SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In 2017, Airbus published a promotional article promoting an Airbus helicopter.
"Seventy years ago, Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier,"
[...]
"By using Yeager's name, identity, and likeness and federal registered trademarks in the infringing material, Airbus impaired the ability of General Yeager to receive his established earning potential," Yeager's lawyers wrote.The 96-year-old Yeager wasn't happy. Last week, he filed a lawsuit in federal court, arguing that Airbus had infringed his rights by using his name without permission.
Yeager says that he visited Airbus in 2008 and told Airbus it would cost at least $1 million to use his name and likeness in promotional materials.
Cool, I didn't know he was still alive. Which may also have been what they were thinking.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday September 24 2019, @02:26PM (3 children)
The summary said "Yeager" 5 times. 7 times if you count the text in the link. Is he also going to sue SN and every news publisher that mentioned his name?
> Cool, I didn't know he was still alive.
He ought to be happy he got mentioned. Maybe he turned mean in his dotage. It happens.
(Score: 2) by Revek on Tuesday September 24 2019, @09:15PM (1 child)
Yeager
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 24 2019, @09:18PM
Rename https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A4gerbomb [wikipedia.org] but use the worst energy drink you can find.
(Score: 2) by corey on Tuesday September 24 2019, @09:30PM
This is a news site, and not using his name as a promotion for products from which to make money.
I thought at that age, he'd not really give much of a toss and get on with old timer life.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pkrasimirov on Tuesday September 24 2019, @02:26PM (1 child)
"Seventy years ago, Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier,"
Sounds like a fact to me. Can I hide my crimes if I use the same approach?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 24 2019, @03:40PM
Depends upon whether you used any federal trademarks with it as well.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday September 24 2019, @02:34PM (1 child)
(from what I posted on Ars earlier)
Trademarks are to protect the public from being fooled by someone attempting to trade on the trust of another brand. For example, it is a bad thing if I can market my noxious concoction as "Coke". Or sell my rat-burgers as "BigMac".
When I say that Microsoft Windows is a steaming pile of bovine excrement and each Windows Update is a fresh topping of festering goat vomit, I am NOT misusing any trademarks. I am not trying to create confusion in the market. I want it to be perfectly and unmistakably clear which company and product I am expressing an opinion about. And it is nothing more than an opinion.
Mentioning someone's name as part of a factual statement is not trying to create any market confusion. Nor is it signalling an endorsement of anything. It is not an attempt to profit from use of the name. It is not infringing any exclusive rights. No damages occur to be litigated over. So what could possibly be the point.
How many encyclopedias mention the fact that Yeager broke the sound barrier?
As for publicity rights, mentioning someone's name in a factual statement shouldn't be a problem -- unless you are TRYING to invoke the Streisand Effect, which is definitely a form of publicity.
Mentioning that someone is suing a publication for mentioning their name as part of a fact is itself something which shouldn't be a publicity rights issue. It isn't implying any sort of endorsement. It isn't trying to attach itself to the goodwill and public admiration of that individual.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 5, Funny) by maxwell demon on Tuesday September 24 2019, @02:51PM
No damages? The sound barrier was not merely damaged, it was outright broken! Of course Yeager doesn't want the public to be reminded of this. :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday September 24 2019, @02:50PM (5 children)
The concept drawings with the article looked pretty cool.
(And like everyone else no, there's no way any rational person would take the Airbus statement to imply Yeager endorsed anything - no publicity violation. It was a stated fact, which isn't copyrightable, and it isn't a trademark. If Yeager's name was damaged I'd love to know the rationale for how much actual monetary damage it did. A press release saying he doesn't endorse it and/or cease-and-desist letter would be sufficient in this case. Who knows, maybe he asked for a correction and was refused it, but that's the extent of any remedy here. I respect General Yeager's accomplishments, but he should stop wasting a court's time.)
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 24 2019, @03:08PM (1 child)
That's pretty easy. Chuckie owns stock in all of the military-industrial aerospace corps in the US. Every dollar (or Euro, or whatever) earned by Airbus is a dollar that boeing-boeing-going-down failed to earn for Chuck.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday September 25 2019, @01:38AM
That damages his finances. It doesn't damage him personally or his reputation.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Spamalope on Wednesday September 25 2019, @01:26AM (1 child)
The general idea is that people own their own publicity rights.
For most of us, the market value is zero but that's not true for celebrities. (thus record labels want to take that too, as with Prince)
Appearing on marketing materials is something that the company needs to buy/secure a release for, not just an endorsement. It associates the two. Just the same if I take your picture in public (in the US) I hold the copyright on the photo but not a publicity right. I can exhibit the shot, sell prints and digital copies without your permission. However to be used for a commercial purpose other than that the advertiser needs a copyright release/license from me AND a publicity right release from you (model release) or the company using my photo depicting you would be liable for damages to both of us. The normal situation this comes up is for stock photographs. Without a model release from every person recognizable in the image it's not usable in practice.
This is repeating facts about a historical event, which feels like it should weigh against that. As a matter of law, I don't know if that's a defense when it's within marketing materials. The law is an ass, so I'm not going to place a bet.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday September 25 2019, @01:37AM
Good point regarding the law being an ass. Plus the way it was used was to draw a parallel to their new product. While I don't see how that's actionable in this instance - if that were true then you couldn't ever mention any fact about anyone living or dead who had a modicum of fame lest somebody claim you were just using them for publicity - it doesn't mean a judge or jury wouldn't.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 25 2019, @11:03PM
Yes, yet again in the field of what one may "d mayn't say, the law's an ass.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 24 2019, @04:09PM (2 children)
Just remove his name... or better yet: "Seventy years ago, some idiot broke the sound barrier,"
problem solved!
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 24 2019, @04:33PM
"butt head test pilot"
(Score: 2, Funny) by fustakrakich on Tuesday September 24 2019, @05:18PM
some idiot broke the sound barrier
That's a priceless antique!
Not anymore...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Touché) by istartedi on Tuesday September 24 2019, @06:38PM
We can put a man on the Moon, but we can't tell you who he is without worrying about a law suit.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.