Commentary

Stephen Colbert In Search Of Self

A bunch of Viacom lawyers won’t let Stephen Colbert just be himself.

But what is the self? And how can it be defined? That is the question -- or questions plural. Another question: Since when does the TV Blog concern itself with such philosophical issues?

The answer: Since last week, when Viacom served notice to the good people at “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” that the fictional character known as “Stephen Colbert” from the old “Colbert Report” on Comedy Central belongs to them.

As Colbert himself -- the real one -- revealed last week on his CBS show, Viacom lawyers wrote his show a letter objecting to his portrayal recently on “The Late Show” of the bloviating, pompous character he used to play on Comedy Central. They either implied, or demanded outright, that he cease playing “Stephen Colbert.” And if he doesn’t, they’ll sue (at least that was the implication, or the threat).

advertisement

advertisement

Colbert v. “Colbert” is a court case I’d like to see. It calls into question the whole sphere of what we call acting. In this case, the central question seems to be: If an actor plays a character who may or may not be different than the real person, and the character happens to have the same name as the actor playing him, who gets priority? Is it the company that claims ownership of all intellectual property within a production it owns, including this character?

Or if this dispute were to actually be adjudicated in a court, would Stephen Colbert have to demonstrate that the “Stephen Colbert” character is really so much like the real Colbert that the two are inseparable and indistinguishable, and in effect, “really” him? In this context, the real Colbert would seem to be the real “owner” of “Stephen Colbert.” After all, Comedy Central can’t own a person, can it?

If this sounds confusing, it’s because it is confusing. Which is why it’s such a great story. Rightfully, various TV columnists have pointed out how NBC held tight to such “intellectual property” as “Larry Bud Melman” when David Letterman defected to CBS, and “the masturbating bear” from “Late Night With Conan O’Brien” when O’Brien started his new late-night show on TBS.

Sure, this stuff is hilarious. It also bedeviled the Letterman show for years, every time the producers of his CBS show sought to do any anniversary retrospectives and NBC said no to their requests for video clips from his years at NBC. (They seemed to have finally relented for the elaborate clip sequence seen on Letterman’s final “Late Show” on CBS in May 2015.)

But beyond the intellectual property wars in late-night TV, Viacom’s “Colbert” threat reminds me of other lawsuits I’ve covered, such as a CBS suit brought against Fox in 2001 in which CBS objected to the Fox competition-reality show called “Boot Camp” because CBS felt it was too similar to “Survivor.”

I remember writing back then that the two shows were similar in at least one area: Contestants on both shows had a similar preoccupation with bodily functions such as going to the bathroom -- which made both shows disgusting to watch.

In another suit from 2003, Spike Lee sued Viacom (which didn’t like being sued) over the company’s use of the name “Spike” for a new cable network it was planning to launch in place of The Nashville Network, which Viacom was folding. This suit was serious enough to earn a temporary injunction from a New York court that delayed the launch of the Spike network for several months.

In the end, Spike Lee couldn’t get Viacom to drop the name Spike from its cable network. Today, both Spike Lee and Spike the network are alive and well and apparently thriving. To my knowledge, no one is confusing one with the other.

Perhaps there is a lesson here for the Viacom lawyers who won’t let Stephen Colbert be “Stephen Colbert.” And if any readers of this blog know what that lesson is, please let me know, because I have no idea. This is much too confusing for me.

2 comments about "Stephen Colbert In Search Of Self".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Jaffer Ali from PulseTV, August 1, 2016 at 1:35 p.m.

    Marlon Brando also received a similar notice when he played "The Godfather" in a non Paamount film.... Petty jackasses abound.

  2. Chuck Lantz from 2007ac.com, 2017ac.com network, August 1, 2016 at 6:53 p.m.

    I asked this question in the comments section on another article about this subject. Apologies to anyone offended.

    My question has to do with the legal or perceived "ownership" of an idea or character by the employer at the time the idea or character was developed.  While I do understand the basics about intellectual property where an employeee comes up with a new idea in the workplace, that area becomes fuzzy when it involves a new comedy bit or new character developed or first shown at a workplace.

    For example, when an old Vaudeville comedian invented a new character while employed and doing shows at a Vaudeville theater, and then did the same character on a TV show, couldn't the original employer - the theater - claim ownership of that character?  Or would all that have to be specifically addressed in their contract with the theater, or in this case, with Colbert and Comedy Central?

Next story loading loading..