Aretha Franklin Wants Royalties For That Hat She Wore...

from the oh-really? dept

Tue, May 12th 2009 6:33am — Mike Masnick

It's always amusing to see what people feel they "deserve." Reader Brad writes in to point out that Aretha Franklin apparently told a radio reporter recently that she deserves royalties for any sales of the famous hat she wore to the inauguration. It's unclear if she was joking (one hopes she was)... But it does seem to be a common theme, where people suddenly think they automatically deserve a cut of something, despite not having set up an agreement for that beforehand. Newspapers want a cut of Google's revenues. Record labels want a cut of ISP revenue (and Apple's revenue). It just happens so often that it's worth calling out -- even in a totally ridiculous discussion about a hat. No one deserves a cut of anything if they didn't actually negotiate it beforehand.

Filed Under: demands, fairness, royalties

23 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Tgeigs, 12 May 2009 @ 6:50am

She needs the cash, yo...
Do you have any idea how much Urethra needs to eat to maintain her famous figure? She must constantly graze, ever mobile, and crane her neck so that she can reach the topmost branches and leaves. But beware, Urethrasaur...there is always a Britneysaurus Rex nearby!

Ok, I need to have my morning coffee...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JoanieR, 12 May 2009 @ 6:53am

Royalties Shmoyalties
Even as the Diva of Soul, Aretha "deserves" nothing here. Not only was there no agreement prior to the event that prompted Aretha's back-pedaling, what has happened to "pay it forward" or even "do the right thing?" If she genuinely enjoys her milliner's creations, then she ought to wear them, tell everyone the source, and enjoy the fruits of her kindness. Aretha, get a life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IT guy, 12 May 2009 @ 7:08am

me too!
I installed some IT equipment in a company 5 years ago. That company must have made lots of money using that equipment since then.

Maybe I should get my lawyer to contact the company with regard to paying me royalties!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lulz, 12 May 2009 @ 7:10am

So what?
Just because some crackpot fool demands that he/she deserves something, doesn't mean they will get it.
It means that people will do/buy whatever they want money for, and not pay them their precious, rightful royalties.
Screw 'em.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
R. Miles, 12 May 2009 @ 7:38am

A revision is needed.
From:
No one deserves a cut of anything if they didn't actually negotiate it beforehand.
To:
No one deserves a cut of anything if they didn't actually do any labor before hand.

Given this seems to be at fault for the following industries:
movies
music
newspapers

But hey, why worry over semantics, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fatcat, 12 May 2009 @ 7:38am

she must be broke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben, 12 May 2009 @ 7:40am

A cut of the losses, too?
Yes, everyone comes out of the woodwork when there is a success story, but not willing to take on the losses of failed ventures. If there was prior negotiation, there would be some sort of risk due, instead of guaranteed reward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thom Thumbh, 12 May 2009 @ 8:02am

It's been like this for centuries. It's just that these days people are demanding it publicly amid a background of litigation and mis-used IP legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark, 12 May 2009 @ 8:09am

Slow news day?

It just happens so often that it's worth calling out -- even in a totally ridiculous discussion about a hat.

No, it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2009 @ 8:17am

Long ago a friend catered a film shoot at which Aretha was working. Sadly, his report is that she was an absolute pig. She smelled - ravaged the food table - was horribly rude to all present.

And so it goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard, 12 May 2009 @ 8:43am

Who was first to urinate?
I guess everybody needs to pay a royalty to the first person who pissed, too. This is ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JustMe, 12 May 2009 @ 9:41am

What about the guy who designed the hat??
All she did was wear it. Seems to me like she should have given him the props.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vincent Clement, 12 May 2009 @ 10:34am

What next? Maytag suing Proctor and Gamble for a portion of the profits from selling laundry detergent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
my two cents, 12 May 2009 @ 10:57am

Oh, really?!!
I suppose you think that Michelle Obama shouldn't get paid for "blowing up" her designer, either, uh? I'd argue at the very least, he should give her the clothes (hat). Who had heard of the designer (in either case) internationally before she wore the hat or Mrs. Obama wore the clothes? How many sales do you think were made? And, have you ever heard of re-negotiation of a contract? I believe that's what is called an endorsement deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BruJr, 12 May 2009 @ 11:07am
  
  Re: Oh, really?!!
  Umm... Last time I checked, even celebrities have certain needs to be met - eating, housing, clothing (well, except maybe certain elements of the ...ahem... more "mature" entertainments). Does this mean that every celebrity should recieve an unsolicited royalty for every food or clothing item they happen to be photographed consuming/wearing? If this is the case, then the company that made Nick Nolte's shirt in the famous mug-shot should be entitled to damages for defamation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - my two cents, 12 May 2009 @ 11:16am
    
