Family Guy "Charwoman" Parody Protected
The Central District of California dealt a heavy blow to Carol Burnett's challenge to the Family Guy's parody of Burnett's "Charwoman" character, dismissing her claims for copyright infringement and violations of the Lanham Act without leave to amend and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of her state law claims.
In an episode of the Family Guy entitled "Peterotica," the "family patriarch" entered a porn shop with friends, noting that the shop was cleaner than expected. In response, one of the friends explained that "Carol Burnett works part time as a janitor" and the scene shifted for less than five seconds to an animated figure resembling Burnett's "Charwoman" character mopping the floor next to some blow-up dolls, a rack of "XXX" movies and a curtained room with a sign above it reading "Video Booths." As the character mops, there was a "slightly altered version of Carol's Theme from The Carol Burnett Show" playing. The scene then switches back to the "patriarch" and his friends after which the friends make two remarks relating to Carol Burnett and her parents.
Carol Burnett then sued for copyright infringement, violation of the Lanham Act, violation of California's statutory right of publicity and common law misappropriation. In response, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss Burnett's claims, also bringing a motion to strike Burnett's state law claims under California's anti-SLAPP statute.
Although Judge Pregerson noted how "distasteful and offensive" the segment was to Carol Burnett, the Court had no difficulty concluding that the parody was protected fair use, which precluded both her copyright infringement and Lanham Act claims. The Court did not, however, rule on the defendant's motion to strike Burnett's state law claims, instead choosing to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims and therefore denying the motion to strike as moot.
In concluding its opinion, the Court offered some comments on its view of the broader import of the case:
In an episode of the Family Guy entitled "Peterotica," the "family patriarch" entered a porn shop with friends, noting that the shop was cleaner than expected. In response, one of the friends explained that "Carol Burnett works part time as a janitor" and the scene shifted for less than five seconds to an animated figure resembling Burnett's "Charwoman" character mopping the floor next to some blow-up dolls, a rack of "XXX" movies and a curtained room with a sign above it reading "Video Booths." As the character mops, there was a "slightly altered version of Carol's Theme from The Carol Burnett Show" playing. The scene then switches back to the "patriarch" and his friends after which the friends make two remarks relating to Carol Burnett and her parents.
Carol Burnett then sued for copyright infringement, violation of the Lanham Act, violation of California's statutory right of publicity and common law misappropriation. In response, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss Burnett's claims, also bringing a motion to strike Burnett's state law claims under California's anti-SLAPP statute.
Although Judge Pregerson noted how "distasteful and offensive" the segment was to Carol Burnett, the Court had no difficulty concluding that the parody was protected fair use, which precluded both her copyright infringement and Lanham Act claims. The Court did not, however, rule on the defendant's motion to strike Burnett's state law claims, instead choosing to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims and therefore denying the motion to strike as moot.
In concluding its opinion, the Court offered some comments on its view of the broader import of the case:
To some extent this dispute is indicative of just how far the "new media" has come from the "old media." The old media harkens back to days when crude jokes and insensitive, often mean spirited, programing was perhaps found in live night club performances but was not present on television. In the new media, any self imposed restraint essentially has been eliminated. Public figures, such as Ms. Burnett, are frequent targets of parodies and crude innuendo. As Ms. Burnett well knows, it takes far more creative talent to create a character such as the "Charwoman" than to use such characters in a crude parody. Perhaps Ms. Burnett can take some solace in that fact.
However, the law, as it must in an open society, provides broad protection for the defendant's segment.
