Family Guy Sued Again
Music Publisher Bourne Inc. Sues for When You Wish Upon a Star Spoof
Oct 4, 2007
Music publisher Bourne Inc. is suing the Twentieth Century Fox television series Family Guy for copyright infringement, claiming it took the classic song "When You Wish Upon a Star" and turned it into an anti-Semitic anthem.
According to BCDb, Bourne Co., the original song's sole copyright owner, is seeking unspecified damages against Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., Fox Broadcasting Co., the Cartoon Network and several others. The music publisher filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court in Manhattan.
"With its theme of wholesome hopefulness, the song has gained worldwide status as a classic," Bourne Inc. claimed in its lawsuit. "By associating Bourne's song with such offensive lyrics and other content in the episode, defendants are harming the value of the song."
When You Wish Upon a Weinstein: Anti-Semitic?
Family Guy's producers inserted the musical parody, retitled "I Need a Jew" into the episode "When You Wish Upon a Weinstein," originally intended to air in 2000. Peter Griffin, the show's protagonist, tries to make his son Chris Jewish in the hope that he can get smarter and help Peter with the family finances.
Bourne Inc. alleged that "I Need a Jew" as a thinly veiled copy of the music from "When You Wish Upon a Star," with new, anti-Semitic lyrics.
Fox originally passed on "When You Wish Upon a Weinstein," but The Cartoon Network's Adult Swim eventually aired the episode on November 10, 2003. The episode has since made it onto home video compilations for Family Guy.
"When You Wish Upon a Star" was originally written by Leigh Harline, with lyrics by Ned Washington, and first appeared in the 1940 Disney animated movie Pinocchio. The ballad went on to win the 1941 Oscar for Best Original Song, and has since been covered by over 100 artists and orchestras.
Family Guy Has Legal Precedent: 2 Live Crew's Pretty Woman
Unfortunately for Bourne Inc., legal precedent (otherwise known as previous decisions on similar trials) is heavily weighted against them.
The 1994 Supreme Court decision in Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose Music Inc. ruled that rap group 2 Live Crew's lewd parody of Roy Orbison's 'Pretty Woman' did not infringe upon Acuff-Rose's copyright of the song, saying that parody comes under what's known as the "fair use" exception to copyright infringement.
"Even if 2 Live Crew's copying of the original's first line of lyrics and characteristic opening bass riff may be said to go to the original's 'heart,' that heart is what most readily conjures up the song for parody, and it is the heart at which parody takes aim."
Precedent#2: Hustler versus Rev. Jerry Falwell
A more notorious case, 1988's Hustler vs. Falwell, reached a similar decision. In a spoof of Italian spirit manufacturer Campari's then-campaign, the pornographic magazine depicted the late Moral Majority leader talking about having sexual relations with his mother in an outhouse.
The parody also claimed that the Reverend Falwell drank plenty of Campari because "I always get sloshed before I go out to the pulpit. You don’t think I could lay down all that b******t sober, do you?"
The Supreme Court eventually ruled against Falwell, saying in its decision "(It) is clear that respondent Falwell is a "public figure" for purposes of First Amendment law. 5 The jury found against respondent on his libel claim when it decided that the Hustler ad parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [respondent] or actual events in which [he] participated." App. to Pet. for Cert. C1. The Court of Appeals interpreted the jury's finding to be that the ad parody "was not reasonably believable," 797 F.2d, at 1278, and in accordance with our custom we accept this finding.
"Respondent is thus relegated to his claim for damages awarded by the jury for the intentional infliction of emotional distress by "outrageous" conduct. But for reasons heretofore stated this claim cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages when the conduct in question is the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody involved here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly Reversed."
Precedent#3: Family Guy versus Carol Burnett
Earlier this year, comedy legend Carol Burnett's $2 million lawsuit against Family Guy was thrown out by Los Angeles federal court judge Dean Pregerson. The show's creators had used her likeness and a variation on her theme song in an episode ("Peterotica") that depicted her working in a porn shop. Burnett had previously turned down a request by the show's producers to use her likeness and song in an episode.
 |
