I think this might be the first time I've heard of such a thing. Even Trump / Obama / Bush / Clinton era didn't order takedowns of unflattering products.
Full disclosure: the company immediately complied and they're pozzed anyway because they sell ze bugs as cricket meal snacks.
* Edit: u/aldagautr points out that the post was deleted. I think this might lend to it being fake, but the product did exist and now is a 404. As far as marketing stunts go, that's a pretty stupid way to do it.
I'm not into spreading bullshit, but I'm also okay with leaving my mistakes out there in the open in the interest of transparency. I'll leave it to u/DomitiusOfMassilia to decide if it's a rule 12 or not.
When Obama was first elected there was an initial flurry of some stores changing their name to Obama and advertising slogans using Obama in their campaigns to get in on the hype that were all shut down. I don’t know if that came from the secret service of a c&d from the office of the President himself or just a request from the White House.
It does fall under basic law that you can’t use a public figures likeness for advertising/branding without their permission. But I don’t see why the secret service would be tasked with enforcing it.
You own your own likeness. It's like you became a gazillionaire for some reason and then people started using your likeness for get rich quick products. They don't have a right to use your likeness to hawk their wares without your permission.
This isn't like you're out in public and somebody snaps your pic along with other crowd people and advertises THAT. That's fair use. It's intentionally just using your singular likeness.
MyPillow introduces the weezkitty pillow. For when you need some lucky money, weezkitty pillows fill that need!
That's illegal (unless you gave permission, got paid for it! :D )
iirc it's not just public figures you can't use any living person's likeness for advertising/branding without their permission like that either, and even if they're dead they might still having living relatives and/or an estate to put you in legal trouble
Surely I can't plaster some public person's face onto my cereal brand without permission. This doesn't sound to me like the government being egregious.
Does a sitting President ever hire a law firm while in office? Maybe this is the proper way these things are handled. Besides, rather than just the face of the guy, it's the face of the President, so maybe it's relevant.
Its because they know its a complete scare tactic. Being able to mock and criticize the president is basically enshrined as the center of 1A type freedoms. As long as you don't use the Seal itself, its been consistently found to be fair game.
So why bother getting the lawyers super involved when you know its a toothless scare tactic, just fancy it up enough to look formal and hope they fold instantly (they did).
There's no way that's real. If that's real that's scary. If the SS can stop protected free speech because of a supposed threat to the president then free speech is dead
That's the part I take issue with. It's well established that you can't use someone's likeness without their permission to imply an endorsement of your product, they should have just stuck to the laws on that matter in their C&D.
By putting a statement like that in there they've converted this into a suppression of free speech issue when it should be a rather mundane unauthorized use of likeness case.
The product in question: https://archive.is/KlFHx
I think this might be the first time I've heard of such a thing. Even Trump / Obama / Bush / Clinton era didn't order takedowns of unflattering products.
Full disclosure: the company immediately complied and they're pozzed anyway because they sell ze bugs as cricket meal snacks.
* Edit: u/aldagautr points out that the post was deleted. I think this might lend to it being fake, but the product did exist and now is a 404. As far as marketing stunts go, that's a pretty stupid way to do it.
I'm not into spreading bullshit, but I'm also okay with leaving my mistakes out there in the open in the interest of transparency. I'll leave it to u/DomitiusOfMassilia to decide if it's a rule 12 or not.
It's not even that mean. I mean, it could be a lot worse ...
When Obama was first elected there was an initial flurry of some stores changing their name to Obama and advertising slogans using Obama in their campaigns to get in on the hype that were all shut down. I don’t know if that came from the secret service of a c&d from the office of the President himself or just a request from the White House.
It does fall under basic law that you can’t use a public figures likeness for advertising/branding without their permission. But I don’t see why the secret service would be tasked with enforcing it.
What law? Why?
You own your own likeness. It's like you became a gazillionaire for some reason and then people started using your likeness for get rich quick products. They don't have a right to use your likeness to hawk their wares without your permission.
This isn't like you're out in public and somebody snaps your pic along with other crowd people and advertises THAT. That's fair use. It's intentionally just using your singular likeness.
MyPillow introduces the weezkitty pillow. For when you need some lucky money, weezkitty pillows fill that need!
That's illegal (unless you gave permission, got paid for it! :D )
iirc it's not just public figures you can't use any living person's likeness for advertising/branding without their permission like that either, and even if they're dead they might still having living relatives and/or an estate to put you in legal trouble
Surely I can't plaster some public person's face onto my cereal brand without permission. This doesn't sound to me like the government being egregious.
Protecting your image and likeness is a civil affair. The SS/government isn't Biden's personal gestapo.
Does a sitting President ever hire a law firm while in office? Maybe this is the proper way these things are handled. Besides, rather than just the face of the guy, it's the face of the President, so maybe it's relevant.
Its because they know its a complete scare tactic. Being able to mock and criticize the president is basically enshrined as the center of 1A type freedoms. As long as you don't use the Seal itself, its been consistently found to be fair game.
So why bother getting the lawyers super involved when you know its a toothless scare tactic, just fancy it up enough to look formal and hope they fold instantly (they did).
How do you not write back saying "The US Secret Service can suck my dick" ? If you don't, that's on you.
I mean I still would, but I don't think this thing is real.
Agreed. I've always flippant.
I think you're missing some words there.
Been*
There's no way that's real. If that's real that's scary. If the SS can stop protected free speech because of a supposed threat to the president then free speech is dead
Quiet part very loud
https://archive.is/OLakC
That's the part I take issue with. It's well established that you can't use someone's likeness without their permission to imply an endorsement of your product, they should have just stuck to the laws on that matter in their C&D.
By putting a statement like that in there they've converted this into a suppression of free speech issue when it should be a rather mundane unauthorized use of likeness case.
They considered it real enough to pull the product.
Jewish-owned product receives viral marketing from jewish-owned government via the jewish-owned media.
Jeff Durham should have his people call their people. He works an old man puppet that looks just like the Biden puppet.
post is gone
The beverage is gone. Shame it was a decent Arnold Palmer flavor. But Gamer Supps is pretty expensive now when looking at it compared to competition.