Posted on 08/25/2020 3:55:23 AM PDT by gattaca
Lol.
Bull. First, the article is a hit piece on Gibson. If she was only using her name, it wouldn't be an issue, and Gibson wouldn't have sued. She put Mel Gibson's picture on the label. It looks like a still from Braveheart.
She was deliberately using the name similarity to create a false impression that Mel Gibson was affiliated with her.
She's selling a food product. There's no way Gibson should allow his image to be affiliated with someone who entered into business using deceptive practices. If he continues to allow his image to be affiliated with her, what happens if someone sues, claiming there were pesticides in the honey that made them sick. They'd immediately go after the deep pockets.
As an aside, the photos, particularly the second one of her as the "sassy business woman with her arms crossed" are pure psyops.
I think Mel should have presented her with written permission to use his likeness and stuff in person, and made a publicity coup out of it for both of them. This is shortsighted, destructive, and unnecessarily selfish.
I’m on the west coast and we could partner up. We could sell brand name the Horseshit headlines, Spread the News, or The Roadapple Reader.
If the woman’s honey was so good, why did she stick a picture of
Gibson on the label? She should have included her picture on her label.
There is an issue with “derivative” branding.
My copyright experience is with images, not branding. But I know if you used one of my copyrighted photos, in its original form or a derivative form, I would have the ability to sue you and collect “treble” damages.
Of course, there are all sorts of rules in place and its been years since I’ve had to do any of this stuff.
My Dad created and sold organic honey for years (not sure what the “organic” meant for a product naturally generated by bees...) Why it is even a market is beyond me.
But since she is not the US, I would tell him to screw until I received something from a Chilean lawyer.
That is the way I read the article too.
This is a total hit piece on Mel Gibson because he is not a Hollywood Liberal.
About two miles down the street from my office in NH WAS an antiques dealer called “Needful Things”. It was a total rip off of the name of the same type of shop/business in the book by Stephen King. However, this antique shop was open for several years with that name until they were sent a cease a desist letter threatening legal action by Mr. King’s attorneys. They have since changed the name of their business to something else.
Mel Gibson should use this as an opportunity to promote this as good publicity. Let her use his image for X percent of her profits. Then donate that to some charity in Chile. It would make him look great. Right now this article is trying to make him look bad.
She is not making the honey herself. She is buying honey in bulk. The pictures show them ladling it out of 5 gallon buckets and into glass jars.
Most honey sold in the USA actually comes from Argentina. There are huge producers there that undercut the cost/gallon of everyone else. Next time you are in the supermarket, look at the label on a jar of honey.
I was told once that you should try to get honey from local producers IF you have seasonal pollen allergies. This being a homeopathic cure. You should ingest a tablespoon of this local honey everyday. Therefore, developing an eventual immunity to the same pollens that effect you seasonally when they are floating around in the air.
Read the story.
The woman is in Chile. The COUNTRY in South America.
NOT California.
Mel Gibson is probably only dimly aware of this, or perhaps unaware of it at all. He has a law firm on retainer to seek out and react to violations of his intellectual property rights. They do so more or less on autopilot.
Braveheart as a character does not belong to Gibson. Does the picture on these jars of honey resemble Gibson? That is going to be the issue at hand.
SO. MANY. HEALTH. VIOLATIONS!!!
First things first:
‘not guilty.”
Second, it’s an innocent pun on a widely known public character; are puns subject to copyright restrictions?
Popularity at some point reaches a level where the trade name becomes the common designation, “xerox,”for example—a bit of a gray area.
Third, I like the sentiment behind the name.
Fourth, she’s in the wrong despite all this, so let me suggest another name, one embodying all the virtues of the previous, and better looking to boot: “tsomer”
Odd don't you think that this poor woman trying to figure out how to feed her family just suddenly remembered she had this huge stash of honey?
My comment about disrespecting Nicki Haley was addressed to the author of the article who seems to think that the GOP only brings her out as a ‘token’.
That is very disrespectful considering she was actually given a very important job in the Trump administration.
I don’t agree with Nicki Haley always but the GOP is certainly NOT the party that has token people they being out. they do not have a ‘token black’ or a ‘token woman’ or anything. Democrats do that.
The freepers here immediately jumped to “BUT SHE’S A RINO...” and missed the point of the article, which was a dig at the GOP party.
Oh boo hoo. Change the name sweetie.
Problem solved.
A real life example of this stupidity.
Fraternities and Sororities signed up with the same company that protects colleges and university trademarks. If you have never gone through the production that is getting licensed, you are fortunate.
We looked into getting licensed for an “internal” agreement with the local collage. We would be “allowed” to produce items for employees and staff, but not for retail sale.
We were presented with a 24 page application, replete with demands - $10 million in liability insurance, joining a labor association that costs $200 a year, attending classes put on by that labor association every year for about another $500, a $250 non-refundable application fee, requiring submission of any item/design to be sold to a committee for approval (2 to 4 week wait for each submission), 12% of the gross sales and an annual fee of anywhere from $1500 to hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on the scope of the license.
In our 12 years of existence we have done work for two sororities. In both instances, chapters of those sororities approached us with artwork they wanted put on shirts. The latest one was Chi Omega - they wanted those words - Chi Omega - printed on the front of 50 white t-shirts, each letter a different color. It was a less than $400 order.
Eighteen months after the fact we get an email from the company that oversees their licensing. I did not know they were part of any licensing agreement - besides, it was just the words...not their colors, heraldry, etc.
The email said that they had documentation that I had violated the trademark of Chi Omega and wanted me to contact them to discuss joining the licensing group. I ignored the email.
A few weeks later some soy boy calls me and chastises me for ignoring their email. This is very serious and I could be facing strict financial penalties, he says. They don’t want any money for this first instance, but they want me to apply for the license to avoid future penalties.
I asked if he knew what we were supposed to have produced. All he knows, he said, was that it was a sale for about $400.
This went on for several minutes, mostly a robust discussion of the extent of the “trademark”, and ending with me hanging up on the limp dick.
I received a follow up email confirming that I would no longer produce any garments that infringed on the trademark of Chi Omega or any other sorority or fraternity.
So why did the girls come to me in the first place? Well, it seems that custom t-shirts from “authorized” companies cost $20 to $25 each and take 4 to 6 weeks. The girls had neither the time (their fall rush was in 3 weeks) nor the money to go that route.
So the net effect of them protecting their trademark is to make t-shirts far too expensive for the girls to afford.
Yep. Inversely, they're also good at making villains out of people who were doing nothing wrong.
Even if Gibson grants rights, will she also have to get rights for using the movie Braveheart? I doubt Mel Gibson is the sole owner of those rights.
laws are laws
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
