on them for years, no lawsuit. I'm sorry, but this is a dick move, plain and simple. Chuck Norris has repeatedly and publicly stated he found the jokes funny. Now, when he's finding out that the fanbase who resurrected his career is mostly college age liberals and are none too thrilled with his endorsement of Huckabee, what does he do to line his pockets? Sue one of the people who brought his name back into the spotlight. If it wasn't for Chuck Norris facts, his pockets wouldn't be lined with Huckabee's money anyways.
Forgot to select "plain text". Here's the above post, properly formatted.
Here's a quote from 2005, from Chuck's own website on the "Chuck Norris Facts" phenomenon:
"I'm aware of the made up declarations about me that have recently begun to appear on the Internet and in emails as "Chuck Norris facts." I've seen some of them. Some are funny. Some are pretty far out. Being more a student of the Wild West than the wild world of the Internet, I'm not quite sure what to make of it. It's quite surprising. I do know that boys will be boys, and I neither take offense nor take these things too seriously. Who knows, maybe these made up one-liners will prompt young people to seek out the real facts as found in my recent autobiographical book, "Against All Odds?" They may even be interested enough to check out my novels set in the Old West, "The Justice Riders," released this month. I'm very proud of these literary efforts."
Here is Chuck reading a top ten list of the quotes, cracking up as he does so on "The Best Damn Sports Show Ever":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8QAeoFdM5g
Maddox had an entire chapter in his book "The Alphabet of Manliness" dedicated to Chuck Norris related humor. Yet no lawsuit then.
The site that created the phenomenon, http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/ has been selling shirts with his face on them for years, no lawsuit.
I'm sorry, but this is a dick move, plain and simple. Chuck Norris has repeatedly and publicly stated he found the jokes funny. Now, when he's finding out that the fanbase who resurrected his career is mostly college age liberals and are none too thrilled with his endorsement of Huckabee, what does he do to line his pockets? Sue one of the people who brought his name back into the spotlight. If it wasn't for Chuck Norris facts, his pockets wouldn't be lined with Huckabee's money anyways.
Chuck Norris Vs a Penguin ... now that would make great television
And in that fist, is a lawsuit.
If you cannot differentiate between someone their own trademark to profit and an unauthorized third-party using that trademark to profit without the permission of the holder, then you're not much of a lawyer.
But you *do* appear to have something against the "christianist agenda". Maybe you were claiming to be an attorney to make yourself look less like an intolerant hypocrite?
In Soviet Russia Chuck Norris overthrows the evil godless commies (by like kicking them and stuff, a lot) thus causing it to paradoxically not be Soviet any longer, but to be free.
So: with Chuck Norris, Russian reversal reverses Russia!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Or maybe you've got a hard-on for Ron "closet neo-Nazi" Paul? Talk about a "hate-based belief system"...
And where does "tear down this wall" fit into your fantasy "hate-based belief system"? If Ronald Reagan's philosophy was so hate-based, why then when that wall was torn down people streamed from East to West? If your pipe dreams of what's "hate-based" were true, the people would have streamed the other way.
If your pipe dreams were true, there wouldn't be an policy argument in the US right now about whether we need to keep people OUT.
So why don't you just shove that bo-bo chic Che Guevera t-shirt of yours up your ass so it can keep your two brains cells company?
If you really want to learn all about a "hate-based belief system", read the Koran. There's a reason why all those "infidel" hostages get beheaded, and it's in that book. You don't think Islam is hate-based? Why don't take a Koran and do with it what Andres Serrano did with a Crucifix. Then go to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia with it.
I'll bet you haven't got the balls to do that.
But boy, you can "speak truth to power" when you've got nothing at risk, can't you?
Calling you a dumbass would be an insult to intellectually-challenged donkeys.
Bruce Lee killed Chuck Norris before he died. This is common knowledge and I have the actual fight on video eh'.
... shut your mouth fool.
You've been making shit up about a ghost for years. That guy with the Pilates stuff cannot posssibly be Chuck. He was a mean mother
"... used that fame and fortune to help kids in many challenged walks of life."
Apparently you don't know that celebrities have publicists who find a "charitable" cause for photo shoots. Seeming charitable activity distracts people, easily, from the bad things celebrities do. Bill Gates uses this method.
Think about it, do you really think that Pamela Anderson is interested in charitable activities? P.A. graphs and calculations: If Pamela continues at her current rate of expansion, this is what she will look like by the year 2023.
