Reed Elsevier Sues Punk Band Over Parody Logo That Was Discontinued Years Ago
from the daily-trademark-variety dept
brian williams alerts us to the news that the punk band The Vandals was recently sued by publishing giant Reed Elsevier because back in 2004, the band put out an album that used the font used by Hollywood trade publication Daily Variety for its own name on the album cover:The Daily Variety claims that our old logo for Hollywood Potato Chip, which is a parody of the Daily Variety logo commenting on the materialistic culture of Hollywood, is still on the Internet and they are suing us for this. We agreed not to use this logo anymore and we have no product for sale with this logo so their claims that we are intentionally using it and harming the Daily Variety are ludicrous.Website The Wrap asked Reed Elsevier for comment and got the following message, which doesn't address any of the actual issues:
We do not have this logo, or any other of their logos on any of our sites under our control. They are telling us that it is still on the Internet but they wont tell us where it is. Instead, they have demanded a HUGE sum of money. I mean HUGE, OUTRAGEOUS, and IMPOSSIBLE TO RAISE; and $25,000 for their attorneys to cover all the damages they have suffered from what they call a breach of our settlement agreement.
We have breached nothing. We are just a punk band and a small insolvent record label trying to keep stuff on the shelves and pay royalties to other artists.
"The stylized VARIETY mark is a very well known and valuable trademark which the Vandals misused," Henry Horbaczewski, counsel for Reed Elsevier, wrote in an e-mail message to TheWrap. "We sued them, and they accepted a settlement agreement in which they promised to stop misusing our mark, because we wanted to stop the misuse, not their money. They then ignored their agreement."It's difficult to see how they have much of a case unless there's a lot more going on here. First of all, the use of the logo here is almost certainly protected as a parody use -- and it's difficult to believe that anyone (moron in a hurry or not) would face a likelihood of confusion and believe somehow that the album was endorsed or supported by Daily Variety. Even so, if it's true that The Vandals are not selling anything with this logo, then it's difficult to see how Reed Elsevier can claim that this is "use in commerce." This whole thing seems like a pointless lawsuit for no reason whatsoever. Perhaps Reed Elsevier's lawyers would be better served making sure that the company isn't publishing fake, ghost-written journals at the behest of industry interests, rather than suing a random punk band for a parody...
Horbaczewski added: "[Vandals drummer Joe] Escalante is a lawyer. He should have known the consequences of his actions."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: daily variety, parody, the vandals
Companies: reed elsevier
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Adding fuel to the fire...
Stupid lawsuit though. Apparently they don't understand how the internet works. Just because someone else posts the material doesn't make you liable for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, well, that's new
Seriously?
Because everyone knows that if you want to squeeze the golden goose, look to a punk band.
I seriously wonder how these people find their shoes in the morning. I'm guessing they have assistants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I guess soon we will run out of fonts because all fonts will be used in a trademark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is quite clearly parody when taken in context and that is exactly where the defence would be. You are correct on one thing: it would be an open and shut case.... for the defendant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well yeah, that was obviously the first instance of the Millennial orbital swoosh. So, y'know,good on 'em. Really innovative there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Here is an example of punk parody:
Question Authority!
Who says?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You know know who the The Vandals are, right? You do know that this is part of the album cover, right? You have listened/read the lyrics of the songs, right?
I could go on, but the basic idea is still the same: you have no idea what you are talking about. The album cover is part of the overall message of the album.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Variety being a well know news source (as they claim themselves) and thus being a good representation of the establishment that the album attacks. Again, you obviously know nothing about the group, nor the album, so concept of "context" does not even seem to occur to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. Trademark: So someone confuses a CD with a news magazine? You must be one blind puppy.
