# Fictional character copyright **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 14, 2006, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fictional-character-copyright/344510 "2006-02-14T19:28:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fictional-character-copyright/344510/1 "2006-02-14T19:28:48Z")
Are fictional characters copyrightet? For instance, George Costanza appear in a small bit in the series Family Guy. Did they have to ask permission for that? And if not, what if George Costanze had been an important character in the episode? ---
**Author:** ![Push\_You\_Down](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/push_you_down/32/9095_2.png) [@Push\_You\_Down](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Push_You_Down)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fictional-character-copyright/344510/2 "2006-02-14T20:40:16Z")
There’s laws regarding what determines copyright violation and parody and satire. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fictional-character-copyright/344510/3 "2006-02-14T20:57:16Z")
Satire and parody are generally exempt from copyright infringement law in the United States. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fictional-character-copyright/344510/4 "2006-02-14T22:24:32Z")
I think that’s the wrong question. The correct question is: was the character of George Costanza trademarked? That’s an entirely different part of the law and it’s also the part that would come into play here. The answer is that the name and physical characteristics of the George Costanza character probably are trademarked as part of the overall Seinfeld show trademark, and that the Family Guy people probably had to get permission, even for satiric purposes. A check of the Trademark database shows only two live Seinfeld service marks without any mention of characters, though. I’m not familiar with the way they are presented to know whether this means anything or not. ---
**Author:** ![AnonimusPersen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/13edae/32.png) [@AnonimusPersen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AnonimusPersen)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fictional-character-copyright/344510/5 "2006-02-14T22:49:57Z")
Sorry, extension question: If a large media company owned both shows, would the individual shows need to ask permission, or because they’re both in turn owned by the same business not need to ask permission? If you don’t need to ask permission if the shows are owned by the same company, doesn’t Fox own both Seinfeld and Family Guy? Or was Seinfeld NBC? I forget… ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fictional-character-copyright/344510/6 "2006-02-14T23:36:11Z")
> [@AnonimusPersen](#): > > Sorry, extension question: If a large media company owned both shows, would the individual shows need to ask permission, or because they’re both in turn owned by the same business not need to ask permission? > > If you don’t need to ask permission if the shows are owned by the same company, doesn’t Fox own both Seinfeld and Family Guy? Or was Seinfeld NBC? I forget… If it’s a parody of the character, then no permission is needed. If, however, someone (God knows why) wanted to create show called “George Costanza, The Early Years” ( :eek: ), they would have to get permission from the copyright holder, which is Seinfeld’s production company (not the networks, which rarely own shows other than news shows). This would be required whether the character was trademarked or not: the show would be a derivative work of **Seinfeld**. If Seinfeld’s producers (the IMDB lists them as Castle Rock Entertainment and West-Shapiro) wanted to create “George Costanza, the Early Years” ( :eek: ), they could possible do it; it depends on what Jason Alexander’s ( :eek: ) contract says about what rights he has. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2006, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fictional-character-copyright/344510/7 "2006-02-15T03:50:22Z")
> [@AnonimusPersen](#): > > Sorry, extension question: If a large media company owned both shows, would the individual shows need to ask permission, or because they’re both in turn owned by the same business not need to ask permission? > > If you don’t need to ask permission if the shows are owned by the same company, doesn’t Fox own both Seinfeld and Family Guy? Or was Seinfeld NBC? I forget… Seinfeld was shown on NBC, but NBC didn’t own it. Production companies own most shows. Until a few years ago, in fact, the networks were prohibited from owning _any_ entertainment shows, for antitrust reasons. When cable took off, the networks whined that they were at a competitive disadvantage and so were allowed to develop shows that they owned. Since it’s a lot harder than it looks to make a successful program, only a small number of these shows have taken off. Production companies still produce almost all the shows you see on television. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2006, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fictional-character-copyright/344510/8 "2006-02-15T04:04:30Z")
That anti-trust prohibition of networks owning entertainment programs must be of relatively recent vintage, because I can name numerous entertainment shows from the 1950s and 1960s that were owned by the networks. The most famous example: _I Love Lucy_ was produced by Desilu, but owned by CBS. A minor example: the western _Temple Houston_ was produced by Warner Bros. Television, but the distribution rights are owned in perpetuity by NBC. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2006, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fictional-character-copyright/344510/9 "2006-02-15T04:14:29Z")
