Reply
Mon 9 Aug, 2004 11:11 am
"Governor Girlie Man Arnold"
Quote:Arnold Schwarzenegger has settled a lawsuit against an Ohio firm that produces bobblehead dolls in his image. . . .
Under the new agreement, Ohio Discount can produce Schwarzenegger-the-politician dolls -- without the gun. . . .
The original Schwarzenegger bobblehead was part of a deal that included several Democratic presidential candidates, organized by Washington, D.C., lobbyist John Edgell, to raise money for two cancer and children's charities.
Bosley said he severed ties with Edgell when the former congressional staffer sought offers for a "Groping Arnold" bobblehead, after accusations surfaced that Schwarzenegger had groped several women during his years in Hollywood.
Edgell, who was also named in Schwarzenegger's suit, said he opposes the settlement and plans to seek an injunction.
He's now created a prototype for a "Governor Girlie Man Arnold" bobblehead featuring the governor in a pink suit and heels -- a reference to the governor's recent insult that some Democratic lawmakers were "girlie men."
If Edgell attempts to market the bobblehead doll featuring Arnold donned in a pink suit and heels, do you suppose Arnold will sue again?
Definitely. Don't they know Arnie's an autumn?
Jespah - How can they sue for such a thing? Doesn't this fall under freedom of speech / satire?
Yeah, it's probably going to be covered under satire. Doesn't mean he can't try to make a stink about it, if he wants to, but it's doubtful that he'd win. He's a public figure and, as such, has to expect this sort of thing, particularly since he's in the political arena.
Freedom of Speech
squinney wrote:Doesn't this fall under freedom of speech / satire?
Will the First Amendment protect the "satirist" who is not only making an alleged political statement but who is also capitalizing on it through a money-making commercial enterprise?
The Courts tend to favor First Amendment protection.
See, e.g.,
Free Speech Trumps Mattel's Trademark Right in Plastic Doll (Barbie)
"The 9th Circuit defined commercial speech as that which does 'no more than propose a commercial transaction'; speech that does something else besides proposing a commercial transaction (such as parody, satire or editorial comment) is not 'purely commercial' and is entitled to full First Amendment protection."
BTW, California is located in the Ninth Circuit . . .
That's what I thought was the current stand. I'd be opposing a settlement, too.
The fellow who beat Mattel on this question is a friend of mine, and I had thought of that situation right away as I started reading this thread. The situations aren't identical, as this one regarding Arnold is a doll manufactured as satire, not an art work satirizing a doll's, er, persona. Still, it seems to me Arnold would not win the suit.
if i remember correctly (miracles do happen) Henry Ford sued the Chicago Tribune for libel requesting a penalty of $1 million, the Tribune was found libel and the jury awarded Ford 6 cents. I am guessing Mr Bobblehead Arhnold would get about 3 cents.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace