The Interested Observer

Jokes on the animated sitcom “The Family Guy” ususally go by so fast, only the most astute student of pop culture can catch them all. Well, make that astute students of pop culture and Carol Burnett’s lawyers.

Burnett, a comedic icon has had amazing career that includes her own hit 1970s self-titled TV show. Boomer readers will remember Burnett’s hilarious send-ups of “Gone with the Wind” and “Sunset Boulevard.” She also did a skit of a charwoman in blue cap with a mop and pail. She feels that the charwoman image so represents her that she owns the copyright and trademark rights to the image as well as the theme music from her TV show.
In just one episode of “The Family Guy” a quick homage to Ms. Burnett and her charwoman character and a variation on her theme music (also protected by copyright) is dropped in as Peter and his entourage visit and adult video store. I don’t have a stop watch but the reference can’t last more than 20 seconds. Maybe.

The clip and the accompanying complaint are on the The Smoking Gun Web site.

Burnett alleges that to an ordinary viewer, these 18 seconds — of one of the many throwaway references that makes “Family Guy” so unique is a violation of Section 1125 of the Lanham Act, alleging copyright infringement and trademark dilution, among other things. Her claim maintaints viewers of this particular episode will cause consumer confusion and lead innocent viewers to think that Carol Burnett has some sort of relationship or has given her charwoman’s seal of approval to the Fox sitcom. As a result of this, apparently those who are familiar with Ms. Burnett’s work will now think less of her and more importantly think less of her work.

You think? I mean honestly?

Granted, it’s not the most tasetful reference, but c’mon people. This is the definition of trademark fair use. I wouldn’t even want to hazzard a guess as to the number of people who would shoot their dogs (but not Brian!) to have themselves referenced on “The Family Guy.” Given the show’s demographic, Ms. Burnett’s name and mark may have become familiar to several new generations of viewers. “Family Guy” and Fox may have done more good than harm.

So why the suit? Tastelessness, particularly on “Family Guy” is incredibly subjective and the brief nod to Ms. Burnett (in an adult video store) may have just insulted her personally. As she says in her complaint, perhaps, consumers will really be confused and think Ms. Burnett has some sort of “blue” reputation and will leave viewers unfamiliar with her work with an impression of her that she believes (correctly,I think) is misleading.

Still, her claims sound a little hollow, shrill and dare I say it , humorless. As studio spokesman Chris Alexander told the San Francisco Chronicle “We are surprised that Ms. Burnett, who has made a career of spoofing others on television, would go so far as to sue ‘Family Guy’ for a simple bit of comedy.”

Out of idle curiosity, I decided to google preform a Google search for Dr. Hawkes Schmoll who just wrote to tell me, I ‘ve won that big Micro Soft contest you’ve heard so much about. Here’s what I found:

Something quite amusing — a thread from all my fellow prize winners of Great Brittain pounds.

And

This Lottery Fraud website, that appears to be tracking scammer e-mail addresses and talks briefly about Microsoft being barraged with complaints from lucky spam recipients (or perhaps in some cases, not so lucky ones) who contact MSFT and accuse them of running criminal websites. Interesting.

I used to work for a guy who once said, “if it’s not on the internet then it doesn’t exist.” And sometimes, I think Marc was right A lot of the time, actually.

As most of you know by now, and has been confirmed by The Hollywood Reporter, Esq. (isn’t that a great name?) The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has asked YouTube to take down all the clips from the Oscar Telecast a few Sundays ago, citing copyright issues.

But not in Spanish, apparently.

The Academy, in its wisdom [sic], scrubbed Jerry Seinfeld’s hilarious introduction to the Best Documentary Film Category which includes a cool riff on movie theatre etiquette. However, a version dubbed in Spanish, survives. But if you’re Spanish isn’t that great you can hear Jerry in English under the voice over.

The Academy may be legally correct in demanding the take-downs, but it’s just so old school. Couldn’t the Academy 1) anticipated this was going to happen ( I mean come on people — Jennifer Hudson and Beyonce singing live, Martin Scorcese finally winning an Oscar, Al Gore — America has TiVo and by gosh they are going to use it); 2) Provided their own clips, which they could have teased for weeks on the site 3) Directed viewers to the ABC or perhaps the Academy Web site to see officially sanctioned highlights. If you can watch Grey’s Anatomy and Ugly Betty on the ABC site, why not some Oscar highlights. And you get to make money from interstitial adversiting, fellas. Oh wait! There are some clips from the Oscars on Oscar.com, but they are you know … lame. And Go Fug Yourself has Oscar fashion complete with the snarky comments we were all saying at home … only you know .. funnier.

Oscar missed a — pardon the expression — golden opportunity– on both its own Web site and on YouTube to provide a second look the actual highlights from the show: the the watercooler clips, like Jerry, Jennifer, Marty and Al. Like it or not, media companies like Viacom and the Motion Picture Academy are going to have to develop media plans that include distributing, relevant clips to the Web, or rent another floor for their soon to be exploding legal department.

Oh, and if you hurry — you can still catch the Scorsese acceptance speech and the Dreamgirls medley. I’m listening to them right this second.