skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Schwarzenegger Files Suit Against Bobblehead Maker
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/18/national/18arnold.html?ex=1221192000&en=06a8eba68d93cf13&ei=5070
wearing a gray suit and a bandoleer and brandishing an assault rifle. The defendant (an Ohio-based toy company) argued that the dolls were an artistic political parody and should be protected by the First Ammendment. The toy company also sells John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and Jimmy Carter bobbleheads among hundreds of others and claims to have not had any problems in the past with celebrity likeness issues.
How different from the celebrity's likeness do toys have to be in order to be considered parody? Should the toy company have to pay royalties for their dolls?
In the end, the case resulted in a settlement where the toy company removed the gun from the doll and some of the proceeds went to one of Swarzenegger's charities.
1 comment:
This is a great case. It is very interesting and encompasses a lot of what we have spoken about in class. However, I find the settlement the most interesting. I suppose if the bobblehead was manufactured without the riffle Schwarzenegger would have never filed suit. It almost seems as if he was worried about his reputation more than the financial implications.
Post a Comment