Flo & Eddie sue Appleby's
Greg Henry
LOS ANGELES - It turns out restaurateur Applebee’s International Inc.
and the 1960s pop group The Turtles aren’t so happy together after all.
Two of the group’s members, Mark Volman and Howard Kaylan, have sued the
chain and its advertising agency, FCB Worldwide Inc., over an ad which
modified lyrics to their 1967 hit “Happy Together.”
In the ad, the words “Imagine me and you, I do/I think about you day and
night, it’s only right” become “Imagine steak and shrimp, or shrimp and
steak/Imagine both of these on just one plate.”
Arguing their reputation was compromised, the pair said the lyrics
changed “from those of a sweet love song to a crass paean to shrimp and
steak combination plates,” according to papers filed in Los Angeles
federal court Wednesday.
They seek damages and profits from sales drummed up by the steak and
shrimp promotion.
A spokeswoman for the chain, which operates about 1,600 of its namesake
restaurants, said the company had not yet seen the suit. FCB Worldwide,
which is a unit of Interpublic Group of Cos Inc. could not immediately
be reached for comment.
An attorney for the plaintiffs, Evan Cohen, said Applebee’s contacted
the song’s publisher for permission to use the song, but did not contact
the Turtles, who are the owners of the original master recording.
“This lawsuit is about celebrity impersonation,” Cohen said. “The
average listener thinks it’s the Turtles changing the lyrics to their
most celebrated song and a No. 1 hit to suit the needs of Applebee’s.”
“Happy Together” is one of many classic pop tunes Applebee’s has
parodied in its commercials. Others include The Newbeats 1964 hit “Bread
and Butter,” which was used in ads promoting Skillet Sensations.
Strictly Commercial
Do you think F&E will be upset when somebody slips the defence team a
copy of Fillmore East 1917, which features Happy Together as a paean to
groupies? Personally, I kinda like the Applebee's rewrite.
R
Greg Henry wrote:
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6725497/
Amlyn
> Do you think F&E will be upset when somebody slips the defence team a
> copy of Fillmore East 1917
On a wax cylinder?
Brian Jackson
>combination plates"
Dood, that's *funny*.
Good to see Howard & Mark still have their senses of humor!
B
Dave W.
news:RxEwd.56$KO5.21@clgrps13...
>
> Do you think F&E will be upset when somebody slips the defence team a copy
> of Fillmore East 1917, which features Happy Together as a paean to
> groupies? Personally, I kinda like the Applebee's rewrite.
>
> R
>
law, plain and simple. I, for one, find the use of pop songs in commercials
to be reprehensible and it destroys or at least tarnishes the value of the
original work, especially in the case of classic songs by The Beatles or The
Who. In the case of The Beatles, its Michael Jackson selling the rights
which is even more reprehensible. I'll laugh the day they march him off to
jail.
Dave
Leonard Los
wrote:
>
>> Do you think F&E will be upset when somebody slips the defence team a
>> copy of Fillmore East 1917
>
>
>On a wax cylinder?
>
ZFT should take them to court
for "butchering" some fine
compositions on that lp,
for instance "Peaches En Regalia"
and "Little House I Used To Live In"
Things must be rough for those two,
Those one nighters up and down
the coast can't be doing so well.
L.L.
Michael J. Ventura
"Amlyn" <si...@CACHUamlyn.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:cpv5fl$87g$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
>> Do you think F&E will be upset when somebody slips the defence team a
>> copy of Fillmore East 1917
>
>
> On a wax cylinder?
>
>
Yeah, really, was it *that* long ago?
Stu Mark
J. Ventura" <Iqn...@squatmail.com> wrote:
Ok, I realize I am bored... Here's a little history of the first sound
recording, from WikiPedia:
The first recording of sound waves
Leon Scott invented the 'phonoautograph', the first device to record
arbitrary sound in 1857. It used a membrane (which vibrated in response to
sound) attched to a pen, which traced a line roughly corresponding to the
sound wave form on to a moving roll of paper. Although able to record sound,
the phonoautograph was unable to play back the recording; it was of little
use other than as a laboratory curiosity. (In one laboratory experiment, a
phonoautograph recording was photoengraved onto a metal plate, creating a
groove, which was then played back).
[edit]
The Phonograph and the Gramophone
The phonograph built expanding on the principles of the phonoautograph.
Invented by Thomas Edison in 1877, the phonograph was a device with a
cylinder covered with a soft material such as tin foil, lead, or wax on
which a stylus drew grooves. The depth of the grooves made by the stylus
corresponded to change in air pressure created by the original sound. The
recording could be played back by tracing a needle through the groove and
amplifying, through mechanical means, the resulting vibrations. A
disadvantage of the early phonographs was the difficulty of reproducing the
phonograph cylinders in mass production.