Now my original post, Chuck Norris is dead..., is marked "(Score:-1, Flamebait)" People who live in fantasy worlds are easily manipulated.
in his films he seems to dish out summary violence to anybody he doesn't like. Which is in itself an illegal activity. Is he going to disown his previous films and make one where he just calls the police and lets the authorities deal with it?
I'm sorry, you just can't have it both ways.
The courts actually care that the law is used as intended. Using trademark law to do the job of patent law is a misuse of the law. The courts don't like that.
...
In this case, Chuck is trying to use trademark law to do the job that he can't do by suing for defamation. I predict that the court won't like that either.
Trademark law is intended to protect the public from confusion. The classic case is Apple. Apple music (the Beatles) sued Apple computers. The courts held that the public wouldn't be confused because Apple and Apple weren't in the same business. Apple (Beatles) was in the music business and Apple (computer) was in the computer business. No chance of consumer confusion at all
A trademark does not protect all uses of the trademark. If it did, nobody could report unflattering news about any companies. That clearly isn't the case.
As always, IANAL. If Chuck wins this one, it will significantly change the legal landscape. I don't think that's going to happen.
Here's how the conversation at the publisher must have gone:
"Hey, Jim, did you see this funny Chuck Norris shit on the internet?"
"Yeah Bob, I did, it's funny shit. Let's turn it into a book and sell it!"
"Awesome, it will be the best Chuck Norris book ever! Hey, do you think we should ask Chuck Norris if we can publish a Chuck Norris book?"
"Nah, fuck him, what's he gonna do?"
(sadly, these were the last words Jim and Bob ever spoke. Bob blinks that he's very, very sorry. The doctors think Jim is blinking too, but no-one wants to look into his arse to find out.)
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
-Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
-Chuck Norris has counted to infinity. Twice.
The fact that he sued or the fact that the book exists in the first place.
Seriously... who'd buy that?
No sig today...
He just stares at the screen. The internet won't dare not turn up, even if the screen isn't even powered. Or working.
Chuck sells his own apparel sporting Chuck Norris facts. Not only is this book using his image, it's cutting into business.
We really need that. The above post is plain stupid, sheer dumbness, not flame bait, not troll, just dang stupid.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Who the hell cares about Chuck Norris? What the hell is this doing on Slashdot? This is ridiculous.
Chuck Norris doesn't take the law into his own feet. He calls his lawyer.
s/sues/roundhouses/ s/sued/roundhoused/ Fixed
to make threads on the WoW forums demanding that a statue of Chuck Norris be erected at the centre of the Crossroads in the Barrens...I felt that it was only appropriate to commemorate Chuck's contributions to the culture of that zone, and WoW in general.
Blizzard deleted both threads, unanswered.
For shame, Blizz...you should know better.
Have you actually seen any of the "Chuck Norris Facts"? Here's one:
"Chuck Norris once visited the Virgin Islands. They are now called 'The Islands.'"
I mean, some are quite a bit more disgusting, sure. But how can anyone actually seriously think this is an effort to defame him?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Those stupid 'facts' were lame about 12 hours after the first one was ever posted.
Also Chuck Norris may have been the propular one but if I recall Vin Diesel was the original star these things were targeted at.
This is one of the most insightful comments made so far in this entire discussion.
Not to defend Norris -- I think he's overreacting here -- but the behavior described in the parent post is exactly the sort of thing that publishers (of books, music, etc.) pull all the time. Disney does it -- takes works that have been part of the public imagination for centuries (esp. fairy tales), stripmines them for ideas, and then sues the pants off anyone who tries to make derivative works out of their derivative works.
I'm not a big fan of overprotective legislation and litigation regarding intellectual property. But I'd love to see something happen (not sure what) that would make publishers think twice before trying to defend their own ripoffs from being ripped off.
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
Seriously. Wog? You arse.
Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
I soon see Bruce Schneier http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/ following suit (no pun intended)
LOL!
On Soviet aircraft carrier, pants are (ROFL) in your socks!
PLease! Don't knock Mr. Rogers- untl you've heard the truth!
...
TRUE STORY:
Never mind those fake stories about Lee Marvin and "Capt" Kangaroo! It's a little-known fact that Rock Hudson fought at Iwo Jima and was one of the guys in that famous photo of the Marines raising that flag on top of Mount Errobutt.
Rock is the Marine at the extreme left, pressing hard against the Marine in front of him.
As well, that's where Rock first met Jim Nabors, who was an instructor in hand-to-hand combat. Very few marines could go up against Nabors, and they quickly gave up once he growled "Now- your ass is MINE!"
They were known (privately) amongst themselves as the "Gay Battalion" and soon became notorious amongst the Japanese soldiers, who quickly decided they would rather fight to the death rather than be captured by these marines! It was only much later that the US High Command found out this true reason why the Japs fought to the death.
