Entertainment Law Update Blog

For this blog assignment I've taken the time to listen to a couple law podcasts in an attempt to expand my knowledge about different aspects of my business.
For my first podcast I listened to Gordon Firemark's podcast Episode 43- No Copyright Sherlock.  I'll be honest, I was dreading this assignment and thought this was going to be the most boring thing I've ever listened too but I thoroughly enjoyed this podcast.  I think being a former English major helped because Gordon discussed Faulkner and Harper Lee and a couple copyright issues.  The main issue I found interesting was the Faulkner people vs. the Midnight in Paris movie people.  At one point in the Midnight in Paris film George Clooney stands up and proclaims a profound statement about the past that was in the Faulkner piece "A requiem for a nun." Faulkner's folks said the one phrase in the movie violated copyright laws and that they were owed for the quote.  The judge however, cited fair use and said that there was no way this a copyright violation.

I found this 1st case quite helpful because I plan on making tshirts and hats down the road as my brand grows.  And a few of my designs all have common phrases on them.  I will need to ensure that I am protected under fair use for a few of them so that I cannot be sued for violating copyright laws.

For my 2nd case I listened to Entertainment Law Update Episode 36- Einstein, Faulkner, Superman and talent managers. There were some interesting points brought up in this podcast but one point in particular I found insightful.  Gordon discussed in this podcast Fox News vs. the wife of a deceased US Marine.  In this case Fox News used pictures of the family on vacation and pictures of the deceased Marine for their documentary "Afghanistan ER." Gordon discussed the moral issue of using pictures of the family on vacation but legally they didn't do anything wrong. The story proved as a stern warning to hurting your brand's image.  While yes Fox News did not do anything legally wrong they really did severely hurt their public image. For my brand we may never deal with anything this heavy but, we always need to keep our public opinion in the forefront of our minds.

Legal Issues: Lifestyle Brands

As an aspiring entrepreneur looking to developing my own brand first impressions are vital.  You want to make sure your company comes out of the gate with a great reputation and the consumers on your side.  That being said this week I researched 3 legal issues other lifestyle companies ran into and how it tarnished their reputation.

1^st off is the ever controversial subject of “ethics” and business.  Nike provides a great example of what not to do to keep the consumers on your side.  A few years back it came out that Nike was using underpaid labor in China to make their shoes.  And not just any underpaid labor, child labor.  The resulting public outcry and Nike’s initial flippant response left Nike’s reputation tarnished and falling stocks.  For me this is a stern warning to keep your business honest because at some point your dirty secrets will come out.

A 2nd example that I discovered was the Supreme vs. Married to the Mob.  Supreme is a lifestyle brand located in NYC with its reach covering into Europe.  A popular choice among rappers, artists and the like, Supreme has set itself apart as a strong brand and stronger business.  That being said a couple years ago Supreme took competitor Married to the Mob to court for their "Supreme B!tch" line of tshirts.  The resulting 10 million dollar lawsuit left Supreme tarnished and looking like a spoiled bunch of children.  Although it makes sense for a brand to protect itself it does not make sense for a lifestyle company to chase every possible trademark infringement around as it only ends up damaging themselves.

Finally a 3rd example of legal issues a lifestyle brand can face is Adidas and their "shackle sneaker" line.  Adidas released a line of sneakers with shackles that hook to your ankles when you wear them.  While I give Adidas credit for being creative the backlash from the general public was terrible.  After being called racists, biggots and other terrible things the company pulled the line.  The incident provides a solemn warning to companies about being conscious to not step on any toes.  While sometimes it makes sense to be edgy a company must always remember to be respectful less they receive a public lashing.