OutKast being sued by Rosa Parks...

[shartley]

Originally posted by Southpaw
Parks had become familiar with previous challenges to segregation: Another Montgomery bus boycott, fifty years earlier, successfully eased some restrictions; a bus boycott in Baton Rouge won limited gains two years before Parks was arrested; and the previous spring, a young Montgomery woman had also refused to move to the back of the bus, causing the NAACP to consider a legal challenge until it turned out that she was unmarried and pregnant, and therefore a poor symbol for a campaign. In short, Parks didn't make a spur of the moment decision. Rosa Parks didn't single handedly give birth to the civil rights efforts, but she was part of an existing movement for change, at a time when success was far from certain. She just had good PR (NAACP) behind her! She does deserve respect though.

[cphilip]

Rosa is involved in lending her name to many charities and good causes. She hardly can sit by while someone missues it least it fail to assist those good causes as well as it has in the past. Its a trade mark name and she has every right to challenge it use. The song is refering to her directily and it was used without permission. She has given premission freely in the past for charities. And this one ain't. She has legal right to sue for an injunction. She has not asked for royalties. Your confusing her intent. She wants it stopped. She doesn't want money out of it. If she fails to challenge this one then in the future anyone could use it. And point to this as precident allowing the use of her name.

She is right. And she will win. They shoulda asked.

[Surreal]

too bad nobody REALLY cares that her name is in the song, or in any song for that matter. sometimes you just gotta let some stuff slide..

does this mean comedians shouldn't be allowed to talk about other celebrities in their standup routines because they are using their names and situations to make fun of them? lighten up..

[cphilip]

It is my understanding her suit is for an injunction and perhaps damages....NOT ROYALTIES.

She wants them to not use her name. She is not capitalizing on the record sales.

[FutureMagOwner]

isnt there some sorta loop hole or something which protects parody's from being sued (i thought i remember something like this from the austin powers movies with its making fun of james bond)? not really sure on outkast's music as a whole ive only heard one song and it sounded like a really fast tenacious d song or something

[cphilip]

Um...James Bond is a fictional character. he not real....

She uses her name to support causes already. She uses it to market those.

If there was a law against what she is doing she would not have been allowed to proceed with the suit. It must have merit or they would not have rule this way.

She is suing for the right to restrict the use of her name and control it.

[hitech]

Originally posted by Surreal
Too bad nobody REALLY cares that her name is in the song...does this mean comedians shouldn't be allowed to talk about other celebrities...

Unless I missed something, her name isn't used IN the song, it is the NAME OF the song.

[shartley]

Originally posted by cphilip
It is my understanding her suit is for an injunction and perhaps damages....NOT ROYALTIES.

She wants them to not use her name. She is not capitalizing on the record sales.

And yes, parody has pretty much free reign under copyright laws. But is this song a parody? I have not listened to it.

[FutureMagOwner]

yes but the james bond name and the names of all the movies are copy righted, trade marked, etc, etc im assuming thats basically the same thing shes trying to do one way or another

[shartley]

Originally posted by cphilip
Um...James Bond is a fictional character. he not real....

She uses her name to support causes already. She uses it to market those.

If there was a law against what she is doing she would not have been allowed to proceed with the suit. It must have merit or they would not have rule this way.

She is suing for the right to restrict the use of her name and control it.

[hitech]

Originally posted by shartley
Like how they awarded someone who spilled hot coffee on THEMSELVES money? How many suits go on that common sense would say had NO merit?

Do you know the details of that suit? It's not as cut and dried as it first appears. They (McDonalds) had a HUGE number of complaints that the coffee was way to hot. They chose to ignore it. THAT is what got them in trouble (and pretty poor attorneys). Now, I still think that McDonalds should have won that suit. After all, what is coffee made from (answer: BOILING water). However, it is not as simple as it seems. They lost because they IGNORED what the jury agreed was a DANGEROUS condition. The attorneys failed to convince the jury that the coffee being dangerous wasn't their client's fault. It would seem simple, Attorney: "What is coffee made from?", plaintiff: "Boiling water?"... I haven't read the transcripts of the trial, but it's never as simple as it seems...

[cphilip]

Again the fact is she uses her name to promote charities and causes and foundations... so she wants it for that. And initialy they said that was not a good enough reason to sue that someone else without permission used it. However they ruled now that it was. It took her a long while to convince them to REVERSE a decission. Its not like they just allowed it to move through. It must have some merit in law or it would not have been reversed. Thats hard to do. And so she is free to pursue the injunction. She is suing for an injunction and the right to use her name for good causes and control of that name. It has enough merit to go forth according to that court. So it shall. It remains to be seen if she wins. I think she is correct. But I am not certian that she will win.

The song is using her name and in her opinion it defames that name and tarnishes its use to promote charities. If it does then its damaged. And she has a right to protect it from damage and improper use. She allows her name to be used with permission. They never asked nor recieved it and she does not agree with what it was used for and does not want it use.

We wait and see.

[shartley]

Originally posted by hitech


Do you know the details of that suit? It's not as cut and dried as it first appears. They (McDonalds) had a HUGE number of complaints that the coffee was way to hot. They chose to ignore it. THAT is what got them in trouble (and pretty poor attorneys). Now, I still think that McDonalds should have won that suit. After all, what is coffee made from (answer: BOILING water). However, it is not as simple as it seems. They lost because they IGNORED what the jury agreed was a DANGEROUS condition. The attorneys failed to convince the jury that the coffee being dangerous wasn't their client's fault. It would seem simple, Attorney: "What is coffee made from?", plaintiff: "Boiling water?"... I haven't read the transcripts of the trial, but it's never as simple as it seems...

That is true. But goes to show even more abou the "system". Good or bad, things are not always as cut and dry, or simple as we would like them to be.

I think the same could be said about this situation as well.

[FutureMagOwner]

Originally posted by shartley

And yes, parody has pretty much free reign under copyright laws. But is this song a parody? I have not listened to it.

i havent either ive only heard one song by them and it seemed to be a joke song or atleast it sounded incredibly dumb to me. to give you an idea of what i mean the song i heard sounds like something tenacious d would do if they used something besides out of tune accoustic guitars, and tenacious d does basically funny songs like tributes to "the greatest song in the world" and stuff lol ill try and find some samples of outkast that are downloadable (i dont wanna pirate music especially for something like this lol)



EDIT: here we are http://www.fye.com/catalog/musicProd...temId=10995128

anyway still not sure whether its just stupid music or music thats ment to be stupid but judging by where i heard the song (in a music video on fuse) it seemed like a joke atleast because they have one guy playing like 5 members of a band pretending to be on bandstand or being the beatles or something

[Wc Keep]

Originally posted by beam


DUBBLEYOO TEE EFF mate? did you read my post? I was defending what she did and even stated that she PUT HER LIFE ON THE LINE.

As for the whole legality of the thing. I am no lawyer (honest, I'm not), but I have to believe that if someone uses your HIGHLY recognizable name to their profit without your consent, you are entitle to sue them. If OutKast made a song called Jim Beam (my dad's name), my dad would NOT be entitled to sue, but I bet Jim Beam, Co. would be.

The main reason for me posting is I was just bothered by all the "She's just an ole hag" type talk. She deserves more respect than that.

sorry beam i meant to put southpaws name but i looked at yours and put yours down. my sincerest apology.