Hudson and Nabors were both awarded Red Hearts for their minor wounds received while in hand-to-hand combat with the terrified Japs. (Nabors apparently broke several fingernails)
"RED" Heart, you may ask?
Well, it was originally red. But Rock immediately demanded that the name of the medal be changed to the "Purple" heart, and the Generals wisely complied with his request, over the objections of the effete Lee Marvin and that cowardly private who later called himself "Captain" Kangaroo!
And we might add that more complaints also came from "Mr" Rogers, who always had some lame excuse for not being up at the front with Hudson and Nabors - E.G. "Golly kids, someone stole my flak jacket, and all I have is this warm sweater and some Pinoqachole to protect me!"
Trivia: Rock Hudson and Capt. Nabors were instrumental in getting Liberace to come to Iwo Jima, and later Okinawa, to entertain the exhausted marines with his deft keyboard style.
Liberace liked playing for the troops so much that he stayed for several months and got a job as cook in the Officer's mess, after punching out the original cook. The officers thereafter fondly referred to him as "The Cook Socker"
Noble lads all!
IF YOU LOVE THE U.S. MARINES, PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ANYONE WHO MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THE TRUE FACTS!
PARTICULARLY A MARINE!
(and don't believe any www.snopes.com articles that may attempt to refute this story of the TRUE heroes! )
Send this on if you please, nothing will happen to you if you dont; but will tell what a HERO that Rock Hudson is made of!
Chuck Norris allows parts of the Internet to deal with other topics, as long as they don't cross him.
All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
I had an incredible urge to backup every single Tux related file in my possession after hearing Chuck Norris was going after penguin.
It was my impression that people weren't using Chuck Norris Facts to expose, denounce, or deride vice or folly.
Using your own definition: yes, CNF are used to expose AND deride folly.It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Penguin should feel fortunate Norris is only suing them and not giving them a roundhouse kick to the face.
At present, the parent post is moderated:
50% Flamebait
30% Informative
20% Troll
Perhaps there should be a special way of treating moderation when there is substantial disagreement.
Trademark definitely has fair use.
http://www.publaw.com/fairusetrade.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(US_trademark_law)
-Daniel
Yes, there are exception to a persons "right of privacy" in regard to a "right of publicity". Most notable, are the exceptions to satire and parody. However, US courts recognize that this free speech protection must be balanced against intellectual property rights. So, there is a very strong argument that printing a book of jokes of this nature is essentially using his name and likeness purely for profit, and not satire and parody. I don't think that Chuck should be able to get the book yanked from the shelves, but he should get part of the royalties for the book.
So if we give Chuck stories/facts 2000 years to be passed around and he could become a prophet? Won't we need a new dark ages where most info is lost to have this happen?
...and the only command available is kill
The light turned green and .1 second later chuck had lapped all the other cars 499 times, paused and did a victory lap before he ran over and saved a kitten by roundhousing a tree in Canada.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
It starts with the "Right of privacy" law, Section 50 of the Civil Rights code:
Then goes on more in Section 51:
However, this section goes on with a large number of "nothing in this law" statements, including this one which could allow a fair use defense:In New York the law only applies to living persons. In California, the "Astaire Celebrity Image Protection Act" protects the use of an image for 70 years after the person's death. So, if Chuck were dead, but still suing (which of course Chuck could do), he'd have to do it in California.
The Hustler parody featured a picture of Falwell, and an "interview" in which "Falwell" describes his first sexual experience as occurring "with Mom" in an outhouse while both were "drunk off our God-fearing asses on Campari." In the spoof interview, "Falwell" goes on to say that he was so intoxicated that "Mom looked better than a Baptist whore with a $100 donation," that he decided to have sex with his mother since she had "showed all the other guys in town such a good time," and that they had intercourse regularly afterwards. Finally, when asked if he had tried Campari since, "Falwell" answered, "I always get sloshed before I go out to the pulpit. You don't think I could lay down all that bullshit sober, do you?"
This was accompanied by a disclaimer that it was a parody, and the US District Court of West Virginia found in favor of Hustler on the libel charge, but in favor of Falwell on the intentional infliction of emotional distress charge. The Supreme Court reversed the decision as they found that the lower court's decision "runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow damages to be awarded because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience." Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
Chuck Norris doesn't have a chance.
I encourage you to provide evidence that I am misrepresenting myself in some way.
Whereas an individual claiming to be a lawyer who demonstrates his lack of knowledge about all things legal is certainly questionable.