Reuters: "Chuck Norris sues, says his tears no cancer cure"
- Thread starter Farid
- Start date
- Status
The title doesn't say nearly enough about this.
Chuck Norris is suing now because the book 1.) Profits on something the people didn't make. 2.) The book has racist jokes and other such "hate" jokes.
I can CLEARLY see why Chuck would sue, I wouldn't want my name used in such a book either. He's always been cool about the jokes, but this book takes it way to far.
Chuck Norris is suing now because the book 1.) Profits on something the people didn't make. 2.) The book has racist jokes and other such "hate" jokes.
I can CLEARLY see why Chuck would sue, I wouldn't want my name used in such a book either. He's always been cool about the jokes, but this book takes it way to far.
What "racist" jokes are there in the book? I haven't seen an example cited, simply that is what is claimed by Chuck in his litigation. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
Forgot that existed, I'm sorry. I'm kind of doubting Chuck Norris would go after the book if it didn't include something along those lines though. The guy has actively been part of these jokes in the past and had no issues, so there must be something that has suddenly spurred him to go after the book. I'm also pretty certain he was aware of the profit making aspect of it long ago as well.
AFAIK, no one has been actually profiting from these jokes until this book. I imagine that is what he objects to.
I guess the lawsuit proceedings will determine if they exist or not. I just don't get how a publisher could think they could make a book like this without permission.
And as far as 'innocent until proven guilty' goes in terms of the legal system, that really only applies to criminal proceedings.
Yet, he apparently had no problems playing off the very same meme when shilling for Mike Huckabee's "Chuck Norris Approved" presidential bid...
Maybe because its his name, just maybe though. How are we even certain he was paid for that?
I there a danger of someone releasing a book called " The Truth About Skyring: 400 facts about the World's Greatest Human "
Sure, but the meme isn't him. It's a cultural amalgamation of lots of different things and there really should be no fear of confusion. (If it is, I fear for the state of the world.) Apart from clearcut misrepresentation, there's a line there somewhere when a phenomenon takes on a meaning of its own that is disconnected from the object from which the name or phrase is borrowed. This should be protected. Many jurisdictions have provisions for the protection of parody and/or satire as well.
These guys may very well have stepped into illegal territory somewhere, though. IANAL (and certainly not in NY, USA), so I don't know.
Probably not, so shilling was the wrong word. I just find it a little hypocritical that he'd embrace it when it benefits him, yet sue over it being 'exploitation'.
Its not hypocritical to allow your name and likeness to be used by some (giving it away to them) and not to others.
Its his "private property", he can do with it as he chooses.
One only has to look at the NFL and their deal with EA to see a grand-scale example of this.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
