Would You Confuse This Couch With Humphrey Bogart?

from the don't-bogart-that-couch dept

Tue, Jun 15th 2010 12:09pm — Mike Masnick

We've mentioned it in passing on this site, but one especially troubling area of what (misleadingly) called "intellectual property" law is the rise of publicity and/or privacy rights (especially in New York and California), which try to get famous people an "intellectual property" type monopoly right over their names or likenesses, even in ridiculous situations. The latest such example involves the estate of actor Humphrey Bogart, suing furniture company Ashley Furniture for creating a furniture colleciton named "Bogart." From what I can tell, it looks like.. well, lots of other furniture on the market these days. For example, below is the sectional/recliner sofa:

Having recently gone shopping for similar couches, I can tell you first hand that they pretty much all look like that. Nothing about that couch screams "Humphrey Bogart," and the name certainly isn't going to make one bit of difference in the purchasing decision. It's not as if the name makes a big difference here, so it's pretty silly to claim that anyone is buying anything in this collection of furniture because of the association with the actor. But, that's what happens when you get ridiculous laws like publicity rights laws, that create a monopoly right out of someone's name.

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: couches, humphrey bogart, privacy rights, publicity rights
Companies: ashley furniture

40 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 12:14pm

Dude!
Don't bogart the couch! Not cool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2010 @ 12:29pm
  
  Re: Dude!
  http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=bogart&searchmode=none
  
  1969, "to keep a joint in your mouth," dangling from the lip like Humphrey Bogart's cigarette in the old movies, instead of passing it on. First attested in "Easy Rider." The word was also used 1960s with notions of "get something by intimidation, be a tough guy" (again with reference to the actor and the characters he typically played). In old drinking slang, Captain Cork was "a man slow in passing the bottle."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2010 @ 12:32pm
  
  Re: Dude!
  You took the words right out from under my keyboard.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Technopolitical (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 1:21pm
  
  Re: Dude!
  beat me too it ,, but don't Borgart , that doooobie either
  
  --------------
  
  Mike you is lucky Boggie is dead ,, or he would really hurt you ,
  
  Here's looking at you kid.....!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bog Art, 15 Jun 2010 @ 12:30pm

I hope they don't come after my company that sells paintings to hang in your bathroom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob Bodine (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 12:40pm

Overstating your argument
You're overstating your argument a bit. I agree that Bogart, LLC's suit is a bit of a stretch, but don't be so critical of likeness rights. There's a fair balance to be struck. Celebrities lose privacy rights, which makes likeness rights fair, although cases like this show that we still need to hammer out the details. Of course, many celebrities are hypocrites and complain when they don't enjoy the exact level of privacy that you and I have come to expect, but that shouldn't affect whether we grant likeness rights. It seems to have become the American way to want something for nothing. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Overcast (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 12:53pm
  
  Re: Overstating your argument
  But it's not like they have the market on the name 'Bogart' - I'm sure it's not unique to the actor and existed long before he even did.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Fushta, 15 Jun 2010 @ 3:45pm
    
    Re: Re: Overstating your argument
    To CYA, all you have to do is find someone with the last name of "Bogart," and pay them a fee ($100) to use their name. Then, you can say, you were not using Humphrey Bogart's last name, you were using Steve Bogart's last name.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jjmsan (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 12:54pm
  
  Re: Overstating your argument
  Celebrites make a lot of money for the loss of privacy. Stating that likness rights should also be given does not follow.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2010 @ 1:32pm
    
    Re: Re: Overstating your argument
    Not all of them, and how much is 'a lot' to have helicopters flying over head trying to get snaps of my new born?
    
    There is no money in the world which should compensate for loss of privacy. IMHO. Just because I chose to become an actor doesn't mean that I handed over my constitutional rights to privacy. It doesn't mean you deserve to know every inch of my PRIVATE life.
    
