Charlie Sheen Reps Claim Publicity Rights To Shut Down Group Critical Of Sheen's Treatment Of Women
from the duh,-losing dept
The insanity that is Charlie Sheen is boiling over into the kind of stuff we follow. Given the massive focus on Sheen and his antics over the past few weeks, a bunch of people who appear to have no relationship with Sheen at all have been rushing to the Trademark Office to secure tradmarks on some of Sheen's popular new catchphrases. I can't really see how most of these could stand, as Sheen would have a pretty strong claim against them, but there are some serious players involved. Hell, even Jimmy Buffet is trying to register "Tiger Blood" for a new cocktail. Yum.That said, the merchandise group FEA Merchandising, which is a subsidiary of Live Nation, is apparently trying to crack down on competing Sheen merchandise, but is often doing so in questionable ways. For example, it's forced offline a group that was selling "Unfollow Charlie" t-shirts in an attempt to raise money for women's rights, and specifically the group RAINN (Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network). The person who set up the t-shirts, Kate Durkin, was reasonably horrified at the glorification of Sheen (some might claim that it was really more schadenfreude) during his... antics. So she's selling t-shirts and trying to get people to stop following Sheen on Twitter.
Reasonable enough, but FEA got Zazzle to take down her store. Why? You guessed it: Another questionable publicity rights claim. Durkin is wondering if she's being blocked because her campaign is critical of Sheen. It sounds like FEA is going after all sorts of folks, critical or not, but it still raises serious questions about publicity rights laws (yet again), if they can be used to stifle a protest against someone's 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: charlie sheen, publicity rights
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gold dentures by Sheen, I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's it all about
To that end I have found a clear piece from Jezabel detailing his 'exploits'; and two pieces from the NYT (whoops, I guess I don't have javascript on) about perceptions of the women involved and the lack of reaction by his employer.
Also of interest may be this observation from a feminist.
Here's hoping the attempted misuse of publicity rights bites him in the ass so hard that the Streisand effect gets renamed to the Sheen effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's it all about
That Charlie sure is funny! = Good, but also up for dispute.
That Charlie sure has a long history of abusing women! = Bad, and a little too real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's it all about
To be fair, I think it is perfectly plausible that whoever is working for him just saw that the merchandise mentions him and took action based on that alone. Perhaps the Streisand effect will be enough to tutor them to be more concious of free speech issues in future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charlie is a steaming sack of monkey dung
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I didn't see...
So, is this group claiming women shouldn't have the right to choose whether or not they're going to be involved in a sex & drug party with a wealthy celebrity? I'll bet they're advocates of 'women should be at home in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant too.'
These stupid misogynistic groups really get my dander up.
;-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What I didn't see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What I didn't see...
For some inexplicable reason, a womens' rights group is up in arms about Sheen's activities. The message from the womens' rights group is ambiguous at best, and their goal is laughable as they are apparently attempting to stem the tide of popular culture.
I hope that is succinct enough for you.
(PS - I try to make it a point to only harass AC shills, we cool?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What I didn't see...
That's not the issue, the issue is him being violent. Are you suggesting that his violence is mitigated by their choice to go near him? If so then can I use that as a defence against hitting misogynists? After all, if they come near someone who hates them then the violence doesn't really count.
"For some inexplicable reason, a womens' rights group is up in arms about Sheen's activities."
For activities read: allegedly hitting a girl in the head for refusing to have sex in 1994; allegedly knocking out and threatening to kill his then-girlfriend in 1996; allegedly throwing chairs at and threatening numerous times to kill his then-wife in 2006; allegedly strangling, holding a knife to the throat of, and threatening to kill his then-wife in 2009; allegedly put his hands around the neck of and threatening to kill a paid companion in 2010; and now allegedly threatening one of his ex wives again. Inexplicable indeed.
"The message from the womens' rights group is ambiguous at best"
Please expand on this statement.
"their goal is laughable as they are apparently attempting to stem the tide of popular culture."
So, you agree that popular culture encourages violence against women, yet find it laughable that people should try and change that?
"(PS - I try to make it a point to only harass AC shills, we cool?)"
I'm just discussing the issue. I'm perfectly fine with you disagreeing with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What I didn't see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I didn't see...
No problem. I'm amazed that the guy is more notorious for two non issues than for being violent and abusive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What I didn't see...
I don't know much about Charlie Sheen, but if this is true it's really more than odd that any women still wants to be around him. Maybe money does compensate for a guy's shortcomings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahh Carlos...such a fool...
It's off-topic, but I thought it was hilarious that he made a fuss about Chuck Lorre's name not being real when Charlie Sheen is the stage name of Carlos Estevez. Props to Mr. Lorre for not engaging on the issue, though it seems in retrospect like the obvious winning move.
Kate Durkin will only be able to exploit the public interest in Mr. Sheen while the spotlight is on him, and proceeds presumably go to a good cause, so wtf? Why doesn't she make a more blunt statement by pointing out the obvious: Mr. Sheen likes to beat up girls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ahh Carlos...such a fool...
Well, I'm no expert on defamation laws... but I'd start there. I prefer Kate's approach anyway as it's more likely to engage people. They're more likely to ask 'What do you have against Charlie?' than dismiss you as a walking billboard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ahh Carlos...such a fool...
As others have pointed out, people seem to tolerate Mr. Sheen's bad behaviour because he's charming, famous, and wealthy. If it was your neighbour who had been arrested multiple times for beating and threatening to kill his spouse, this issue wouldn't be worthy of debate, as it appears to be due to Mr. Sheen's celebrity. He is responsible for his own actions, and has been very public about it. He's on tour so he can keep talking about it. He does seem to skip over the parts where he gets arrested for hitting his girlfriend(s), and/or shows up to work under the influence of narcotics or alcohol, late, unprepared, or not at all.
I think the point of the original article, that Ms. Durkin shouldn't have to contend with Mr. Sheen's legal threats, is a valid one.
Mr. Sheen likes to beat up women. Unfollow Charlie indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ahh Carlos...such a fool...
I get very emotional about these issues so I find it important to focus on what might achieve something rather than what makes me feel better. I'm fine with calling the guy names, but campaigns can become overly aggressive and do more harm than good if restraint isn't exercised (just look at PETA's attempts to make people feel guilty; I haven't noticed a positive effect but I have noticed people making fun of not eating meat).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duh.......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FEA has no leg to stand on
Sheen and his publicists don't own the name "Charlie".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FEA has no leg to stand on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some is selling "Unfollow Charlie" @ Zazzle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]