Copyright Dispute Over Tanning Lotion From Jersey Shore's 'JWOWW'

from the j-what? dept

Fri, Aug 12th 2011 1:06am — Mike Masnick

We've actually written about a copyright dispute involving a shampoo bottle in the past. And now we've got a copyright dispute involving a tanning lotion bottle. Honestly, though, it appears to be more of a stupid contractual dispute with the plaintiffs throwing in a copyright claim just for the hell of it. The details, at THREsq, talk about how Jersey Shore's Jenni "JWOWW" Farley is being sued for offering up a tanning lotion in the bottle seen here:

Apparently the plaintiffs run a company that sells tanning solution, and they had worked with Farley's ex-boyrfriend/ex-manager to create the product. They claim they designed and registered the copyright for the bottle. However, after Farley and the guy split, the lotion still came out, but without the partner company. All in all this seems like it should be a straight contract dispute (which the plaintiffs allege as well), but thanks to copyright they get to pile on.

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: copyright, jenni farley, jersey shore, jwoww, tanning lotion

16 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 3:16am

I.. I... I just can't do it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/halytech/51896751/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just John (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 3:25am

Diamonds on tissue paper ring a bell?
Honestly, if they can take diamonds on a tissue paper to court, then this one meets the proper monkey test as well.

Sounds like since it seems to be more linked to a lovers spat and custody rights (of the copyright, before someone misunderstands and tells me no children were hurt in the making of this), seems like she should just buy said tissue paper and leave the lawyers out of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
marcbl, 12 Aug 2011 @ 3:53am

Q: who the fuck cares?
A: People who read People.

What's the tech tie-in here?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Schmoo, 12 Aug 2011 @ 4:19am

Re:
Copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 4:21am

Re:
Despite the Oompa-Loompa orange tone to one of the people involved, it is a copyright dispute over a bottle design.

We discuss copyright here... and this is a...
*throws hands up*

Nope still can't do it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nunya_bidness, 12 Aug 2011 @ 4:36am

Re:
The real question is why would anybody make bronzer for black people?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 4:42am

Re: Re:
To keep this blog in business...

http://www.paleisthenewtan.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 6:27am

I'm having a really, really hard time
developing the slightest bit of interest in this case. The people who are involved directly are all morons. The people who actually buy this POS are even more hopeless.

Dermatologists will love this stuff, however, since somewhere down the line it will generate more business income for them, cutting and freezing off the various growths that will manifest years later on the people who think spending a lot of time frying in the solar glare is a good thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 6:31am

Re: I'm having a really, really hard time
this could just be a bottle of instant orange for those on the go kids without time to spend 6 hours a day in the tanning bed...

This topic is like a car wreck... can't ... look .... away...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Krusty, 12 Aug 2011 @ 6:59am

What is this "jersey shore" you speak of?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 7:04am

They claim they designed and registered the copyright for the bottle. However, after Farley and the guy split, the lotion still came out, but without the partner company. All in all this seems like it should be a straight contract dispute (which the plaintiffs allege as well), but thanks to copyright they get to pile on.

You didn't explain WHY this is only a contract dispute and not a copyright one as well. Do you actually have an argument? This appears to be another desperate attempt by you to diss copyright law--and of course, you give no basis or argument for your position.

Here's the complaint for reference: http://ia700707.us.archive.org/8/items/gov.uscourts.okwd.81394/gov.uscourts.okwd.81394.1.0.pdf
[ link to this | view in thread ]
thedigitari, 12 Aug 2011 @ 7:19am

copyright?
this is just a simple matter, Boy meets girl, girl has boobs, girl dumps boy, boy loses boobs, this is just about a couple of Boobs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stephen, 12 Aug 2011 @ 9:32am

bottle copyright
What this suit suggests is that the lotion itself is not the draw, that, like vodka, which is exactly the same from brand to brand, the appeal is in the brand made manifest by the bottle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any Mouse (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 9:55am

Re:
Sheesh, it's thick, today, isn't it? I'm less than knowledgeable about such things, and I can put the pieces together. They had a contract with a company to produce this lotion. Before the product hit the markets, they split from the company, yet they still put out the product the partner company had worked hard on creating for them. If copyright were not in place on a stupid fucking bottle, it would be a simple contract dispute, and it SHOULD BE, but copyright rears its ugly head, once more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Atkray (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 10:29am

Re:
Here, I found the animated version

http://media.photobucket.com/image/attempting%20to%20give%20a%20damn%20gif%20animation%20 funny/xGeegx/attemptingtogiveadamn.gif?o=1
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 13 Aug 2011 @ 6:37am

Re: bottle copyright
Oooh publicity rights vs copyright. FIGHT!

Because if JWOWW is intrinsic to the overall copyright on the design, then without her approval they can not market it without another lawsuit. Unless of course the contract states otherwise, and I am sure her former manager/boyfriend was very knowledgeable about these sorts of things when they signed the contract.

And of course them going to another production firm, I am willing to bet they disclosed they had a prior contract on the item in question.

My one hope in all of this is they sue until she vanishes.
Then we can hope other lawsuits will then remove the orange tint from the tv screens 1 at a time.
It will not be fast enough, but hopefully the world can recover from the idea that being a loudmouthed shallow ass makes you important.
*leans head to side listening off camera*
This just in... we're screwed still.
[ link to this | view in thread ]