2. Parody: Talk about judging an album by its cover! Goes back to you being a blind puppy. Stupid one too.
Thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, that's the law, not the morality. In a just society, they *would* be able to use that logo with no problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They only need to use the "Apple defence" (as used against the Beatles - we sell computers not music ....er that one's wearing thin now though).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Parody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Parody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not Parody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not Parody
You should really learn to read, pal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Parody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not Parody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not Parody
AC strikes and misses again! It is clearly stated that they do not sell albums or anything else with that picture. If you are going to troll, at least find a better way to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Parody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Parody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Parody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Parody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Parody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol
thank you Vandals this is hilarious and a bit of a stretch my guess is if Kung-Fu Records wasn't as successful as it is they wouldn't have bothered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyers and Publishing Giants
The publishing industry produces garbages, is about to be demolished by the rise of self publishing and ipad type devices, and is taking the let's sue people to protect and add to our revenue stream model.
Dinosaurs must have roared loudly before their extinction; here's to the extinction of publishing multi-nationals and their armies of crony lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't blame the reaper.
Lawyers are much the same.
Whine about the schmuck behind the schmuck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawyers and Publishing Giants
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google "Hollywood Potato Chip"
I am interested to know if Daily Variety has any recourse if The Vandals are not putting the album out with that as the approved artwork.
This may all be done by over-zealous fans but I guess the next lawsuit will be against Green Jelly since you can still find their old Green Jello album cover online and repost it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or their pants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calling Rona Barrett
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyers. Heh.
Second, I think Daily Variety has it backwards. Joe Escalante is a lawyer. He is a music business laywer, and he knows other lawyers. Someone has got to be a moron in a hurry to think that there's a chance in hell that this is going to net Daily Variety anything.
The Vandals are dumb. They've always reveled in that. They're not, however, stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In commercial use?
Mike, their claim that "They are telling us that it is still on the Internet but they won't tell us where it is" is not very convincing
30 seconds with Tineye shows the image on Amazon and a handful of other music sites.
17 results - TinEye http://j.mp/cJohd7
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In commercial use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In commercial use?
But is that the band's fault? They don't control Amazon, do they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In commercial use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In commercial use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So will they sue Wikipedia next?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Potato_Chip
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a Joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...in the U.S.
However due to the Berne Convention we will enforce the copyright given to a font in another country. I would imagine US companies generating fonts for revenue are probably outsourcing that slice of the action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Daily Variety
The album art concept is a parody of the materialism of Hollywood business machine. The Daily Variety was parodied because they call themselves the "Bible of Show Business." they are the heralds of what is being mocked by our band.
Regarding the contract issue, the blogger was right who said that if we signed a settlement agreement, they are just suing on the contract. However, we did not breach the agreement, we do not control myspace music, amazon, and youtube. This is where the Variety made their mistake. Since they are abusing the permanent injunction, which carved out 3rd party postings and provided a 30 day cure period, both of which were ignored by Variety's lawyers when they filed their law suit, we are taking the occasion to try to lift the permanent injunction.
It was signed under the duress of a bullying law firm with 950 attorneys at their disposal.
If this is what they are going to do to us for the rest of our lives we have to stand up and fight back this time.
They asked us for $75,000 and want us to sign something to say that if this happens again we owe them twice as much. If what happens? Someone uses the internet? It's ludicrous.d
Thanks for your support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Daily Variety
I originally contacted some folks up at Stanford Center for Internet and Society Fair Use division. They suggested they could possibly be interested in your f-'d up situation except for the fact that the matter seemed to them to be fully stuck in post settlement contract bullshit arena rather than a righteous fair use defense (which The Vandals have obviously always held against Elsevier).
Perhaps you should give the Stanford Center for Internet and Society's Fair Use Project a call yourself -- Here' s the Fair Use contact info ... Stanford Fair Use division. Anthony Falzone @ anthony.falzone@stanford.edu.
Get the case removed to Cali Federal District court soon and fight them
Cheers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thanks mike for writing the story up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just curious...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not sure if anyone already commented on this....
Just sayin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how I spend a friday night right!
PLus,
I always thought this logo looked like they were going for arabian nights ali babba vibe. who the hell reads variety besides people who get haircuts or oil changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chadams
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Chadams
[ link to this | view in chronology ]