If you're curious, maybe you can look into Chuck's lawsuit against Penguin's book of Chuck Norris facts. He would eventually "co-author" his own book. The obvious guess here is trademark infringement (over use of Chuck's name/likeness) and/or copyright (if some of these facts were lifted from his book).

▲

alias_neo 4 days ago | parent [-]

Interesting. I get the likeness thing, but surely one could publish jokes about anyone they wish and that would be satire or fair use or something?

Facts and copyright is an interesting one, because I'm surprised a fact can be copyrighted, unless it's the wording specifically.

▲

dfxm12 4 days ago | parent [-]

For better or worse, in the US you can pretty much sue anyone for anything. A court certainly requires more evidence to declare liability than Apple would to remove an app.

As far as copywriting facts, are you really under the impression that Chuck Norris is the only man who can factually slam a revolving door? :)

	▲	alias_neo a day ago \| parent [-]
		> are you really under the impression that Chuck Norris is the only man who can factually slam a revolving door? :) Face palm I hadn't realised we weren't talking about _actual_ facts about him, this makes a lot more sense now.