This changed with the advent of the gramophone (phonograph in American
English), which was patented by Emile Berliner in 1887. The gramophone
imprinted grooves on the flat side of a disc rather than the outside of a
cylinder. Instead of recording the varying the depth of the groove
(vertically), as with the phonograph, the vibration of the recording stylus
was across the width of the track ( horizontally). The depth of the groove
remained constant. Berliner called this audio disc a "gramophone record",
although it has often called a "phonograph record" in U.S. English.
Charles Ulrich
> "Strictly Commercial" <maure...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:RxEwd.56$KO5.21@clgrps13...
> >
> > Do you think F&E will be upset when somebody slips the defence team a copy
> > of Fillmore East 1917, which features Happy Together as a paean to
> > groupies? Personally, I kinda like the Applebee's rewrite.
> >
> If it was done without the permission of the copyright owner, they broke the
> law, plain and simple.
The Turtles didn't write the song. I'd think the case is a little less
clear-cut when it's a matter of impersonating the Turtles rather than
appropriating a Bonner & Gordon song.
--Charles
Stu Mark
ulrich-970AC6....@news.vc.shawcable.net, "Charles Ulrich"
<ulr...@sfu.ca> wrote:
Wouldn't it be reasonable to argue that The Turtles are inextricably tied to
the song Happy Together? Would a judge be willing to consider the "face" of
a group to be damaged by the particular usage of their big hit?
Stu
(who doesn't think he's making any sense)
NP: 6'1" by Liz Phair
J.H.
their Flo & Eddie material with one of the Zappa cover bands...anyone know
how to contact Mark and Howard?
"Greg Henry" <bigd...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:8d6dnbtvEL1...@adelphia.com...
Michael Gula
Surely, shrimp and steak combination plates are no less worthy of
expressions of love than is a woman.
Charles Ulrich
Stu Mark <stu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 12/17/04 3:40 PM, in article
> ulrich-970AC6....@news.vc.shawcable.net, "Charles Ulrich"
> <ulr...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > In article <dZIwd.751$EL5.201@trndny09>, "Dave W." <dave@home> wrote:
> >
> >> "Strictly Commercial" <maure...@telus.net> wrote in message
> >> news:RxEwd.56$KO5.21@clgrps13...
> >>>
> >>> Do you think F&E will be upset when somebody slips the defence
> >>> team a copy of Fillmore East 1917, which features Happy Together
> >>> as a paean to groupies? Personally, I kinda like the Applebee's
> >>> rewrite.
> >>>
> >> If it was done without the permission of the copyright owner, they
> >> broke the law, plain and simple.
> >
> > The Turtles didn't write the song. I'd think the case is a little less
> > clear-cut when it's a matter of impersonating the Turtles rather than
> > appropriating a Bonner & Gordon song.
>
> Wouldn't it be reasonable to argue that The Turtles are inextricably tied to
> the song Happy Together? Would a judge be willing to consider the "face" of
> a group to be damaged by the particular usage of their big hit?
Oh yeah, I think it's quite likely that they have a case. I just don't
think it's as cut-and-dried as one brought by uncompensated songwriters.
--Charles
Charles Ulrich
"J.H." <j...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> With the attention on them again, now's the time to petition them to review
> their Flo & Eddie material with one of the Zappa cover bands...anyone know
> how to contact Mark and Howard?
Sure. There are mailto links on The Turtles' website
<http://theturtles.com/>.
--Charles
Biffy the Elephant Shrew
<< Oh yeah, I think it's quite likely that they have a case. I just don't
think it's as cut-and-dried as one brought by uncompensated songwriters. >>
The case looks very similar to Tom Waits's successful lawsuit against
Frito-Lay. Here's a very detailed write-up on that suit:
http://www.keeslau.com/TomWaitsSupplement/Copyright/copyrightwaitsfrito.htm
Your pal,
Biffy the Elephant Shrew
This is a high fidelity usenet post. For best results observe the R.I.A.A.
high frequency roll-off characteristic with a 500 cycle crossover.
Charles Ulrich
biffy...@aol.commie.rats (Biffy the Elephant Shrew) wrote:
> Charles Ulrich wrote:
>
> << Oh yeah, I think it's quite likely that they have a case. I just don't
> think it's as cut-and-dried as one brought by uncompensated songwriters. >>
>
> The case looks very similar to Tom Waits's successful lawsuit against
> Frito-Lay. Here's a very detailed write-up on that suit:
>
> http://www.keeslau.com/TomWaitsSupplement/Copyright/copyrightwaitsfrito.htm
One difference is that Tom Waits has refused to do commercials, and has
in fact railed against the practice of celebrity endorsements.