    This is not to say that I think celebs are guaranteed compensation for likeness rights. A wax statue. F-U. Pay Me. A 'couch' named Bogart??? F-U. Get a life....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2010 @ 12:49pm

I dunno, in the right light that furniture could look pretty menacing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Fushta, 15 Jun 2010 @ 3:46pm
  
  Re:
  Perhaps for loose change and remote controls it does
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Designerfx (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 12:57pm

haha
I guess in a humorous way maybe you can say it looks like Bogart?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ComputerAddict (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 1:06pm

I think this case has merit since there was already a trademark issued for the name "Bogart" for a furniture line (See par. 16) It sounds like Humphrey is the owner of that trademark and licensed its use to Thomasville...

This seems like the exact thing trademarks are suppose to be used for..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 1:08pm

Obligatory slightly altered quotation...
Of all the commercial industries in all the economies in all the world, his estate had to walk into this one....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cc (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 1:15pm

Now that you mention it, Humphrey did look a bit like a sofa!

Cool, btw -- you added slashdot-style buttons on posts :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mkam, 16 Jun 2010 @ 5:03am
  
  Re:
  But what do the slashdot-style buttons do? I have been downing and upping posts and it doesn't seem to have an effect. Maybe it is an experiment right now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 1:23pm

That couch ripped off my couch. All these copyright laws and people are still making couches that are copies of my couch!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2010 @ 1:37pm

it isnt a question of confusing the couch with the actor, it is a question of confusing the actors involvement or approval of the product. it would be similar to a 'techdirt male g-string'. the implication is that techdirt in some manner may be involved with the product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2010 @ 1:43pm
  
  Re:
  How would a man who was born in 1899 and who died in 1957 be involved with or have approved the fairly modern-looking product?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2010 @ 2:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    considering that furniture design is pretty much replication of existing models / designs, could it be that bogart himself commissioned his design 100 years ago?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2010 @ 2:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Doubt it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2010 @ 8:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      When he was 11 years old!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AdamR (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 2:04pm
  
  Re:
  Umm I guess only you would confuse the two.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nastybutler77 (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 2:58pm
  
  Re:
  "it isnt a question of confusing the couch with the actor, it is a question of confusing the actors involvement or approval of the product."
  
  I could only see that if they called the couch the "Humphrey Bogart." As it is, while not as ubiquitous as Johnson or Williams, there are many people with the last name of Bogart. If the only Bogart most people know is Humphrey, that isn't the manufacturer's problem, and you shouldn't be able to trademark a last name, whether common or not. If they called it "Hughes" instead of "Bogart" would Howard Hughes' estate be able to sue? What if they called it "Nixon?"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2010 @ 3:14pm
    
    Re: Re:
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&hs=x1e&rls=en&q=bogart+ -humphrey&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
    
    About 24,200,000 results (0.41 seconds) for Bogart -Humphrey
    
    First hit is for Bogart Racing Wheels. Fucking stealers!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2010 @ 10:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      yeah, Richard Bogart is a fucking stealer. idiot.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2010 @ 10:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I was being sarcastic!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 3:26pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You just confused the hell out of poster 16. He has probably scratched a large and profusely bleeding laceration in his scalp by now. You heartless bastard!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 3:26pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You just confused the hell out of poster 16. He has probably scratched a large and profusely bleeding laceration in his scalp by now. You heartless bastard!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Big Content, 15 Jun 2010 @ 5:23pm

Famous Names Should Be Retired
Once somebody becomes famous with a certain name, no one else should be allowed to use that name any more, to avoid confusion. For example, Will Smith has become so famous that no one else should be allowed to use the name “Smith”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bogie Fan, 15 Jun 2010 @ 9:13pm

What's odd about the lawsuit? Thomasville paid the Bogart Estate millions to use the name, so clearly the name has value. This furniture company clearly named the couch after Bogart in hopes of making it a bit more exciting and attractive and setting it apart. The same thing has happened with Brando jackets, Hepburn jewelry, Sinatra shirts, and the list goes on. Why should companies be allowed to pay nothing to the rights holders and add sizzle to their crappy products for free? Separate and apart from compensation, why should a company be allowed to use a celebrity's name without permission? A couch is one thing. But what if a celebrity's family does not want to be associated with, for example, alcohol or cigarettes? Is your position really that any company can attach a celebrity name to its product without obtaining permission or paying compensation? That's just crazy to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 11:31pm
  
