Chuck Norris sues, says his tears no cancer cure

[hawk4669]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071222/...ris_lawsuit_dc

Sorry if this has been posted already. Thought it was both funny and a bit sad. Given this board's history with Chuck...I thought it appropriate.

Cheers!

[DeToxRox]

I'd sue too if I were him. Those are the most retarded things EVER to gain fame on the internet. Even worse then Dane Cook.

[Raiders Army]

Aw, c'mon. I can see suing the company for using his name to make a buck. I can't see him suing because people might believe them. If you believe all of the Chuck sayings....jeez.

[EagleFan]

It's overused, it's not funny but it's not something so sue over.

[ISiddiqui]

He should sue. He deserves some money for this.

[DeToxRox]

I want to form a class action suit against anyone who still makes these or tells me these stupid things like I haven't heard them before

OMGZ Didju knowz Chuck Norris didn't play little league baseballz? He went straightz to the Hallz of Famez!

[Chief Rum]

Public figure. This is satire. No reasonable person would believe this is true.

So this suit isn't going anywhere.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Public figure. This is satire. No reasonable person would believe this is true.

So this suit isn't going anywhere.

It's not that simple if they're making money off of it. It sounds like he's suing over a book they were selling, which will set the bar higher than if they had kept them on a free web site.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

It's not that simple if they're making money off of it. It sounds like he's suing over a book they were selling, which will set the bar higher than if they had kept them on a free web site.

Not quite. They are making money off of original material they came up with. He is a public figure, and therefore can be satirized (much like political figures; guess how much luck W would have stopping all of the "misquote Bushism" books that have sprung up; yup, nada). He can make no claim to the material being published, and they are free to use his name because he has chosen to make himself a public figure.

Now, the sticky point is if his reputation is actually hurt by the material, and if he suffers a quantifiable monetary loss. I think it will be extremely difficult for him to prove that. Does the material denigrate him in anyway? No, in fact, it makes him out to be superhuman (in satirical form). Considering that's how his characters have more or less been portrayed (as supreme, uinstoppable tough guys), that won't result in him getting less jobs. I would also argue it helps him, because he isn't doing much now, last I checked, so if he's interested in doing something more than infomercials, these products will certainly raise his profile and keep his name in the public.

If satire of public figures was not a protected form of speech and press, we would have far less comedy in the world than we do.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Not quite. They are making money off of original material they came up with. He is a public figure, and therefore can be satirized (much like political figures; guess how much luck W would have stopping all of the "misquote Bushism" books that have sprung up; yup, nada). He can make no claim to the material being published, and they are free to use his name because he has chosen to make himself a public figure.

Now, the sticky point is if his reputation is actually hurt by the material, and if he suffers a quantifiable monetary loss. I think it will be extremely difficult for him to prove that. Does the material denigrate him in anyway? No, in fact, it makes him out to be superhuman (in satirical form). Considering that's how his characters have more or less been portrayed (as supreme, uinstoppable tough guys), that won't result in him getting less jobs. I would also argue it helps him, because he isn't doing much now, last I checked, so if he's interested in doing something more than infomercials, these products will certainly raise his profile and keep his name in the public.

If satire of public figures was not a protected form of speech and press, we would have far less comedy in the world than we do.

I'd say his reputation has been hurt by it. He's associated with the stupidest fucking thing to come off the internet in a long time.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

I'd say his reputation has been hurt by it. He's associated with the stupidest fucking thing to come off the internet in a long time.

lmao. To each their own.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

I'd say his reputation has been hurt by it. He's associated with the stupidest fucking thing to come off the internet in a long time.

How? All it has done is given him much more publicity than he is even due.

[Rizon]

Chuck shouldn't sue. He should kick people's heads off.

[14ers]

Why all the hate? Let me guess, you review would start something like this... "I haven't read this book but"

If my Local Barnes & Noble has this book my Dad is getting another christmas present.


Love the reviews from Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Ch...8407607&sr=8-1


From the book description.

This death-defying volume includes such awe-inspiring observations as:
• A cobra once bit Chuck Norris’s leg. After five days of excruciating pain, the cobra died.
• Chuck Norris can charge a cell phone by rubbing it against his beard.
• When an episode of “Walker, Texas Ranger” aired in France, the French surrendered to Chuck Norris just to be on the safe side.
• Chuck Norris was the first person to tame a dinosaur.
• Chuck Norris once visited The Virgin Islands. Afterward, they were renamed The Islands.

• Every piece of furniture in Chuck Norris’s house is a Total Gym.

[Draft Dodger]

his real name is Carlos? that's even more badass than Chuck.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Public figure. This is satire. No reasonable person would believe this is true.

So this suit isn't going anywhere.

