Britanny Spears’ $117,000 Luis Vuitton
p2pnet news | Music:- Usually, manufacturers and promoters are falling over themselves to get celebrities to wear, carry, eat or drink their stuff.
But not luxury baggage maker Luis Vuitton.
Instead, it’s sued poor old Britney Spears for using its logo in a video featuring a pinkmobile.
The logo flashes on and off so quickly your eyes barely have tine to register it.
But it was enough to net Luis a cool $117,000 cash settlement, “and the rights to have a Britney Spears ‘Do Somethin’ video banned from future use after it was agreed it infringed copyright by featuring the label’s trademark print,” says Female First.
“The video features Spears gliding through a heavenly sky in a pink Hummer tricked out with seats upholstered in Louis Vuitton’s Cherry Blossom pattern, which has appeared on the fashion house’s ultrapricey handbags and luggage,” says E! Online, adding:
“The suit named MTV.com, which allowed Francophiles the world over to watch the video, Zomba Label Group, which runs Jive Records, and its parent company Sony BMG as defendants.”
Here’s the YouTube video of same ……..
Also See:
Female First – Louis Vuitton Wins Britney Spears Lawsuit, November 20, 2007
E! Online – Britney Bourne in L.A., Banned in Paris, November 19, 2007
November 21st, 2007 at 4:23 am
A NATION OF INFRINGERS
Ever since tha American copyright law changed in 1978, whereas anything created has an autimatic copyright everyone is all the time a copyright infringer to the tune of millions of dollars per day in potential liabilities. An interesting article on the subject, “Overly-broad copyright law has made USA a “nation of infringers” can be read here:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071119-overly-broad-copyright-law-has-made-us-a-nation-of-infringers.html
Says the article: “John Tehranian, a law professor at the University of Utah, calculates in a new paper that he rings up $12.45 million in liability over the course of an average day”.
Looking at the Britanny Spears video it is evident that on the video there is the appearance of hundreds of things (for example, earrings, necklaces, curtains, cloth, automobile, sunglasses, shoes,….) that have design copyrights, just as the Vuitton cloth, simply because they were created.
It is by chance and ironic that a RIAA record label was cought and sued this time around.
It is also by chance and ironic that a RIAA record label is this time arounf the victim of a damage award that has nothing to do with the actual damages, simply because the copyright law allows damages of $150,000 where there is none.
The irony part is that the victim this time comes from the class of lobbyists that have pushed the law (and the legislators who passed the law) into the predicament and riduculed position it finds itself in, as illustrated by the John Tehranian statements.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:32 am
Could this be a fake lawsuit? A publicity stunt?
This is the theory: Before the lawsuit is files, plaintiff and defendant agree that one will sue the other and then settle for a huge amount that is never actually paid.
The purpose would be to propagate the idea that even insignificant infringements can be very costly.
Why do I suspect?: Because the settlement agreement did not require confidentiality and big corporations, I believe, always demands confidentiality each time they infringe or are sued, to cover their tracks.