30
   

So Saying That Folks Should Follow Christian Morals is NOW A Firing Offense

 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Thu 26 Dec, 2013 04:35 pm
@firefly,
That's actually quite funny.

If A&E has the merchandising rights to the products, all those people fussing that they'll never watch the show again without Daddy-o but still buying all the products are actually supporting A&E.

Funny and brilliant.
tenderfoot
 
  2  
Thu 26 Dec, 2013 04:42 pm
Only in America!!!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Thu 26 Dec, 2013 05:05 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

That's actually quite funny.

If A&E has the merchandising rights to the products, all those people fussing that they'll never watch the show again without Daddy-o but still buying all the products are actually supporting A&E.

Funny and brilliant.

So A&E gets money from any T-shirt with Phil's face on it and a "I stand with Phil" slogan. That's called "WINNING".
firefly
 
  2  
Thu 26 Dec, 2013 05:23 pm
@parados,
Quote:
So A&E gets money from any T-shirt with Phil's face on it and a "I stand with Phil" slogan. That's called "WINNING".

It sure is called "winning".

A & E owns the licensing rights, and all the intellectual and property rights to "Duck Dynasty". Anything that says "Duck Dynasty" on it, or is connected to anything about the show, they own--so all of the DD merchandise being snapped up, by people supporting Robertson, is making money for A & E.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Thu 26 Dec, 2013 06:03 pm
@firefly,
a shirt that has a pic of Phil and the words " I stand with Phil" is not a DD product. Duck Commander could probably claim rights but I'll bet they dont.
firefly
 
  2  
Thu 26 Dec, 2013 06:16 pm
@hawkeye10,
That depends who owns the image of Phil that's on the shirt.

It's not who "claims" rights--it's who owns the rights to use the image.

The merchandise that's currently being snapped up, is "Duck Dynasty" stuff--A & E owns the licensing rights.

Under Armour, the clothing manufacturer, and maker of camo duds, is sticking by the duck clan for now, but they have also distanced themselves from Phil's comments and opinions.
Quote:
Under Armour’s clothes are prominently featured on the show. It’s also a title sponsor of Duck Commander.

While the company says it does not condone Robertson’s comments, as of now, it’s keeping its ties to the franchise.

In a statement to WJZ, it said: “The recent comments in the GQ article are not reflective of Under Armour’s beliefs and do not represent our point of view. As a company, we are committed to diversity and inclusion and believe in treating everyone equally and with respect.”

Germlat
 
  1  
Thu 26 Dec, 2013 06:29 pm
@firefly,
Who gives a rats azz?! Are we really talking about this commercial crap..who gives a darn?!
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Thu 26 Dec, 2013 07:19 pm
@Germlat,
Germlat wrote:

Who gives a rats azz?! Are we really talking about this commercial crap..who gives a darn?!

I do, I love to watch power play out, and this is a very unusual case.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Thu 26 Dec, 2013 07:22 pm
@firefly,
I have not read the contract but I am pretty sure that A&E has unlimited rights to use his image to promte DD ( granted through the production company contract with Phil) but that they have no unusual rights to any other use of his image.
Germlat
 
  1  
Thu 26 Dec, 2013 07:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
Again...who gives a rattzzz azz?!
maxdancona
 
  2  
Thu 26 Dec, 2013 07:58 pm
@Germlat,
Quote:
Are we really talking about this commercial crap..who gives a darn?!


Of course we are talking about this commercial "crap". What else is there to this story?

- Duck Dynasty the show is a commercial product.
- The family earned its claim to fame selling commercial sex toys for ducks.
- These t-shirts are commercial products.
- Phil Robertson's controversial comments were made to GQ (a commercial enterprise). They were made to promote the show (a commercial activity).
- Fox News and CNN are whipping up the controversial to sell cars and cleaning products.

