Powered by i.TV
February 10, 2012
 
CONNECT    

Showtime sued by the Red Hot Chili Peppers over Californication

by Bob Sassone, posted Nov 20th 2007 8:04AM

CalifornicationIf my initial reaction is any indication of whether or not a lawsuit has any merit, then this suit might have merit. When I first heard that Showtime was doing a show titled Californication, I immediately thought of the Red Hot Chili Peppers song and album from several years ago. Now the band is suing the cable channel over use of the name.

The band says that the title of the show dilutes the value of the album/song and that the title "immediately is associated in the mind of the consumer" with the band. The album was released in 1999. I didn't know that a character from the show, Dani California, was also the name of a song by the Red Hot Chili Peppers a couple of years ago.

This sounds like a legitimate lawsuit to me, but who knows. I'm certainly not an attorney. My background is in gynecology.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

26 Comments

Filter by:
bruce

You cannot copyright a title. Lawsuit dismissed via summary judgment.

December 13 2007 at 4:22 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Stellar77

Basically all that really matters in a lawsuit like this is whether or not the name was trademarked. It wasn't. Showtime applied for trademark in April but it has yet to be approved. The Peppers never even applied at all. Californication is a word. A word that was around long before the band used it. They will get nowhere. When the band Living Colour sued the tv show In Living Color over the name and logo the show took out the "u" in colour and changed the logo, end of story. When the hip-hop group Arrested Development sued the Fox network over the show of the same name the lawsuit petered out and was dropped. This is such a ridiculous non-issue. I can't even imagine RHCP would involve themselves in something so stupid and I wonder if it may not be their handlers and lawyers stirring up this crap. Surely they aren't so desperate for money that they need the small out of court settlement that would be the most they might get. How silly. Here are some quotes.


"According to http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Californication_%28portmanteau%29 this, the term was used in a 1972 Time magazine."


"The Chili's sink lower and lower every day. The character is called so by Duchovany's character purely as a reference to the song, her first name is just Dani. And the title is a reference both to the band and the idea of "Californication". It is lame that you can't even pay tribute to a band without them suing you. I have no doubt in my mind that the Chili Pepper will lose this lawsuit and the show will continue it's next season as a show I enjoy. Also, from what I know about the Chili Peppers, it is probably Anthony doing the suing, and the other guys are going along because they are laid back, good guys."


"1) Californication and variants have been attached to far more than the Chilli Peppers, going back decades, so they have no first use claim. 2) It was an album title, not a song lyric so is not protected there. 3) RHCP is a band, like most, that celebrates sex and drugs... not much there for the show to undermine. That is a ridiculous argument to begin with though.

It's simple. The RHCP have no claim to the phrase, any more than AC/DC does "Back in Black" or The Beatles the word "Love". Album titles are NOT inherently protected like lyrics, and there are so many that share names it is impossible to count them. And if you can't hold albums accountable to other albums, you certainly can't hold an entirely seperate medium accountable."




December 06 2007 at 10:29 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Mary

Stop hating the music; it's about the title. I think they've kinda got a case here. I mean, as true as it is that they didn't create the word, people can associate the show with the album, and that could be what's bothering the Chili's. But, don't you think at least one guy at one of the meetings while creating the show said "Think we should talk to the band?" or something?

November 27 2007 at 9:40 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1iPete

Since the RHCP don't have a trademark on Californication, a word that was coined decades before they appropriated it, they likely have no case on that front. They could try their claim of dilution or market confusion but it's an awful stretch to confuse a TV show with a CD/Record. They may have more of a case on Dani California, but it seems like satire law precedent may be most applicable.

It seems highly unlikely that the RHCP prevail here with any meaningful gain.

November 20 2007 at 7:07 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Justin

I think the Chili Peppers have it backwards--the name of their awful album hurts the image of a great and adventurous show but rock stars with lots of cash don't give a damn about being adventurous anymore. They can finally become the right-winged capitalists they always dreamed of becoming.

November 20 2007 at 6:03 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
NavStar

Remember Spike Lee suing Spike TV? Same thing here. It'll all get settled out of court by Showtime writing RHCP a fat check and promising to air their next concert on Showtime.

November 20 2007 at 5:49 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
AzHousePro

And they are asking for all of the profits from the show?? You can't be serious. Sounds like a weak attempt to score on the success of the show.

I do know that they lost whatever small amount they would have made from me buying any more of their albums.

November 20 2007 at 3:33 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
tony

In defense of the show, aren't roughly 90% of RHCP songs about California? It's not the shows fault if the band has a one-track mind.

November 20 2007 at 1:29 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Mel

I hummed the song in my head when I first heard about the show.

November 20 2007 at 1:25 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Aberdeen

Dear Red Hot Chili Peppers,

Please get over yourselves.

Thank you

People not from California

November 20 2007 at 1:19 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Follow Us

From Our Partners