"The great grandsons of Anna Short Harrington, who was hired as the American pancake icon in 1933, claim that her family is entitled to a percentage of the company's revenue every time her likeness was used. They're now seeking $2 billion in compensation, plus a share of future revenue."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/aunt-jemima-relatives-suing-pancake-company-2b-article-1.1966633
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
'Aunt Jemima' Relatives Suing Pancake Company for $2B
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 28 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 08 2014, @03:28PM
Gosh, what Ms. Harrington did for the company and all of its satisfied customers over the decades was worth way more than that.
I bid $3 billion.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 08 2014, @04:08PM
I do think this is a valid place for residuals. And it would give them motivation to update their model for Aunt Jemima.
Furthermore if this is successful, maybe the ridiculousness of allowing long term license/contract/copyright/trademarks like this will lead to some corporate entities finally putting in the political pressure to get these things eliminated. If not things can always get worse so people become pissed off enough to put in the effort to make them better.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday October 08 2014, @04:48PM
Yes, to be better-representative of an "American" icon, Aunt Jemima will be replaced with Aunt Juanita, with cell phone and EBT card sticking out of her bra, sporting dark hair on her arms and pustules around her mouth, wearing a tight cocktail dress with her prominent gut bulging out, Peroxide-bleached hair, and the jumbo-size bottle could include her 5 ill-behaved kids in tow.
Or were you saying that the family of a Caucasian syrup model wouldn't be saying "Gibs me dat" almost a century later?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 08 2014, @07:10PM
What?
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Wednesday October 08 2014, @03:45PM
..I'm ok with this.
Can we get at&t (the current corporate entity) to pay similar restitution to the families of Charles Bourseul, Antonio Meucci, Johann Philipp Reis, Alexander Graham Bell, and Elisha Gray for telephones that they "leased" up to the breakup of At&t (Ma Bell)? or GE to pay to the University of Chicago for development of the nuclear reactor?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Johneh on Wednesday October 08 2014, @04:13PM
Struggling to see the Tech angle in this article, thats the main reason I stopped reading the green site was the huge amount of non-tech news being posted there as well as their blatantly sponsored articles, but that's besides the point. I realise after looking at the article that its some American condiment, but being English that wasn't immediately apparent to me. I'm not saying we shouldn't have the odd non-tech article here, but it should be more apparent when read via RSS, maybe with something in the description?
(Score: 1) by archfeld on Wednesday October 08 2014, @04:49PM
Agreed, this should fall under the legal section.
BTW This is a maple syrup substitute that consists primarily of HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) and is incredibly popular at least in the western US.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 08 2014, @07:02PM
It's tangentially related in the sense that it is Intellectual Property related. The question here is who owns your name and likeness when you die, the company that hired you or your heirs? I vote none of the above personally.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday October 08 2014, @08:36PM
This may not fall under tech at all really.
One of the areas of interest around here seems to be intellectual property in its own right. I'm very interested in it, so I would be a proponent of it being worthy of discussion around here.
The one argument I can make for it being worthy is that it does profoundly affect innovation and control over technologies and markets. It seems pretty relevant most days.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Informative) by evilviper on Thursday October 09 2014, @03:07PM
This is NOT a tech site. Those running it don't want it to be one, and have said so:
http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=3958&cid=95135 [soylentnews.org]
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 08 2014, @04:34PM
I read a somewhat similar story a few months ago. The artist who was commissioned to create a logo for the Rolling Stones band way back in the 1970s, came up with the tongue sticking out, which has been used by the band ever since. He was paid $10K for his artwork, as specified by his contract, and Mick Jagger has adamantly refused paying him anything more. He is allowed to advertise himself as the artist who drew the Stones logo, but he's still angry about the (lack of) money - obviously a onetime payment of $10K doesn't last very long.
Jagger is a graduate of the London School of Economics, and is a very shrewd businessman.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday October 08 2014, @04:42PM
Which would be a good point if they were using her likeness anywhere in their marketing, which it sounds to me like they aren't.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 08 2014, @06:05PM
To put that into perspective
That would be like getting 50k today to do a simple 2 color B&W drawing for a band that may be gone in 2-3 years.
At the time taking the money up front was a good sound business decision. And probably a few weeks of work. As bands come and go...
