Why line Anthems are getting revoked

RRhighrider

RRhighrider

Active member
i am currently take a bussness law class and everyday at the begining of class we talk about current events. Today i talked about the line anthem and my teacher agreed that the cheapest and best action to take was to remove all the skis from the market.

here is an overview of the right to publicity

The Right of Publicity prevents the unauthorized commercial use of an individual's name, likeness, or other recognizable aspects of one's persona. It gives an individual the exclusive right to license the use of their identity for commercial promotion.

In the United States, the Right of Publicity is largely protected by state common or statutory law. Only about half the states have distinctly recognized a Right of Publicity. Of these, many do not recognize a right by that name but protect it as part of the Right of Privacy. The Restatement Second of Torts recognizes four types of invasions of privacy: intrusion, appropriation of name or likeness,unreasonable publicity and false light. See Restatement (Second) Of Torts §§ 652A - 652I. Under the Restatement's formulation, the invasion of the Right of Publicity is most similar to the unauthorized appropriation of one's name orlikeness. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652C (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy/Privacy_R2d_Torts_Sections.htm), comments a & b, illustrations 1 & 2.

In other states the Right of Publicity is protected through the law of unfair competition. Actions for the tort of misappropriation or for a wrongful attempt to "pass off" the product as endorsed or produced by the individual help to protect the right of publicity. See Unfair competition (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/topics/unfair_competition.html).

If a person can establish an aspect of his or her identity as a trademark, protection may be provided by Federal law. See Trademark (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/topics/trademark.html).

The Federal Lanham Act can also provide protection where a person's identity is used to falsely advertise a product or designateits origin. See § 1125 of The Lanham Act.

i doubt too many people made it to the bottom and actually read all of this but i hope it helped people who are smart enough to understand and kazzzamoo
 
So the question is what aspect of their identity did Kiss trademark? White face paint? Black hair? Guitars? A combination of the above?
 
Of course, what you don't learn in first year business is that copyright and such laws are actually contentious, and up for debate. Having seen the anthem graphic, I can assure you that whatever KISS likeness is there is entirely debateable, and in fact probably would be discussed in court, if the matter made it there.

However, much like what happens libel laws (at least Canadian libel laws), you're more or less guilty until proven innocent when it comes to copyright issues, and it's very, very easy to get "bullied", so to speak, by a plaintiff with more money and better lawyers. When that happens, you settle, because it's easier and less risky than going to trial, where things could either go your way, or you could end up losing and dishing out tons more cash.

Basically, these copyright/likeness/image laws have the potential to be abused as an easy way to make money off the success of others. Need an example? Go google a company called NTP, and then a term known as "patent troll". Then go do some research on how many old, out of touch, no longer profitable rock bands are staying alive thanks to copyright/likeness/whatever laws, and draw some conclusions for yourself. While you're at it, go look into fair use and a couple other concepts.

Now, no one's saying KISS wasn't "right" to sue, but quite a few people are saying it was fucking lame, and that inspiration doesn't necessarily mean that a graphic is ripping someone off.
 
i am not saying that i agree with kiss but i do see that there is a possible tort and that it would be cheaper to revoke the skis them try to fight it.
 
The whole problem I see with all that is the term "likeness".

If they used a logo or a previously produced image before, than fine, but the image is a rock star. I didn't think, "OH HEY THAT'S KISS!!" The first time I saw it.

It's a stretch to consider that grounds for copyright infringement.

But in this day an age, Money buys everything, and Kiss has more resources than Line does, so they had to back down. Money can prove guilt even if innocent for sure these days.
 
well and also I'm sure KISS has like 500 times as much money as Line, so basically they win. fuckers.
 
it really sucks that they wont be able to sell them this year, but you gotta wonder what theyll do with all the skis that they already had pressed.
 
yay for ignorant comments. a ton of park skiers are ex-racers. heck mahre is goin back to racing this year.
 
^crap sorry for the off topicness. That really sucks, but doesn't sound like line has any options that aren't gonna cost them mad money. They should spray paint the skis they've made already and sell them for super cheap!
 
The fact that "likeness" was the deciding factor is complete bullshit. Line had a ski with a pretty sick graff that was rock star theme, so because of that kiss decided that it looked like them? There were tons of spin off bands of kiss that never really made it, why is it that they didnt also try to get it revoked. Line didnt need another big problem with their skis after last year and this isnt helping their situation at all. Yes i know that line is under the K2 umbrella now but that doesnt mean that they can take set backs like this. This is total bullshit and I hope they file some sort of law-suit to fight this. Im pretty sure they wont, and what the thread maker said makes sence but they need to fight this thing, cause winning due to "likeness" is rediclous
 
I agree.

also, it's not like the ski is being sold entirely because of the graphic, people bought the ski for the ski.
 
