Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Chuck Norris Sues Publisher, Tears Don't Cure Cancer

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sun Dec 23, 2007 09:03 AM
from the but-he-does-cry-a-lot dept.
It's funny. Laugh.
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Chuck Norris sues, says his tears no cancer cure by Google85 (797021)
[+] Idle: Chuck Norris Backs Down On Lawsuit 76 comments
DeathElk writes "Perhaps Chuck Norris has found a soft spot. He just dropped a lawsuit against university student Ian Spector and Spector's publisher, Penguin Group Ltd. Spector had previously penned a compilation of well known 'Facts' about Chuck Norris. We discussed the suit when it was filed last year."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Chuck Norris Sues Publisher, Tears Don't Cure Cancer 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • I'll try to get first post... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ergean (582285) on Sunday December 23 2007, @09:05AM (#21797494) Journal
    but Chuck Norris is already there.

    • Re:I'll try to get first post... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Soporific (595477) on Sunday December 23 2007, @09:11AM (#21797536)
      Well, if you can't see him you may actually only be moments away from death!

      ~S

        • Let the real Chuck Norris stand up! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mangu (126918) on Sunday December 23 2007, @09:59AM (#21797834)

          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 [wikipedia.org] 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?



          • 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? :)

          • Re:Let the real Chuck Norris stand up! (Score:4, Informative)

            by JThundley (631154) on Sunday December 23 2007, @05:26PM (#21800798) Homepage
            Another preconceived image of Chuck Norris that people don't see is that of a bible-thumping douchebag. He's afraid that the U.S. government is going to outlaw Christianity [wnd.com], while he believes that the bible *needs* to be tought in public school. He wouldn't create that same secular school program today, it'd be a bible class. listen [thepiratebay.org] to what I'm talking about.

  • Good luck with that... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PhearoX (1187921) on Sunday December 23 2007, @09:11AM (#21797532)
    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.

    • Re:Good luck with that... (Score:5, Funny)

      by xtracto (837672) on Sunday December 23 2007, @09:13AM (#21797550) Journal
      by PhearoX (1187921) Alter Relationship on 09:11 AM December 23rd, 2007
      Chuck is a fool to file suit unless this book reaches the point of slander.

      Please, we should observe a minute of silence for Mr. PhearoX. As, calling Chuck Norris a fool was his last action in this world.

      RIP
    • "Chuck Norris doesn't bend for the law, the law bends for Chuck"?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by muindaur (925372)
      Right about the satire but he does have a valid case if you read the article. They are still using his name and likeness without his permission: even though the book is satirical and they can get out of a defamation suit there is still the matter of his image.

      • Re:Good luck with that... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by The Only Druid (587299) on Sunday December 23 2007, @10:00AM (#21797838)
        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.

    • Except this ain't about satire (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Sunday December 23 2007, @10:36AM (#21798064) Journal

      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.

    • Re:Good luck with that... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Perl-Pusher (555592) on Sunday December 23 2007, @11:37AM (#21798442)
      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.

    • It isn't about the satire. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rantingkitten (938138) <kitten&mirrorshades,org> on Sunday December 23 2007, @12:59PM (#21798968) Homepage
      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

  • It's satire at worst (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 23 2007, @09:18AM (#21797588)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire [wikipedia.org]

    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.

  • Why He Might Win The Suit (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MichaelCrawford (610140) on Sunday December 23 2007, @09:28AM (#21797650) Homepage Journal
    While it's true that parody is fair use, fair use only applies to copyright, not to trademarks.

    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hey! (33014)
      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

  • Chuck Norris... (Score:5, Funny)

    by djupedal (584558) on Sunday December 23 2007, @09:34AM (#21797678)
    ...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.

  • Come On Guys... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hangtime (19526) on Sunday December 23 2007, @09:35AM (#21797686) Homepage
    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.

    • I agree... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DG (989) on Sunday December 23 2007, @10:35AM (#21798054) Homepage Journal
      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

  • The sad thing.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by edwardpickman (965122) on Sunday December 23 2007, @10:04AM (#21797876)
    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.