The Turtles, on the other hand, have done numerous commercials (unless
those were all sound-alikes too).
--Charles
Charles Ulrich
Stu Mark <stu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 12/17/04 3:18 PM, in article -cudnf7V3YP...@comcast.com, "Michael
> J. Ventura" <Iqn...@squatmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Amlyn" <si...@CACHUamlyn.f2s.com> wrote in message
> > news:cpv5fl$87g$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
> >>
> >>> Do you think F&E will be upset when somebody slips the defence team a
> >>> copy of Fillmore East 1917
> >>
> >> On a wax cylinder?
> >
> > Yeah, really, was it *that* long ago?
>
> Ok, I realize I am bored... Here's a little history of the first sound
> recording, from WikiPedia:
Forget that. I want to know about the history of referring to the album
in question as Fillmore 1917.
The earliest reference I could find was the thread "Fillmore East, June
1917", started by Daniel Norris (a.k.a. Suzy) on November 11, 1996.
Later in the thread, he (or she) admitted that it had been a typo, so
this was presumably the origin of the practice.
--Charles
Michael Gula
Some of us Old Geezers will remember the song These Boots Are Made For
Walkin'.
They may also remember Goodyear selling tires under the banner "Wide
Boots," promoted by television commercials using the aforementioned song
sung by a Nancy Sinatra sound-alike to the image of several young ladies
cavorting about with hair and clothing meant to emulate the image of Ms.
Sinatra. The ad nowhere mentioned her name.
Goodyear had legally licensed the song and had every right to use it in
television advertisements. This fact did not stop Ms. Sinatra from
suing the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company for "unfair competition." She
asked the Circuit Court for the 9th District to award her unpaid
royalties and to enjoin further broadcasts of the advertisement.
Sinatra alleged that the advertising agency for Goodyear, Young and
Rubicam, first approached her about doing the ad, and began looking for
a sound-alike when she turned the job down.
Sinatra lost the suit.
About ten years later, Young and Rubicam decided to use 70's popular
music in their ads for the Ford Motor Company. One of the songs sought
was Do You Wanna Dance as recorded by Bette Midler. First they obtained
license to use the song from the owners. They then approached the
Divine Miss M for the right to use her vocal performance for the ad, but
she turned them down.
Undeterred, Young and Rubicam began auditioning singers for a suitable
Bette Midler sound-alike, and the winner's voice was used. The result
was so remarkable that even close friends of Bette Midler assumed that
she had agreed to do the spot. Bette Midler promptly sued the Ford
Motor Company in the 9th District Circuit Court.
Unlike Ms. Sinatra's lawyers, Midler's lawyers used a different legal
tactic, and successfully argued that the defendants had wrongly
appropriated Bette Midler's voice for the advertisement and violated her
right of publicity.
Other lawsuits involving sound-alikes and advertisements:
"Up, Up and Away." Members of the Fifth Dimension suing Trans World
Airlines for using a Fifth Dimension sound-alike group in an ad. They lost.
Tom Waits v. Frito-Lay. Waits won a multi-million dollar judgment
despite the fact that the song featuring the Waits sound-alike was an
original song written for the commercial.
Waits's lawyers (no fools, they) used essentially the same argument used
by Midler's lawyers.
I have not heard the Appleby's commercial but, based on the above cases,
I believe that the success of Flo and Eddie's suit hangs upon how
closely the imitators came to sounding like the real thing -- whether
the ad resulted in actual confusion among the general public.
Appleby's could have avoided this suit by hiring someone who sounded
completely different to sing the song, perhaps a female vocalist. But
definitely not someone who sounds like Tom Waits.
Strictly Commercial
Abe fuckin' Vigoda, Charles, everybody knows that.
R
JWelsh3374
completely different to sing the song, perhaps a female vocalist. But
definitely not someone who sounds like Tom Waits. >>
They could have also written something NEW.
But...like the movie industry...record industry... and TV industry...they chose
to dredge up an oldie.
ZZZZZZZ.....
searching for peace, love and quality footwear
guido
http://www.guidotoons.com
http://www.theloniousmoog.com
http://www.luckymanclark.com
oledork
on his gramophone. It was great fun.........oledork
Dave Wilcher
>>
>> Yeah, really, was it *that* long ago?
>>
>>
> Yeah. Me and Tommy Edison used to go to the Fillmore and record the
> acts on his gramophone. It was great fun.........oledork
Now the question becomes: Was Tommy Edison gay?
dave
--
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity."
