Twilight Producers Sue To Stop Fashion Design Firm From Pointing Out That 'Bella' Wore Its Jacket

from the factual? dept

Wed, Jun 16th 2010 12:03pm — Mike Masnick

As recently mentioned, we've been seeing more and more "publicity rights" type claims, that seem pretty problematic from a basic free speech standpoint. Take, for example, this new lawsuit, filed by Summit Entertainment, the studio that produces the Twilight movies, against fashion designer B.B. Dakota. The backstory here is that, apparently, the character of "Bella" in the Twilight movies was supposed to wear a brown hoodie, but it didn't look right:

'I was planning to use the brown hoodie for that sequence, but the director of photography hated the fact that her hair and the jacket were both brown and felt she got lost in it,'' says Chuck, who then made a last-minute run to outlet store Nordstrom Rack to hunt for a replacement. ''I literally brought that blue one on set just before they rolled cameras. Then Catherine said, 'Wendy saved the day!' That made me a hero.''

Sensing an opportunity, B.B. Dakota reissued the jacket with an advertising campaign around the fact that it was worn by Bella in the movie. That's a factual statement. But, of course, Summit doesn't want anyone profiting from what it's done without paying them first, so it's suing. This isn't new for Summit, of course. It's sued to stop a documentary about the town where the Twilight movies take place, as well as shut down a Twilight fanzine. Now, to be fair, B.B. Dakota did rename the jacket the "Twilight Jacket." So, yes, it's clearly trying to capitalize on the association. But, it's a factual association. Why should that be illegal?

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: bella, branding, facts, jackets, twilight
Companies: b.b. dakota, summit entertainment

37 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2010 @ 12:14pm

Branding it like that implies it's official authorized merch. Sell "Shizzy Jacket" advertised as "worn by sparklpires" is different from "Official sparklpire jacket of sparkling, favored by his shiny lordness himself"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jjmsan (profile), 16 Jun 2010 @ 12:30pm
  
  Re:
  Where do they say official jacket. If a series comes out called Evening can we no longer sell evening gowns?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2010 @ 2:36pm
    
    Re: Re:
    not so. just having a movie called jeans wouldnt make selling jeans a problem either. but the move by the jacket company is to profit not only from an appearance in the movie, but also to attach themselves to the movie and profit from the movies fame. basically, it is hijacking the movies image without rights.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Modplan (profile), 16 Jun 2010 @ 3:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Except nowhere does it hijack anything. All it claims is that the jacket was seen in Twilight.
      is to profit not only from an appearance in the movie, but also to attach themselves to the movie and profit from the movies fame.
      The 2 are one in the same. What is so terrible about boasting how your product was featured in a film, which it factually was.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 16 Jun 2010 @ 3:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "but the move by the jacket company is to profit not only from an appearance in the movie, but also to attach themselves to the movie and profit from the movies fame"
      
      Isn't that what the movie did in using the jacket? Why is it a one way street?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - harbingerofdoom (profile), 16 Jun 2010 @ 2:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    no, but you can bet that if there were a spike in evening gown sales as a result, some idiot would sue over it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 16 Jun 2010 @ 12:32pm

It probably isn't illegal and definitely should not be illegal
Where money is involved, everything is illegal until the appropriate checks are written.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rick, 16 Jun 2010 @ 12:48pm

When...
Does anyone remember when this country changed over to being purely focused on greed. This does nothing to deter the Twilight franchise or Summit. In fact, it's probably beneficial cross promotion that costs them nothing. Going after the designer for renaming an outfit and stopping a documentary of the town where the film was made can only be motivated by their greed to get every penny possible out of the movie.

I got swatted when I was a kid for screaming, "MINE, MINE, MINE!" and not sharing.

Grow up people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 16 Jun 2010 @ 12:52pm
  
  Re: When...
  This is exactly the attitude that TechDirt preaches against. Short sighted greed ruins what should be a symbiotic relationship. They get to sell sweatshirts all the while freely promoting your movie.
  
  As long as they don't make any claim to being officially endorsed there shouldn't even be a second thought to what they are doing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - lux (profile), 16 Jun 2010 @ 3:22pm
    
    Re: Re: When...
    "Short sighted greed ruins what should be a symbiotic relationship. They get to sell sweatshirts all the while freely promoting your movie."
    
    Last time I checked, capitalistic society isn't really buddy-buddy with other companies making millions of their idea. The way they see it - I'll sue you for selling sweatshirts, steal the idea, and sell them myself.
    
    Sad but true, but remember, this is America!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2010 @ 3:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re: When...
      LOL, if we still lived in a capitalist society, that would be a great point.
      
      But in a society where Ford and Toyota show up to ask Congress to bail out GM, maybe you can note that monopolies don't equal capitalism.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rabbit, 16 Jun 2010 @ 1:19pm
  
  Re: When...
  i believe it was october of 2006...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2010 @ 1:54pm
  
  Re: When...
  "Does anyone remember when this country changed over to being purely focused on greed."
  
  When was it ever NOT focused on greed?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - RD, 16 Jun 2010 @ 5:45pm
    
    Re: Re: When...
    "Does anyone remember when this country changed over to being purely focused on greed."
    
