Bob Marley's heirs win a landmark case to get merchandisers to stop putting his face on stuff

[george]

Bob Marley's heirs win a landmark case to get merchandisers to stop putting his face on stuff

Everybody, Stop Putting Bob Marley's Face On Stuff Now

In great news for Bob Marley's heirs and for all celebrities who want people to stop printing their face on stuff, Fifty-Six Hope Road Music—the company that controls the licensing of Marley's image—had their trial win over merchandisers using the reggae legend's face without permission affirmed on Friday.

Fifty-Six originally sued A.V.E.L.A. and other companies back in 2008 for selling t-shirts featuring photos of Marley in Walmart, Target, and a bunch of other major retailers. In 2011, the case finally went to trial, where Marley's heirs were granted a multi-million dollar win; but since then the case has been lingering in the appeals court. Fifty-Six had their win affirmed on Friday.

Judge N. Randy Smith laid out the biggest question of the trial: "This case presents a question that is familiar in our circuit. When does the use of a celebrity's likeness or persona in connection with a product constitute false endorsement that is actionable under the Lanham Act [the act that prohibits trade infringement and false advertising]?" The eventual ruling is based on the fact that using Marley's likeness without permission confuses the origin of the product being sold, making it seem like it's endorsed by Marley's estate; this was proved to be true in a survey on consumers carried out by the plaintiffs.

What this all means is that it's going to be tricky from now on for merchandisers to print photos of Marley or any other public figure without endorsement from that figure's estate. See also: Rihanna's win over Topshop last month, also for printing her face on unauthorised t-shirts.

The moral of the story? If you want to stick someone's face on something and sell it, probably check it's cool with them first.

-- 2015-02-22

[Lissos]

The moral of the story? If you want to stick someone's face on something and sell it, probably check it's cool with them first.

Except, in this particular case the person in question could not be consulted because they were dead.

Does the ruling imply that generations of relatives of someone they maybe never met in their lifetime, now own the likeness of that person?

It appears so, and call me cynical but 'them' making money off their dead relative's image is their core interest.

Is there still a 'Guevara' family still out there who are now going to crack down on the plethora of 'Che' items worldwide?

[Scott]

Oh, goodness, Thailand will be in trouble on this one, I would guess.

[MJP]

Oh, goodness, Thailand will be in trouble on this one, I would guess.

At least 2% off GDP and a big row at the next round of the GATT. Could end up in a trade war.

[iReason]

Excellent.

Parasites love to put dead people on shirts.

And anything else.

For their own personal gain.

[NeverSure]

The moral of the story? If you want to stick someone's face on something and sell it, probably check it's cool with them first.

Except, in this particular case the person in question could not be consulted because they were dead.

Does the ruling imply that generations of relatives of someone they maybe never met in their lifetime, now own the likeness of that person?

It appears so, and call me cynical but 'them' making money off their dead relative's image is their core interest.

Is there still a 'Guevara' family still out there who are now going to crack down on the plethora of 'Che' items worldwide?

Absolutely and the court agreed. The heirs inherit the royalties from music sold in the future, films, whatever belonged to the deceased.

Elvis Presley is reported to have made more money for his estate after he died than when he was alive and he's still making it.

[HeijoshinCool]

The moral of the story? If you want to stick someone's face on something and sell it, probably check it's cool with them first.

Except, in this particular case the person in question could not be consulted because they were dead.

Does the ruling imply that generations of relatives of someone they maybe never met in their lifetime, now own the likeness of that person?

It appears so, and call me cynical but 'them' making money off their dead relative's image is their core interest.

Is there still a 'Guevara' family still out there who are now going to crack down on the plethora of 'Che' items worldwide?

.

… call me cynical but 'them' making money off their dead relative's image is their core interest.

And no doubt it would have been Marley's, too, if he had given it thought.

If you were Bob Marley, would you not want your family, your wife, sons and daughters, to continue to benefit from your work, your legend? Wouldn't that be being a good husband and father? Don't you work for your wife and children, or only for yourself?

Or do you think he should have just bought term life?

EDIT: splchekkr

Edited February 22, 2015 by HeijoshinCool

[JetsetBkk]

Ridiculous ruling. I hope it gets appealed or overturned.

[HuckAuffority]

Ridiculous ruling. I hope it gets appealed or overturned.

Please explain?

Im a big fan and i have no problem paying more if it goes to his family.

[englishoak]

Plenty of Rastas black and white profiles would look exactly the same on a T shirt.

I dont see this making one iota of difference in Thailand.

[MAJIC]

Plenty of Rastas black and white profiles would look exactly the same on a T shirt.

I dont see this making one iota of difference in Thailand.

Che Guevera is a classic example,very popular in Thailand, although I doubt many know who he really was? and then there is down South "Bin ladin tee shirts,a mass murderer glorified on tee shirts,does it get any worse???

[kartman]

I see Bob Marley's face on something and think he has endorsed it? give me a break.

[MAJIC]

The moral of the story? If you want to stick someone's face on something and sell it, probably check it's cool with them first.

Except, in this particular case the person in question could not be consulted because they were dead.

Does the ruling imply that generations of relatives of someone they maybe never met in their lifetime, now own the likeness of that person?

It appears so, and call me cynical but 'them' making money off their dead relative's image is their core interest.

Is there still a 'Guevara' family still out there who are now going to crack down on the plethora of 'Che' items worldwide?

Absolutely and the court agreed. The heirs inherit the royalties from music sold in the future, films, whatever belonged to the deceased.

Elvis Presley is reported to have made more money for his estate after he died than when he was alive and he's still making it.

Yep! true talent never dies,Elvis died much too young! I remember the shocking headlines in the UK in 1977 "The King is dead" it was almost as if a close family member had died,and many people mourned him like their idol and brother had just died! I don't ever recall any more sadder news than that !

[MAJIC]

Plenty of Rastas black and white profiles would look exactly the same on a T shirt.

I dont see this making one iota of difference in Thailand.

No problem the copies are still going to be printed and sold! just like all the other copies, i'ts peoples livelihoods, so no change!

[alant]

where was this ruling made?

what ruling and jurisdiction?

[sdanielmcev]

where was this ruling made?

what ruling and jurisdiction?

9th Circuit Court. California

[maidee]

sure gonna work perfect in thailand

the seller already paid a fee, to the bib

[thefactoryoutlet]

Forward this court order to Thailand :-)

[tonytigerbkk]

Looks like they will have to close down KSR.

I don't thing David Truscott branded items will achieve the same sales as the Bob Marley stuff that they sell down there.

[Steely Dan]

The moral of the story? If you want to stick someone's face on something and sell it, probably check it's cool with them first.

Except, in this particular case the person in question could not be consulted because they were dead.

Does the ruling imply that generations of relatives of someone they maybe never met in their lifetime, now own the likeness of that person?

It appears so, and call me cynical but 'them' making money off their dead relative's image is their core interest.

Is there still a 'Guevara' family still out there who are now going to crack down on the plethora of 'Che' items worldwide?

I don't know, it works for Mohammad. Will this ruling affect the many Rasta bars and pubs dotted throughout Thailand I wonder, maybe the dead can get blood out of a stone where the living failed. Edited February 23, 2015 by Steely Dan