- Martin Luther King
oledork
> oledork wrote:
>
>>>Yeah, really, was it *that* long ago?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yeah. Me and Tommy Edison used to go to the Fillmore and record the
>>acts on his gramophone. It was great fun.........oledork
>
>
> Now the question becomes: Was Tommy Edison gay?
>
> dave
TTuerff
broke the
law, plain and simple.<
I thought Bonner and Gordon owned "Happy Together."
>> I, for one, find the use of pop songs in commercials
to be reprehensible and it destroys or at least tarnishes the value of the
original work, especially in the case of classic songs by The Beatles or The
Who. In the case of The Beatles, its Michael Jackson selling the rights
which is even more reprehensible. >>
A noble opinion to have, and one that I share for the most part, but consider
this: those who do sell their songs to advertisers, especially if they wrote
them in the first place, are merely using their craft to make money. Which
presumably is why they got in the business in the first place.
I know David Bowie has STOCKHOLDERS, for chrissake. If he sells a song to an
advertiser, it's because he needs his "stock" to make some money. Same is true,
I'm sure, for Led Zeppelin or anybody.
Certainly, selling a song to a commercial is nothing new; Burger King bought
Sopwith Camel's "Hello Hello" in the early 70s and the resulting cash payout
enabled both songwriters to move to Hawaii. You think they had a problem with
that? (While there, they wrote the Camel's classic "Miraculous Hump" album, a
FINE CD that all should own.)
I'm sure Carly Simon got a pretty penny from Heinz for "Anticipation" and it
certainly didn't decrease (or increase) my appreciation of the song.
It's only reprehensible when people who should be getting paid AREN'T. And I
think that's Mark and Howie's point.
TT
Mark Mott
Just saw a Clinique cosmetics ad tagged by regional merchandiser Dillard's.
It also had the “Happy Together” vocal tune and it had the "trademark" four
part harmony in the end just like the Turtles. Not quite a sound alike but
very close.
Dave W.
news:20041221163017...@mb-m06.aol.com...
> Dave said:<< If it was done without the permission of the copyright owner,
> they
> broke the
> law, plain and simple.<
>
> I thought Bonner and Gordon owned "Happy Together."
>
> I'm sure Carly Simon got a pretty penny from Heinz for "Anticipation" and
> it
> certainly didn't decrease (or increase) my appreciation of the song.
>
Oh, please. Can you listen to that song anymore and not think about ketchup?
Dave
Bill
You say that as though it's wrong.
John Scialli
>Dave said:<< If it was done without the permission of the copyright owner, they
>broke the
>law, plain and simple.<
>
>I thought Bonner and Gordon owned "Happy Together."
>
>>> I, for one, find the use of pop songs in commercials
>to be reprehensible and it destroys or at least tarnishes the value of the
>original work, especially in the case of classic songs by The Beatles or The
>Who. In the case of The Beatles, its Michael Jackson selling the rights
>which is even more reprehensible. >>
>
>A noble opinion to have, and one that I share for the most part, but consider
>this: those who do sell their songs to advertisers, especially if they wrote
>them in the first place, are merely using their craft to make money. Which
>presumably is why they got in the business in the first place.
>
>I know David Bowie has STOCKHOLDERS, for chrissake. If he sells a song to an
>advertiser, it's because he needs his "stock" to make some money. Same is true,
>I'm sure, for Led Zeppelin or anybody.
>
RE/Max's been using this song, "Second House..."
TTuerff
>
>Dave
Dave: I'm an advertising copywriter. I would I WANT to not be reminded of that
commercial? It was a great ad! It was funny!
Charles Ulrich
> "TTuerff" <ttu...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20041221163017...@mb-m06.aol.com...
> > Dave said:<< If it was done without the permission of the copyright
> > owner, they broke the law, plain and simple.<
> >
> > I thought Bonner and Gordon owned "Happy Together."
> >
> OK. So did they give their permission?
They weren't asked. The administrators of the copyright gave permission
and sent the songwriters their royalties.
See
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A533
61-2004Apr5¬Found=true>.
--Charles
The old geezer
>
> LOS ANGELES - It turns out restaurateur Applebee’s International Inc.
> and the 1960s pop group The Turtles aren’t so happy together after all.
>
> Two of the group’s members, Mark Volman and Howard Kaylan, have sued the
> chain and its advertising agency, FCB Worldwide Inc., over an ad which
> modified lyrics to their 1967 hit “Happy Together.”
TOG
Bil
The old geezer
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Flo+%26+Eddie+11th+Circuit+decision
Link duzn't work.
TOG