  Re:
  his furniture company clearly named the couch after Bogart in hopes of making it a bit more exciting and attractive and setting it apart. The same thing has happened with Brando jackets, Hepburn jewelry, Sinatra shirts, and the list goes on. Why should companies be allowed to pay nothing to the rights holders and add sizzle to their crappy products for free?
  
  And why should estates of dead people get free cash just because someone names their product? That seems a lot more crazy to me than what you're saying.
  
  Separate and apart from compensation, why should a company be allowed to use a celebrity's name without permission
  
  Because they're naming a product. If they're not actually using their likeness, or making any representation that the product is actually endorsed by the star, then what's wrong with it?
  
  But what if a celebrity's family does not want to be associated with, for example, alcohol or cigarettes? Is your position really that any company can attach a celebrity name to its product without obtaining permission or paying compensation? That's just crazy to me.
  
  Free speech is a wonderful thing. People can say stuff you don't like.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bogie Fan, 15 Jun 2010 @ 11:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    As you must know, you are wrong from a legal perspective. There really can't be an argument about that. So, now we're having a moral discussion. Why do you feel so strongly that a soul-less, profit-motivated, fictitious legal entity like a furniture corporation should have greater rights than a person (living celebrity or the family of a deceased celebrity)? Free speech? Surely you are aware of the different legal treatment of commercial speech as opposed to political speech? Is a corporation pitching its crappy products in a money-making effort really deserving of the same protection as a political dissident?
    
    Would your position change if it was the Humphrey Bogart couch? What if it was the Tom Cruise couch? If so, what's the difference? If not, why is a corporation entitled to profit by associating its products with a celebrity name without either permission or compensation?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Almost Anonymous (profile), 16 Jun 2010 @ 9:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      """
      As you must know, you are wrong from a legal perspective. There really can't be an argument about that.
      """
      
      Actually there can be an argument: YOU are wrong, no law was broken. See how that works? Naming a couch after a long dead celebrity does not fall under the auspices of naming rights, IMO. Nobody in their right mind thinks that Bogie is endorsing this couch from beyond the grave. As far as the family, who cares? They are not the famous ones, no one cares about their opinion. Since you are arguing the point, how long will it be before someone could conceivably name their couch 'Bogart' without inviting a lawsuit?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - whatev, 21 Jun 2010 @ 3:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        well, there is still a problem besides the publicity rights violation, which is a law that was broken by the way. According to that complaint, the Bogart family has a trademark in the "bogart" name for furniture, which also makes it illegal to name furniture bogart. So, in your own words: YOU are wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - whatev, 21 Jun 2010 @ 3:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        but you probably didn't read the complaint did you? and you probably don't even know what the laws actually say concerning publicity rights and trademarks, and you probably don't know the consequences of abandoning those laws that protect publicity rights and trademarks
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC & Your Sunshine's Banned, 16 Jun 2010 @ 2:47am

"What if it was the Tom Cruise couch? "

The Tom Cruise couch is the one that's only 24 inches tall.

The Bogart couch is the one that smells like alcohol and nicotine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Griff (profile), 24 Jun 2010 @ 2:43am

Slashdot style buttons
-- But what do the slashdot-style buttons do? --

They are like the "door close" buttons in an elevator.
They do nothing, but they make you feel like you have done something, and hence make you feel slightly less powerless in this vast cruel world we live in.

Or maybe they are accidentally logged by google to build up a political profile of you that might one day be subpoena'd by a totalitarian regime looking for reasons to incarcerate you.

Either way, enjoy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
detachable bunk beds, 27 Jun 2017 @ 12:49pm

Cool couch
Looks like a very cool couch, but I think there is a lawsuit incoming lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]