My memory is hazy - it’s a bit late to be combing through my tv histories - but it was in the late 1950s that the advertising model switched from an agency/company owning a show and using it to sponsor one of its products to the modern selling of short commercial ad space. This created a vacuum for ownership. When the quiz show scandals, in which the networks had responsibility for faking the product for ratings, hit, Congress had the opportunity to remove the networks from ownership. I’m pretty sure it was a law, not just an FCC requirement, but I’d have to doublecheck that. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2006, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fictional-character-copyright/344510/10 "2006-02-15T13:40:09Z")
Distribution rights are different from owning the show. A network can distribute a show (obviously, if it did, they couldn’t have a network lineup); however, it is prohibited from syndicating the show after its original run. According to the IMDB, **Temple Huston** was distributed by NBC during its network run; however, now that that run is over, it’s distributed by Artisan Entertainment, not NBC. **I Love Lucy** is the same: CBS did coproduce it in the early days (probably before any rules were set up. They seemed to have stopped in 1957, so that’s the probable date of the change – CBS wasn’t going to give up ownership of it unless forced to), but it is not distributed by CBS (for a time, CBS Films was a distributor, but I suspect that was some sort of corporate entity set up so that CBS TV was not involved). A network can also produce a show, but they can’t syndicate the reruns. Since the reruns are where the money is made, it’s rare that they bother for anything other than news shows (which have little rerun value). Note that **60 Minutes** , produced by CBS, has not been syndicated (using the interviews and other non-topical stories), but CBS puts together specials from time to time. And before you ask, about it, Paramount is involved in the syndication of **Enterprise** , which ran on their network. However, according to FCC rules, UPN and WB and possibly even Fox are not considered networks: there is a minimum number of hours of programming required, and these three make sure they don’t meet the minimum. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2006, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fictional-character-copyright/344510/11 "2006-02-15T14:21:20Z")
NBC owns the distribution rights to _Temple Houston_ in perpetuity. I know this because I read the original contracts between Warner Bros. Television and NBC, and I also went through the process of getting permission from all the entities involved for copies of episodes. NBC doesn’t distribute old shows, it licenses the distribution to others. In this case, NBC licensed the distribution to Artisan (I am the one who submitted that data to IMDb, by the way). If you look at DVDs of _I Love Lucy_ episodes, you’ll see that CBS has licensed the episodes to the distributor. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2006, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fictional-character-copyright/344510/12 "2006-02-15T14:45:46Z")
Specifically, CBS Worldwide, Inc. owns the distribution rights (and the trademark rights) to _I Love Lucy_. They have licensed the distribution rights to Paramount. ---
**Author:** ![rainy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@rainy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rainy)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2006, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fictional-character-copyright/344510/13 "2006-02-15T15:16:00Z")
There’s another thread around here somewhere that addressed this, sort of. I vaguely remember an example of a sci-fi movie using an obviously klingon skull in a scene. There was much discussion of ‘derivative works.’ So you might try searching for klingon + derivative and find that thread. -rainy ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2006, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fictional-character-copyright/344510/14 "2006-02-15T15:22:46Z")
There is a nice straight forward discussion about copyright of characters [here](http://www.ivanhoffman.com/characters.html) authored by a professional. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2006, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fictional-character-copyright/344510/15 "2006-02-15T17:17:26Z")
A couple of examples of character ownership would be Larry “Bud” Melman (played by Calvert DeForest on NBC’s _Late Night with David Letterman_) and Windy Halliday (played by George Hayes in a series of Paramount westerns). When DeForest and Hayes left their original employers they were told that the characters they were best known for playing were still owned by those companies. In DeForest’s case his subsequent career under his own name declined. Hayes on the other hand developed the character of Gabby Whitaker, which became more famous than his original character. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2006, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fictional-character-copyright/344510/16 "2006-02-16T14:59:56Z")
Semi-related, the convention regarding puppet characters is (or at least was) that they remain the property of the puppeteer/creator. When Judith Lawrence left the long-running children’s show _Mr. Dressup_, she took Casey and Finnegan with her, much to the consternation of longtime fans. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2006, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fictional-character-copyright/344510/17 "2006-02-16T15:08:50Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#): > > The correct question is: was the character of George Costanza trademarked? That’s an entirely different part of the law and it’s also the part that would come into play here. Literary characters are protected under both trademark and copyright law. We had a discussion about that recently here, but my search skills have not yet shown their mettle.