    When was it ever NOT focused on greed?"
    
    Yes, right up until 1913 and the formation of the Federal Reserve.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2010 @ 2:01pm
  
  Re: When...
  Uhhh, My recollection from reading American history is that this country: Was discovered due to greed Colonized due to greed Proclaimed independence due largely to monetary issues Alomost ripped itself apart in large part due to greed Expanded due to greed Won two world wars due at least in part to enriching people who produced superior weapons and other supplies... Hello!!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2010 @ 6:25pm
    
    Re: Re: When...
    The history of, well... the whole damned world, right there.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comboman (profile), 16 Jun 2010 @ 12:53pm

Google House
My house is visible on Google Earth, therefore I'm going to rename it Google House and sell Google branded merchandise. Do you think I'll get in legal trouble?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matthew Krum (profile), 16 Jun 2010 @ 1:22pm
  
  Re: Google House
  You're probably okay so long as it reads, "As Seen On Google Earth."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - mattarse (profile), 17 Jun 2010 @ 1:09am
    
    Re: Re: Google House
    I now want to paint that on my roof and wait for it to show up in Google Earth :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2010 @ 1:25pm
  
  Re: Google House
  Uhm... I'm going to sue Google because they are benefiting from images of my house on their server!!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JTO (profile), 16 Jun 2010 @ 2:10pm
  
  Re: Google House
  Well yes, as "Google" is a brand-mark. "Twilight" is a common use word.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Capitalist (profile), 16 Jun 2010 @ 12:53pm

If only clothes were copyrighted
then B.B. Dakota could counter-sue, DMCA the hell out of everything Twilight on the 'Net and, god willing, get an injunction on the filmmakers barring them from ever producing anything again. It would save many from the desire to slash their wrists out of sheer boredom and the unquenchable desire to 'punch-an-emo'.

Thankfully, I rented. The first five minutes were plenty of abuse for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2010 @ 12:53pm

only one thing to do
EULA for clothes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GXO, 16 Jun 2010 @ 1:48pm

Licensing
I'm sorry. Did Summit Entertainment license that jacket for commercial use from B.B. Dakota?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Burgos, 16 Jun 2010 @ 5:46pm
  
  Re: Licensing
  Exactly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2010 @ 9:32am
    
    Re: Re: Licensing
    But... they bought it. So they can do whatever they want with it, right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 16 Jun 2010 @ 1:52pm

Gee...
Could the Hollywood bastards BE any greedier?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brock Phillimore (profile), 16 Jun 2010 @ 2:01pm

I am no lawyer, but could the clothing manufacture sue them for using the jacket in the movie without permission? Seems like the next logical step. However if they held off until after the free advertising they are getting from being sued in the first place started to wane, they could refresh it with this suite. Both the movie and the clothing line are gaining from being in the news. Wouldn't it be interesting to find out they had gotten together on this in advance and were both in on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2010 @ 2:38pm
  
  Re:
  nope. the clothing is sold commercially, without restriction. most film makers will go out of their way to remove or disguise any logos and such that are visible, unless they are paid for product placement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2010 @ 5:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Would the same logic apply if music was involved instead of clothing?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
btr1701 (profile), 18 Jun 2010 @ 8:22am

Branding
There are two issues here. Branding the jacket "The Twilight Jacket" is a clear abuse of Summit trademark and could easily lead to confusion from customers as to whose merchandise is being sold. That's a legitimate complaint.

What's not legitimate is Summit's claim that BB Dakota can't even mention that their jacket was worn by one of the characters in the movie. Selling the "Adventure Jacket" (or whatever it's previous brand name was) and then adding on a tag-line like "as worn by Bella in Twilight" is perfectly legal and doesn't violate anything actionable by Summit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hasan Luongo, 29 Jun 2010 @ 11:46am

get the original here
you can still purchase the original Bella twilight Hoodie at hoodiepeople.com http://bit.ly/6SIi2o
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frederico, 24 Aug 2010 @ 3:49pm

Let's be honest, this designer is not the first one to capitalize on the movie and name their product after Twilight or one of their stars. Is the company go after everyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave B, 14 Dec 2010 @ 6:52pm

Renaming
When they went and renamed the jacket they messed up any defense. They tried to pull a fast one and got caught. A PR piece and some free publicity without renaming the jacket would have been the smart move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 10 Sep 2011 @ 9:33am

well
If I was BB Dakota I'd apologize for my product having in some way been used to create the christ-pants-shittingly-awful twilight movies......

Then I'd DMCA the hell out of the movie, have it stripped from the shelves/download sites until the offending scenes were completely removed (and not just photoshopped over).

Then I'd calculate the exact percentage of the movie the jacket there, claim people only went to watch that part of the movie FOR THE JACKET and demand that % of the movie's gross profits as compensation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 10 Sep 2011 @ 9:34am

next for summit
Is to sue all satellites in orbit because as they film the earth going from day to night, they're making their own "twilight" movie........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 10 Sep 2011 @ 9:35am

then...
Apple sues Summit because twilight is a soft kind of light and that kinda sounds like "soft rounded corners".....and twilight is dark i.e. black and apple now has 100% control of both the concept of everything below 90degree angles AND the color black.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]