Chuck Norris Sues Publisher, Tears Don't Cure Cancer 374
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."
Good luck with that... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Let Mr. Norris be aware of this... (Score:1, Insightful)
Come On Guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let the real Chuck Norris stand up! (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [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."
The same article says "He also created
How does that fit with your own preconceived image of Chuck Norris?
Re:Good luck with that... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The sad thing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Idiotic (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Why He Might Win The Suit (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Idiotic (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Another aggregator gets rich off our input (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree... (Score:4, Insightful)
If that is the case, I'm behind him 100%.
Not that Chuck needs my support...
DG
Except this ain't about satire (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.
his tears tears no cancer cure (Score:3, Insightful)
I was reading up on the gent IMDB [imdb.com] 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.
Re:Except this ain't about satire (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not software. It's the equivalent of a collection of blonde jokes.
This seems to be a publisher wanting to make a quick buck of someone elses work using someone elses reputation.
What's wrong with making money, quickly or otherwise? Besides, it's good and healthy for a putatively egalitarian society to make fun of famous people at every oportunity.
Re:A matter of courtesy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good luck with that... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is where satire ends and defamation begins. I believe I will trust the courts decision over slashdot posts.
Profiting from someones name (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't about the satire. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good luck with that... (Score:3, Insightful)
They're using his name and likeness for profit, the fact that they are also using humor doesn't make a difference, IMHO, IANAL, BYOB.
Re:Bill Brasky! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let the real Chuck Norris stand up! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:You have been fooled by publicists. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:It isn't about the satire. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A matter of courtesy (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:You have been fooled by publicists. (Score:3, Insightful)