Copyright isn't the issue here. Copy right only pertains to Intellectual Property, so if Line put the lyrics to a Kiss song on the Skis then it would be a copyright issue.

The problem here is Trademark infringement. The Kiss face paint, the "look", the Kiss letter are all trademarks.

 
Just to clarify for everyone the difference between Copyright, Trademark, and Patent.

Copyright - This is intellectual property. Lyrics to a song, art, a movie. ©

Trademark - This is an image or something that defines a brand. Coke bottle shape, logo's, slogans, color combos. TM or ®

Patent - Copyrights for inventions. Lines Carbon Ollie Band, or stuff like that.
 
That made me laugh.

Can you say "Cut 'em and chuck 'em?"

They could go back and replace all the topsheets if people didn't mind paying 1800 a pair.

All kidding aside, this really sucks as I was waiting on those skis. Chronic Blend for park I guess.
 
can somebody post a pic of the ski so everyone on here can see exactly what were talking about and make there own conclusions.

Thanks!
 
that is pretty stupid, if anything the trademark of Kiss's image on a bunch of punks that ski park would be a good thing the image on the ski was of a person rocking infront of a crowd, thats not bad, plus i didnt think kiss when i saw them i didnt think about that until i heard about this and white face paint was used by plenty of bands, tv, shows, everything why are the suing line only?? what a bunch of tools
 
since no pic was posted i went and looked at pictures and when i first saw the ski i thought KISS as well from the way LINE was written to way the rockers are being portrayed... KISS is the trademark and marketing of their shit KING and thats why when you think of 80's rock you think of the images that are KISS because of the licensing EMPIRE that Gene Simmons has created..

Thats Capitalism!
 
they should keep them in a whare house and sell them as a limited edition to collectors in 60years for 10 times the value as they are now
 
IT never once occured to me that kiss was even on their skis it doesn't even realyl look like the. It's just random rockstars that would have never held up if they'd acctualyl taken it to court
 
I think the whole thing is ridiculous. K2 made Maidens for years and Iron Maiden never cared. If anything, it brought more listeners to them. Now Line is revoking an entire production of skis because of a potential "likeness". You'd think that with K2 owning them now they would be more willing and able to fend off any lawsuits that might arise.
 
they should probably just put a piece of skateboard griptape over the guys face and tout it as a new technology for eXtreme grabs.

Didn't the old Dynastar Candides have grip tape on them?
 
wrong...K2 was required to pull the AK Maiden name from this years ski - hence the AK Enemy.

It just took Iron Maiden's attorney's a few years to learn about it.
 
That is sooooooo gay on kiss's part. How did they find out in the first place, i dindt think kiss was too into the freeskiing scene.
 
I saw on the show "family jewels" ( i think thats the name, it's the one about gene simmons) and it showed him getting a snowboard made for him with his face right in the middle, i think it's kind of contradictory(sp) but then again gene and the drummer aren't the same person. and it's not totally related.
 
i have lost all respect for kiss...but i really didnt have much for them anyway not really donw with guys whose tongues i could get an eye poked out wiht
 
i think people need the whole details before they make judgement

from everything ive heard, gene simmons wasnt the sticking issue in the graphic. The image is of the drummer for Kiss, who is deceased. Aparently his sister saw the image in a magazine, and was upset by the fact that her dead brother was being marketed w/o the estates knowledge

not saying thats 100% correct, but its what i heard from a few people. Plus shit, gene simmons face is on a snowboard brands hoodie (wont say what brand) and its for sale now
 
fuck line, and fuck kiss, especially fuck kiss cos no one likes them now, and then fuck line some more for getting everyones hope up with a sick ski then screwing the people who ordered them
 
it sucks! I have already paid for my Anthems. What do i do now? What ski should i get instead? I dunno whether i should try and get another Line ski (but not the invader, too soft for me) or just screw them and get something else!

any thoughts?
 
bummer. fun skis. too bad they couldn't have just made them with a different topsheet. but i guess they are all produced and sitting around....
 
I don't think Line is screwing anybody who pre-ordered the skis. They'll probably offer you your pick of any other Line ski.

Anyone know how big the actual image actually is on the ski? J-Lev, just get twenty local kids in for a day or two and slap a big Line sticker on every topsheet right over that dead motherfucker, and then sell them like it ain't no thing.
 
that'd be weird would his wife be reading a random freeskier or ski mag? or do u think it got to other mags kind of affiliated with skiing, like the men's journal cuz i know they have some ski stuff in there once in awhile
 
No. KISS has a team of lawers that activly seek out possible copyright infringements to persue. They probably make more money from suing people than from selling records now.
 
i know it looks nothing like kiss except the face paint, and thts soo general anyone could put on face paint and play guitar
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top