Winner. Plus, satire is protected by the 1st amendment, so he can sue all he wants, he ain't gonna win.

[CU Tiger]

They have the legal right to satirize him; he has the legal right to compensation for monetary gains realized from his name.


He trademarked the name Chuck Norris in 1987....

[Maple Leafs]

I don't think people understand that "satire" is a specific type of humor, and the courts view it that way. Anything that's intended to make people laugh is not necessarily satire, and it's not a magic word that defends you in any sort of IP case as long as there's some element of humor.

If Chuck Norris was in the habit of publishing serious "Chuck facts" about himself then this would be a pretty straighforward satire case. But it's not that simple. You could still argue that they're satirizing the tough guy character he's created around himself, but that's a bigger stretch.

People here seem to think it's a slam dunk as long as they shout "satire". It doesn't work that way.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I don't think people understand that "satire" is a specific type of humor, and the courts view it that way. Anything that's intended to make people laugh is not necessarily satire, and it's not a magic word that defends you in any sort of IP case as long as there's some element of humor.

If Chuck Norris was in the habit of publishing serious "Chuck facts" about himself then this would be a pretty straighforward satire case. But it's not that simple. You could still argue that they're satirizing the tough guy character he's created around himself, but that's a bigger stretch.

People here seem to think it's a slam dunk as long as they shout "satire". It doesn't work that way.

Don't get carried away with my use of the term satire. I am not referring to the specific or legal definition, but just choosing the most commonly used word for such public commercial comedic efforts.

Fact is, Chuck's a public figure and can be made fun of, even for money.

CU's point that he trademarked his name (which I didn't know) is the most legit point I have yet heard. In that case, he is eligible for compensation for the book's use of his name, and should receive some healthy royalties.

He still will have absolutely no right to stop it from being published.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I don't think people understand that "satire" is a specific type of humor, and the courts view it that way. Anything that's intended to make people laugh is not necessarily satire, and it's not a magic word that defends you in any sort of IP case as long as there's some element of humor.

If Chuck Norris was in the habit of publishing serious "Chuck facts" about himself then this would be a pretty straighforward satire case. But it's not that simple. You could still argue that they're satirizing the tough guy character he's created around himself, but that's a bigger stretch.

People here seem to think it's a slam dunk as long as they shout "satire". It doesn't work that way.

In all seriousness, have a crash course or cliffs notes version of the distinction?

SI

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

I'd say his reputation has been hurt by it. He's associated with the stupidest fucking thing to come off the internet in a long time.

I don't know about hurt by it, but stupidest fucking thing to circulate the Internet?

Yeah, that's definitely true.

[Vince]

From the article posted -- " "Some of the 'facts' in the book are racist, lewd or portray Mr. Norris as engaged in illegal activities," the lawsuit alleges."

Wouldn't that be enough to sue, 1st amendment or not? Serious question...I'm about as well-versed in law as I am Russian Dialects.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Vince

From the article posted -- " "Some of the 'facts' in the book are racist, lewd or portray Mr. Norris as engaged in illegal activities," the lawsuit alleges."

Wouldn't that be enough to sue, 1st amendment or not? Serious question...I'm about as well-versed in law as I am Russian Dialects.

Not at all. It would still have to be considered something that the average person would believe, and even then it's still going to be a tough case because of his public status, since he has the forum to refute any hurtful accusations. The infamous Hustler ad that made the claim that Jerry Falwell had sex with his mother was considered protected speech, and none of this is any worse than that.

What really bugs me, and I assume the opposing lawyer might mention this, is Chuck himself is using this running joke in a campaign commercial for Mike Huckabee.

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

What really bugs me, and I assume the opposing lawyer might mention this, is Chuck himself is using this running joke in a campaign commercial for Mike Huckabee.

He's using the joke where he punched a nun in the vagina and Jesus was conceived? I doubt that.

Wait, maybe it's the one from where Mr. T once beat up Chuck Norris and in retaliation, Chuck Norris founded the KKK. Wait, maybe that's a different running joke.

The book is much more profane than your typical "Barrens chat" Chuck Norris joke. One big problem with using the Hustler defense against the book is that, well, it's not in Hustler. Chuck Norris has put significant investment into producing a line of inspirational (read:Christian) novels and books. When Grandma from Texarkana goes to the Wal-Mart and sees the new Chuck Norris book at the cashwrap, there is a prior expectation from published work Norris has been associated with that Chuck Norris book = wholesome family entertainment.

By contrast, the Hustler piece was sold in brown paper bags behind the counter in a pornographic periodical that had made a reputation based in part on vulgar humor mocking public figures. Having sold the Chuck Norris book in question, there is no doubt in my mind that a reasonable consumer of Norris' previous work in the past might reasonably conclude that the book in question was endorsed by Norris.