If they had to pay every time they used the logo they probably would have ditched it quickly and he would still get very little.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 08 2014, @07:36PM
The lesson here is not to license the image in perpetuity, sell them a 5 year license and if they still want to use it after that you can renegotiate.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday October 08 2014, @04:39PM
Anna Short Harrington was the second of three African-American women the likeness of which Quaker Oats used/hired them as spokespeople. Since then, they have changed the image in use on the bottles such that the picture is NOT Anna Short Harrington.
I hope they're not claiming that QO is *still* infringing on her likeness. Or are they suing for "back pay royalties"? "Plus a share of future revenue" sounds straight out to me.
Ethel Ernestine Harper was Aunt Jemima during the 1950s in person, in print and in media. She was the first Aunt Jemima to be depicted on TV and the final "living person" basis for the Aunt Jemima image until it was changed to a composite in the 1960's [1]. She worked as a traveling "Aunt Jemima" on behalf of the Quaker company, giving presentations at schools, churches and other organizations. Prior to assuming the role, Harper graduated from college at the age of 17 and became a teacher. [2]
"Jemima" character on 1899 cakewalk sheet music cover
The Aunt Jemima character received the Key to the City of Albion, Michigan, on January 25, 1964. An actress portraying Jemima visited Albion many times for fundraisers.[13]
Just as the formula for the mix has changed several times over the years, so has the Aunt Jemima image been modified several times. In her most recent 1989 makeover, as she reached her 100th anniversary, the 1968 image was updated, with her kerchief removed to reveal a natural hairdo and pearl earrings. The logo much more resembled a modern homemaker than previous designs and carried far fewer racial connotations. This new look remains with the products to this day.[citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aunt_Jemima#History [wikipedia.org]
And from the article itself:
One year later R.T. Davis purchased the "struggling Aunt Jemima Manufacturing Company" and hired Nancy Green to portray the larger than life character.
Roughly 43 years later, Anna Robinson was hired to portray Aunt Jemima and fulfilled that role — while traveling around the country doing so — until her death in 1952.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Wednesday October 08 2014, @04:53PM
For the purposes of the lawsuit I think that they can get around the fact there were multiple people acting the part, if they propose that all black people look the same. /sarc
Given your comments, what I thought their case was about is totally invalidated. I hadn't considered back royalties because I doubt they were ever in the contract.
Judgement: Another frivolous waste-of-time gold-digging lawsuit.
(Score: 4, Funny) by halcyon1234 on Wednesday October 08 2014, @05:18PM
Original Submission [thedailywtf.com]
(Score: 2) by scruffybeard on Wednesday October 08 2014, @05:22PM
Sounds like the family only has hearsay and some family lore to make their claim. It is similar to my family story. My great-grandfather was secretly hired by Ford to perform secret research that was incorporated into every vehicle produced since. He was promised $10 per vehicle produced in perpetuity, but got screwed in the end. My lawyer can tell you who to make the check out to.
(Score: 2) by e_armadillo on Wednesday October 08 2014, @07:06PM
IANAL, but in my understanding there would only be a real case here if they were infringing on her "Publicity Rights", but for that to work you have to have been famous in the first place, but the fame came as a result of her employment in the ad campaign, and even then the character became famous, not her.
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 08 2014, @07:43PM
Having actually read the fine article, the claim is that her contract with the company required revenue sharing in order to use her likeness and that she was not paid. Quaker denies the existence of such a contract. So this isn't some extremist intellectual property rights lawsuit, this is straight up contract law. Either there was such a contract or there was not. With nothing more than the article and the history of black people in the US, I'm going to side with the underdog here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 08 2014, @07:50PM
Aunt Jemima was black?
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday October 08 2014, @08:09PM
If it's in the contract. Then let have the courts demand payment, case closed. The contract may suck, but then a corporation should not sign it..
Lesson that should be learned: Pay attention to what you sign. And uphold signed contracts or suffer in court.
(Score: 2) by e_armadillo on Thursday October 09 2014, @05:14PM
Well, there you go. I should have read TFA. Thanks for the clarification.
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 2) by TGV on Wednesday October 08 2014, @07:06PM
I'd say we sue Aunt Jemima's relatives for damage to the public health. She did her utmost best to get people to eat more pancakes than is good for them, so I'd say a $10B lawsuit would be in order.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 08 2014, @11:52PM
They's poor black folk. If'n you win your suit they won't be able to pay you but with food stamps.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 08 2014, @08:07PM
As we are all descendants of Adam & Eve, I demand all profits from all corporations and governments be distributed evenly among the entire population of Earth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 08 2014, @11:14PM
This will have to be divided amongst all blacks because they all look alike.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 09 2014, @12:22AM
need i say more?