  • Another aggregator gets rich off our input (Score:5, Insightful)

    by svunt (916464) on Sunday December 23 2007, @10:28AM (#21798022) Homepage Journal
    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....

  • Case closed! (Score:5, Funny)

    by quick2think (833211) on Sunday December 23 2007, @10:49AM (#21798134)
    When Chuck Norris sues, he brings the verdict, not the charges.

  • Good choice Penguin (Score:5, Funny)

    by greg1104 (461138) <gsmith@gregsmith.com> on Sunday December 23 2007, @01:21PM (#21799096) Homepage
    Had they instead tried to release a book based on the
    Bruce Schneier Facts [geekz.co.uk], when they tried to print it they'd have discovered the text was encrypted.

  • Chuck Norris is a Wuss (Score:4, Funny)

    by wk633 (442820) on Sunday December 23 2007, @01:48PM (#21799276)
    Chuck can have his roundhouse kicks. Bruce Schneier is the /. role model of choice.

    http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/fact/921/ [geekz.co.uk]

  • How the conversation must have gone... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Cervantes (612861) on Sunday December 23 2007, @04:40PM (#21800478) Journal
    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.)

  • This is "news that matters"? (Score:4)

    by sgage (109086) on Sunday December 23 2007, @09:46PM (#21802376)
    Who the hell cares about Chuck Norris? What the hell is this doing on Slashdot? This is ridiculous.

    • Re:Idiotic (Score:5, Informative)

      by sammy baby (14909) on Sunday December 23 2007, @09:31AM (#21797666) Journal

      "Famous name"? Please. Chuck Norris did a cheesy 90s television show and some bad Kung Fu movies. 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.


      Okay, not like I really feel like defending the guy, but be a little fair. When Norris retired from competitive karate tournaments, it was with a record of 65-5, which isn't precisely anything to sneer at. Also, whatever your opinion of kung fu flicks in general, I think you'd have to concede that "Return of the Dragon" is a pretty important piece of the genre, even if Norris only played the heavy in it.

      Pity he's such an ass.

      • Re:Idiotic (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ruel24 (621961) on Sunday December 23 2007, @10:45AM (#21798112)
        I actually met and attended a seminar of one of those that did defeat him, Vic Moore (a seriously tough dude!). I was actually a student of John Jelks and George Davis, who were Vic Moore's second and first black belt students, respectively.

        http://victormoore.org/

        I also met Chuck Norris, as a child, at the USKA Grand Nationals back in the 1970's. He was a very nice guy. I don't understand the hatred for the guy. He's never bragged about himself in public the way that Steven Segal has, and he's lived up to everything he's about. He actually was a great champion during his competitive days, and thus struck a bond with Bruce Lee and was featured in one of his films as a result. What's to dislike about him?

    • Re:Idiotic (Score:4, Funny)

      by childprey (1054198) <pikaporeon@gmail.com> on Sunday December 23 2007, @09:39AM (#21797720)
      Personally I'd be happier if he remained famous for being the guy who got his ass kicked by Bruce Lee

    • Re:Idiotic (Score:4, Informative)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Sunday December 23 2007, @09:41AM (#21797734) Journal

      So then why the hell does he
      Uhhh... who said that is his website?
      His official website is http://www.chucknorris.com/ [chucknorris.com]

    • Re:Idiotic (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AftanGustur (7715) on Sunday December 23 2007, @10:04AM (#21797878) Homepage
      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.

    • Re:Idiotic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zakezuke (229119) on Sunday December 23 2007, @10:24AM (#21797988)

      "Famous name"? Please. Chuck Norris did a cheesy 90s television show and some bad Kung Fu movies.
      IANACNF (I'm not a Chuck Norris [imdb.com] 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.

    • Re:A matter of courtesy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by budgenator (254554) on Sunday December 23 2007, @11:36AM (#21798434) Journal

      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.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.