Of All The Coats, In All The Scenes, In All The Films: Burberry Threatened Over Humphrey Bogart Publicity Rights

from the this-could-be-the-beginning-of-a-beautiful-lawsuit dept

One of the cooler features of Facebook's Timeline for businesses is the ability to go back and fill in milestones and events over the years. Some companies have long and very interesting histories, and for them a historical timeline is the perfect opportunity to engage in advertising-as-content. This is clearly what famed luxury brand Burberry was trying to do when they filled out their timeline with vintage advertisements and examples of Burberry's role in fashion and culture—including an image from Casablanca of Humphrey Bogart wearing a Burberry coat. Naturally it wasn't long before they started receiving legal threats from the company that controls Bogart's publicity rights and the trademarks associated with his name—but Burberry is fighting back. PaidContent reports that they have filed for declaratory judgment that their use of the image is not infringing.

As the filing (embedded below) asserts, Burberry's use of the image is legitimate in every way and clearly protected by the First Amendment. The company is simply showcasing a factual, historical example of an important use of the brand, and there is no reasonable alternative way they could convey the same information. Even in terms of copyright, Burberry would have a strong fair use argument—but the company actually obtained the necessary copyright licenses for the image, so that's not even an issue. In terms of trademarks and publicity rights, the infringement claim is even more spurious: the use of the image in no way implies personal endorsement or any commercial connection to Bogart. The only implied endorsement is that a Burberry coat was part of an iconic outfit from an iconic movie—and that's a plain and simple fact that anyone is free to report. Using a single frame from a film to demonstrate that fact is a clear-cut case of free speech, regardless of any rights that may be attached to the image or the celebrities therein.

We've noted before that publicity rights are new and kind of scary. In some ways they make the same kind of sense as trademarks: it's in the best interest of both companies and the consumer that brands can't misrepresent celebrities as endorsing their products when they actually don't, just as we don't want brands unfairly capitalizing on each others' goodwill. But, just like trademarks and every other form of intellectual property, publicity rights are breeding an ownership mentality where people think they can control any and all uses of something. These threats against Burberry are a prime example of that—and hopefully the judge grants them their declaratory judgment and sends a clear message that publicity rights do not supersede freedom of speech.

Hide this

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: casablanca, first amendment, humphrey bogart, publicity rights, trademark
Companies: burberry


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), 4 May 2012 @ 11:58am

    They remade Casablanca?

    I preferred the version with Myra Binglebat and Peter Beardsley...

    "Of all the space bars in all the worlds, you had to re-materialise in mine."

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      TDR, 4 May 2012 @ 12:20pm

      Re: They remade Casablanca?

      +1 for being a fellow Dwarfer :D

      And on topic, to put it in Bogart's manner of speaking, "IP's gotta go, schweethaht."

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2012 @ 1:44pm

      Re: They remade Casablanca?

      I gotta give you props for the Dwarf refernce! Kuddo's

      So whos going to sue for it :)

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    gorehound (profile), 4 May 2012 @ 12:10pm

    In Big Business nowadays it is a sue first Climate.
    I for one am fed up with it.
    How about you guys ?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    BentFranklin (profile), 4 May 2012 @ 12:20pm

    Perhaps publicity rights should be life of celebrity + 0 years. Why should Fred Astaire's descendants get to decide whether he would have endorsed a particular vacuum cleaner? They don't care about his legacy, they are just riding the gravy train.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Baldaur Regis (profile), 4 May 2012 @ 12:43pm

      Re:

      ...or, in these cases, the icky corpse train.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 5 May 2012 @ 1:13am

      Re:

      Perhaps publicity rights should be life of celebrity + 0 years.

      To be clear that IS the case with most publicity rights laws. The majority of them do not confer any rights after death. There are just a few states whose publicity rights laws do allow the rights to live on after death.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2012 @ 12:28pm

    I wonder if Burberry could claim the Bogart publicity rights company doesn't have permission to publicize any photos showing Bogart with it's Burberry coat?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      MrWilson, 4 May 2012 @ 12:43pm

      Re:

      Now that's just silly. The unspoken rule is clearly that whoever has the more profitable commodity to license gets legal preference. People who have never heard of Burberry have heard of Bogie, therefore Burberry should have to pay retroactively for Bogie wearing their product as free advertising!

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        G Thompson (profile), 5 May 2012 @ 12:59am

        Re: Re:

        So on that logic the Bogart estate needs to pay the tobacco companies for smoking there products ;)

        link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          MrWilson, 5 May 2012 @ 12:46pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          It could be argued that his lung cancer-induced death did increase the value of his celebrity status by decreasing the available supply, so yes, in that light, the Bogart estate should be paying the tobacco companies.

          Unfortunately, by the same logic, the Hemingway estate should be paying Abercrombie and Fitch for selling Ernest the gun with which he shot himself...

          link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            G Thompson (profile), 5 May 2012 @ 9:53pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Therefore all celebrities need to pay the community for publicity rights!

            Cool! I propose a Publicity tax.. The more publicity you require the more tax you pay..

            What? you are all against it? But why? Can't you see the absolute good it will ensure by bankrupting the likes of the Kardashians and Snooky's of the world..

            That can only be a good thing! ;)

            link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Baldaur Regis (profile), 4 May 2012 @ 12:40pm

    bref commentaire...

    ...huzzah for pushback!

    And - reading about this makes me want to get a Burberry.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2012 @ 12:48pm

    I don't see the pic on their timeline... removed it anyway?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jay, 4 May 2012 @ 1:17pm

    Burberry

    Too bad it wasn't a Louis Vitton coat

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Almost Anonymous (profile), 4 May 2012 @ 2:14pm

    Like the fashion industry has never done this...

    Naturally it wasn't long before they started receiving legal threats from the company that controls Bogart's publicity rights and the trademarks associated with his name—but Burberry is fighting back.
    What if the situation were reversed? Who believes that Burberry would have raised a stink if Bogart's people had made some special notice of the fact that he wore a Burberry coat in the movie? I'm looking at you, LV!

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.