On March 15 of last year, Family Guy was sued by Carol Burnett for the use of Carol’s cartoon likeness as a janitor in an adult book store. Not stopping at the link between Carol and an adult book store, Family guy took the time to have its Quagmire character make a comment about Burnett’s signature ear tug. The clip of this controversial segment and complaint filed by Carol can be seen here.
On the following June 4th, U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson ruled that the segment represented speech protected by the First Amendment. Burnett’s $2 million lawsuit was thrown out and the creators of Family Guy scored a victory. See the full story here.
That October, the creators of Family Guy were sued by the rights holder of the tune When You Wish Upon A Star. Bourne Inc., a music publisher, sued Family Guy for its reproduction of the tune with anti-Semitic lyrics. Judge Deborah A. Batts ruled that “[t]he song can be ‘reasonably perceived’ to be commenting that any categorical view of a race of people is childish and simplistic, just like wishing upon a star.” She also restated the law on parodies saying that a parody does not have to be effective to be fair use.
In its latest season, Family Guy has used Stephen King and Revenge of the Nerds in ways that seem to invite litigation. For example, in the episode, “Three Kings,” Family Guy uses three Stephen King stories and ends the episode with the Peter Griffin character telling King that he will see him in court. The creators of Family Guy managed to get Roy Scheider and Richard Dreyfuss to do cameos on the episode.
In another episode, Family Guy uses the classic scene from Revenge of the Nerds wherein the nerds outdo the jocks in a musical performance at a talent show. The scene in Family Guy concludes with a reference to itself being a rip-off. However true this may be, Revenge of the Nerds has been imitated many times in the past.
I would propose applying a snicker test before media companies or actors and actresses sue the creators of Family Guy. A snicker test is the test that is normally applied to determine whether a complaint should be filed. Traditionally, if the complaint makes a reasonable person snicker, then it should not be filed. So, if the complaint is, for example, a complaint against God, it will likely make a reasonable person snicker, and should not be filed.
The snicker test that I would have the prospective plaintiffs follow would bar complaints where the subject matter of the complaint makes the reasonable person snicker. So, where the actual complaint may not make a reasonable person snicker, if the Family Guy segment complained of makes a reasonable person snicker, then the complaint should not be filed. In the cases cited above, Family Guy made great episodes and managed to get some of the original talent from the works parodied to contribute artistically to the parodies. All of the episodes cited certainly made me snicker.
However, where the complained of segment lacks a logical nexus between the Family Guy characters and their alleged parody of an original work, the complaint is more likely to pass my proposed snicker test. If you click the link above and watch the clip that Carol Burnett complained about, you may struggle to figure out why Carol Burnett and an adult book store have been juxtaposed.
Burnett and porn would seem to have nothing to do with one another. As mentioned previously, Family Guy’s use of Burnett was protected speech. So while complaints like those brought by Burnett are legitimate, there is still no guarantee of success.
In conclusion, I would argue that much of the comedy on Family Guy is protected either by fair use or by the First Amendment. Courts should continue to exercise the doctrine of aesthetic non-discrimination. Where there is some modicum of comedy and some modicum of a relationship between the comedy and the person parodied, a competant court should protect the speech. A court should not dictate what its idea of humor is, and while this has been the practice of many federal courts hearing cases involving Family Guy, I hope that all courts follow suit (forgive the pun).