Everything about this story is commercial. If Duck Dynasty wasn't there, selling you their particular product, this guys rantings wouldn't wouldn't matter. We wouldn't even be discussing them.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Thu 26 Dec, 2013 07:58 pm
@Germlat,
If you don't give a rat's ass, then why waste the time telling us so?
0 Replies
 
Germlat
 
  1  
Thu 26 Dec, 2013 08:01 pm
@maxdancona,
Yawn! I get it..I just don't get "intelligent" people wanting to get "wrapped up" into it.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Thu 26 Dec, 2013 08:27 pm
@Germlat,
Obviously max gives a rat's ass.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Thu 26 Dec, 2013 08:39 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I give two rat's asses.
0 Replies
 
Germlat
 
  1  
Thu 26 Dec, 2013 08:43 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Apparently so.
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Thu 26 Dec, 2013 10:04 pm
@Germlat,
Quote:
Yawn! I get it..I just don't get "intelligent" people wanting to get "wrapped up" into it.


Just for the sake of argument. Intelligent debate.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Thu 26 Dec, 2013 11:07 pm
@IRFRANK,
IRFRANK wrote:

Quote:
Yawn! I get it..I just don't get "intelligent" people wanting to get "wrapped up" into it.


Just for the sake of argument. Intelligent debate.

this is a very nice window upon the culture wars, which we need to solve....there is much productive mining to be done here.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Thu 26 Dec, 2013 11:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Will the A&E crew stick to its guns and risk losing “Duck Dynasty” to a competitor? Initially, they probably hoped the controversy would die down and Robertson could be brought back to the show quietly, but now that their star has become a champion to Christian conservatives, the outcry may only grow louder.
Somebody smart should have known that turning a Deep South duck call millionaire into a celebrity might come with a some risk. In a country that seems as culturally polarized as it has ever been, it is no surprise that a reality show has gotten a little too real.


http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-horsey-on-hollywood-duck-dynasty-20131223,0,2345996.story#ixzz2oeOuL8Fx


i am not sure about this idea that the production company can take the show somewhere else, if that is the case then A&E is truly fucked.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Fri 27 Dec, 2013 12:45 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I do, I love to watch power play out, and this is a very unusual case.

I don't think it's more unusual than the Paula Dean situation, or even the situation with Bashir or Baldwin, in terms of power. The power is all on the side of the network. It's their call in terms of what they want to do about Robinson's comments, just as it was Food Network's call with Paula Dean. And, at the moment, they're really not doing much of anything. They're going ahead with the new season, and he's in the 9 episodes that have been completed and they're not going to edit him out.
Quote:
And the future of the show isn’t actually all that murky. The rest of the Duck Dynasty clan spoke out the day after the controversy erupted, defending Phil and implying that they might not be willing to move forward with the show — which is a massive hit for the network — if he were excluded, and the Daily Mail reports that the family believes the whole GQ interview may have been a set-up to trap Phil. But they might not have a choice about whether to continue with the show: an unnamed source tells Fox that the family may be contractually required to continue filming until the network pulls the plug (the show’s contracts were just reupped in August, for a reported $200,000 per episode for the family). A few smaller networks have told TMZ they’d be eager to grab the show if A&E does decide to cancel. In the mean time, fans who haven’t been following the news might not even be able to tell anything’s going on: Entertainment Weekly has reported that 90 percent of the season’s episodes and have already been shot and contain Phil, and that they won’t be edited to exclude him. As of now, the show will return to the network on Jan. 15, as scheduled — and it’s conceivable that the indefinite hiatus may end in time for everything that has gone on this week to remain out of the camera’s sights
http://entertainment.time.com/2013/12/23/duck-dynasty-controversy/#ixzz2oeGWT0MD

The power really isn't on the side of the duck clan. A & E holds the cards, and because this franchise is so profitable for them at the moment, they'll hold onto it. All the publicity is good for them, they're not going to be hurt by any of it. If fans want to see Duck Dynasty, they'll have to tune into A &
E to do that.

The production company just can't take the show elsewhere. A & E owns the intellectual and property rights to the show. So, an interval has to pass before it could go on another network, and A & E can engage in tactics to stretch that interval out, if they want to. And, at the moment, the family is obligated to A & E by their contract. And what would be their motive to leave? So far, A & E hasn't done anything to them.





 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/23/2025 at 03:37:07