Ford motor Company (defendant) and it advertising agency, Young & Rubicam, Inc. advertised the Ford Lincoln Mercury with a series of nineteen 30 or 60 second television commercials in its “The Yuppie Campaign. ” Which is supposed to bring back memories of when they were in college. The agency tried to contact the original people who had popularized the songs, to sing them. This idea failed and decided to go with sound alike.
When the agency was preparing the Yuppie campaign it presented the commercial to its client by playing an edited version of Bette Midler (Plaintiff) singing “Do you Want to Dance? ” taken from the 1973 Midler album. After Ford accepted the idea and the commercial idea, the agency contacted Ms. Midler’s manager, and stated that they are not interested in the commercial. The agency sought out one of Midler’s backup singer, Hedwig. They wanted someone that sounded like Midler. After the commercial that was aired, many people told Ms. Midler that it sounded exactly like her.
Decision Below: Ms. Midler filed suit against Ford and Young & Rubicam for appropriation. Young & Rubicam had a license from the song’s copyright holder to use it. Neither the name nor the picture of Ms. Midler was used in the commercial. The district court entered judgment for Ford and Young & Rubicom, and Ms. Midler appealed. Issue on Appeal: Can you hold every imitation of a voice to advertise merchandise is accountable for copyright distinctions? Conclusion: We conclude that Ms. Midler’s case that Ford’s profit in selling their products did appropriate part of her identity.
The Term Paper on Firestone And Ford: The Tire Tread Separation Tragedy
Firestone/Bridgestone and Ford companies caught public negative attention in the end of 1990s because of their relation to tire tread separation cases, which caused numerous car accidents not only in US, but also abroad. Because they did not take proper actions to eliminate the number of this cases and remove all dangerous products from the market timely, even if they knew that something was ...
Holding: Yes The first Amendment protects much of what the media so in the reproduction of likeness or sounds. A primary value is freedom of speech and press. The purpose of the media’s use of person’s identity is central. If the purpose is “informative or cultural” the use is immune. A voice is as distinctive and personal as a face. The human voice is one of the most palpable ways identity is manifested. To impersonate the singer’s voice is to pirate her identity. Only that when a distinctive voice of a professional singer that s Midler known is deliberately imitated in order to sell a product, the sellers have appropriated what is not theirs and have committed a tort in California. Midler had made a showing, Sufficient to defeat summary judgment, that the defendants there for their own profit in selling their products did appropriate part of her identity. Affirmed: Ms. Midler’s case was tried, and she recovered $400,000 from the defendant in October 1989 so using her song in order for Ford to make a profit selling their product. Other judge dissent/concurrence: n/a Personal thoughts/comments: It is the most ethical thing to do is give Ms.
Midler money. Ford and the advertisement commercial used her lyrics in order for people to recognize the song and become attracted to the commercial. It is very unfortunate that this had to happen to Ms. Midler and I believe that the court system gave the right decision on giving Ms Midler Money. This case is relevant in today’s society. My article that I wrote about was about Apple using a photo that was used for advertisement. The photographer gave Apple rights to use the photo, however, it was not intended for commercials and website advertisement.