    Oh, really?!!
    When celebrities wear designers' clothing they know that by having their item worn it could go either way - be on the best dressed list or worst dressed list. So, yeah, I believe they should be paid. The celebrity is taking a risk, too. No different than when they're on the red carpet and reporters ask them, "who are you wearing" - that's a plug for the designer (who didn't pay for advertising or royalities) but who allows the celebrity to "borrow" their item (i.e. jewelry, gowns, shoes).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Tgeigs, 12 May 2009 @ 11:36am
      
      Re: Oh, really?!!
      Please tell me you're dicking around. You're telling me that because a celebrity CHOOSES to wear a manufacturer's clothing that the label then has to PAY THE CELEBRITY? Even if it's unsolicited?
      
      So:
      
      1. Label makes hat
      2. Celeb likes hat, wears it
      3. Hat receives press, resulting in sales for label
      4. Label is FORCED to pay celeb?
      
      Is that what you think is right/just?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - lulz, 12 May 2009 @ 12:28pm
      
      Re: Oh, really?!!
      but who allows the celebrity to "borrow" their item (i.e. jewelry, gowns, shoes).
      
      By your false logic, every designer of every single garment MUST PAY the purchasers, because, well... they are getting free advertising.
      
      I don't deserve money if I wear an American Eagle shirt in public.
      I don't deserve money if I drive a Honda in public.
      I don't deserve money if I lend someone a book and they buy more books from that publisher
      
      I don't deserve money if I advertise a company or product by word of mouth or implicitly by wearing it in public. Maybe I'm just a good person giving my preferred company free advertising.
      
      Royalty whore.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Me, 12 May 2009 @ 11:19am
    
    Re: Oh, really?!!
    A friend of my wife's designs maternity clothing that many celebrities happen to fancy. Her experience tends to confirm what you've probably already heard; Many celebrities expect, and get, free items with the expressed understanding that it may boost sales when they're seen wearing them. Never heard of anyone requesting royalties when such a boost in sales actually does happen.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 12 May 2009 @ 2:53pm

she's great, but
I think Aretha's great, but like many good singers, she's not a thinker, not even slightly. In fact, her life is famously a mess. So rest assured that her opinions on anything other than gospel singing and playing can safely be ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techflaws.org, 13 May 2009 @ 6:35am

I should get paid
for having to endure that song sung so very badly! Her best days are well past her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wendell Bailey, 13 May 2009 @ 9:35am

Queen's Hat
No one said the designer is FORCED to pay a royalty. I can only speak for myself. If I designed something that a celeb wore and it doubled my business and brought me customers and attention from all over the world. It caused me to move to a bigger shop and store, in the suburbs no less. (Mr. Song is moving to a new fancy location) The celeb would not have to ask me for a commission, I would have already discussed it with the celeb. This reminds me of something Oprah said. She said she has put author's books on her book club list and the books have gone on to be number one on the bestseller list and some of these authors have not even given her a simple "thank you". Before Aretha and this hat Mr. Song sold 90% of his hats to African-American church women in Metro-Detroit. Now his business has grown and he is considering openning stores in other cities with large African-American populations and he is shipping hats all over the world. All of this is directly related to Aretha and the hat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TruthFinder, 15 May 2009 @ 9:49pm
  
  Re: Queen's Hat
  To Wendell Bailey:
  
  I am always surprised by people opening their traps without knowing some basic facts. So, let me tell you some.
  Mr Song had planning his move for over a year becuase of his slumlord is too much to bare. By the way, Mr Song evidently tolerated the slumlord and the slum city for 26 years before needing a larger space. That's right, a larger space was needed more than a year ago. The other fact is that Mr Song apparently tried to send her Thank You notes and gifts but was blocked by large ass road-blocks. If you know anything about Urethera, she is impossible to find and impossible to deal with probably because she hides from the IRS and bill collectors. AND he shipped all over the world even before Urethra's debut at the Inauguration. Do you think anyone would have given rat's ass about Urethra except being disgusted at her looking like a bus accident and acting like a trash, before the designer, who was already well known in the fashion industry, dressed her enormous head? It sure seems like Urethra owes Mr Song, not the other way around.
  What kind of a classless person would expect to ask for money because they happened to wear a free garment from a designer?
  Get the facts. Don't be a dumbass. You only make yourself look like what you are...a dumbass.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]