[digamma]

From what I can tell from the article, this isn't a defamation or slander suit, which is where the satire laws would come in, but rather a misappropriation or right of publicity suit. Think video games using images or likenesses of players. It seems somewhat muddled because there are quotes in the article about people thinking the "facts" are true, that also can be used in more of the branding context.

[14ers]

Originally Posted by digamma

From what I can tell from the article, this isn't a defamation or slander suit, which is where the satire laws would come in, but rather a misappropriation or right of publicity suit. Think video games using images or likenesses of players. It seems somewhat muddled because there are quotes in the article about people thinking the "facts" are true, that also can be used in more of the branding context.

Think skit on Saturday Night Live or Conan O'Brien. Was that really Dr. Phil on the Frank TV running around scarring little children?

So, are there people out there who believe " Every piece of furniture in Chuck Norris’s house is a Total Gym"?

I bought my book in the Fiction section. Is anyone marketing this book as NON-Fiction?

[digamma]

Saturday Night Live isn't going out and marketing itself based on the targets of its skits. It markets itself on the actors, the guest hosts, musical guests, etc.

Again, fiction/non-fiction is, for the most part, irrelevant. The issue is the image of Chuck Norris being used to sell products. Someone could reasonably infer that he was associated with the product. As a matter of law, you generally have the right to control your likeness and how it is used in a commercial manner.

[digamma]

Another example...Tom Brady sued Yahoo last year for using his image on their Fantasy Football ads. That is what this suit is about--not defamation/slander etc.

(I am not making any judgment on the merits of the suit, just trying to put out there what the issues are/will be.)

[CU Tiger]

Aside from digamma's poiints and my previous copyright issue,

Satire is a literary work by an author that also pokes fun at a
person, practice or society. But there is more to the work. There is a story
a plot line etc, this iss nohing but a collection of Chuck Norris lines. In other words he is the entire content.

yeah Id say he is due a royalty fee

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by digamma

Saturday Night Live isn't going out and marketing itself based on the targets of its skits. It markets itself on the actors, the guest hosts, musical guests, etc.

Again, fiction/non-fiction is, for the most part, irrelevant. The issue is the image of Chuck Norris being used to sell products. Someone could reasonably infer that he was associated with the product. As a matter of law, you generally have the right to control your likeness and how it is used in a commercial manner.

What about all the political attack (or even praise) books of Hillary, Bush, etc. that have pictures of the subject on the cover? How does that differ from this case?

Also, now looking at the cover of that book, I don't see anyone could think it is anything but comical. The pictures are cartoonish and Chuck is crushing the Earth in his hands while stomping on a dinosaur and a hot babe holding on to his leg. The author's name is pretty clearly printed on the cover. I honestly don't see how anyone could think he had any involvement in the book. I certainly didn't think Bill O' Reilly wrote Lies and Lying Liars.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Aside from digamma's poiints and my previous copyright issue,

Satire is a literary work by an author that also pokes fun at a
person, practice or society. But there is more to the work. There is a story
a plot line etc, this iss nohing but a collection of Chuck Norris lines. In other words he is the entire content.

yeah Id say he is due a royalty fee

Bush is sure due alot for the Bushisms calendars and books. Quayle should be a billionaire.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

I'd say his reputation has been hurt by it. He's associated with the stupidest fucking thing to come off the internet in a long time.

I'd say it's the only reason he's even a public figure in the eye of anyone under 30 years of age.

Does anybody believe for a minute that if not for the jokes that he would have a soft drink commercial right now? Seems to me that he's profiting from the jokes as much as anyone.

[watravaler]

What a douche, same goes for Tom Brady...

Whatever floats their extra large boat...

[digamma]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

What about all the political attack (or even praise) books of Hillary, Bush, etc. that have pictures of the subject on the cover? How does that differ from this case?

Also, now looking at the cover of that book, I don't see anyone could think it is anything but comical. The pictures are cartoonish and Chuck is crushing the Earth in his hands while stomping on a dinosaur and a hot babe holding on to his leg. The author's name is pretty clearly printed on the cover. I honestly don't see how anyone could think he had any involvement in the book. I certainly didn't think Bill O' Reilly wrote Lies and Lying Liars.

I think they'd rely on two things--one a difference between editorial vs. commercial content and that a politician is more readily a "public figure" than a movie actor (Bear Bryan/Wally Butts case notwithstanding). But, I think a politician probably could sue--but would have a tougher time winning. I think Jesse Ventura tried to stop a Christopher Buckley novel a while back.

I haven't seen the cover, but if it is more clearly a parody, then that certainly makes Norris's case harder--pushes it towards the editorial content side of things.