Fred Rogers of Sesame Street files another lawsuit against t-shirt company that printed the word "pervert" underneath an image of him
Joe1orbit
Okay folks, time to begin my Saturday posting spree. Gonna try and get in 10+
new thread TC News posts today, because I am going to be busy with a different
activity, not internet related at all, for just about all day tomorrow. Gotta
make up for my lack of Sunday posts with an extra large dose of Saturday
postings.
As reported in previous months, the PBS children's TV personality Fred
Rogers, who is pretty popular & famous among children past and current for his
"Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" TV show, has gotten upset over the fact that a
company is using his photo on nasty tee-shirts that they sell, primarily over
the internet. This company sure has a COOL name, "Serial Killer Incorporated".
We learn below that Fred's attorneys have now filed a second lawsuit against
this company, trying to force them to stop selling tee-shirts with a
picture/drawing of Fred and the word "Pervert" directly underneath the
picture/likeness. Fred claims that his "image" is protected by copyright. I
disagree. He is a public figure and if someone wants to screen print a photo of
a public figure and add whatever words or comments they wish onto the
tee-shirt, and then sell the shirt, this should be 100% protected by the
freedoms that the constitution of amerikKKa CLAIMS to provide to you
citizen-slaves.
Fred is a PUBLIC figure. He promotes himself and his "likeness", on TV. It is
outrageous for him to claim that this shirt violates his privacy or hurts his
reputation. If I wanted too, I could make a screen print of Billy C., and add
the word "pervert" underneath. This shirt would be perfectly legal to produce
and sell, and the SAME rules should apply to Fred and his "celebrity" status.
The lawsuit is without merit and Fred should be forced to pay ALL of the
expenses that Serial Killers Inc. incurrs, in having to fight against this
frivilous and meritless lawsuit. Fred Rogers is clearly a money-grubbing
fuddy-duddy. He has filed THREE different lawsuits since 1990, trying to force
people to stop producing "unauthorized" tee-shirts using his likeness, and even
trying to stop a KKK chapter in South Carolina from IMITATING his VOICE on a
telephone machine message.
Fred's STATED concern about filing these lawsuits because he wants to protect
pre-school children from having their "hero's" image tarnished, by SEEING these
tee-shirts in public or somehow hearing a KKK answering machine message, is
totally ridiculous and invalid. He is, plain and simple, an egotistical control
freak obsessed with his celebrity status and perfectly willing to TRAMPLE upon
the most basic freedoms that amerikkkans are TOLD they have, and of course his
devoted child followers are totaaly unaware of and uninterested n.
If you would like to view a photo of Fred, which you probably don't need to
do since you already know what he looks like, you can point your web browser
to:
http://www.triblive.com/news/rodg0116.html
Take care, JOE
The following appears courtesy of the 1/16/99 online of The Pittsburgh
Tribune-Review newspaper:
January 16, 1999
Fred Rogers files 2nd suit over T-shirts
Files lawsuit over likeness on Serial Killer Inc. T-shirts.
By Kris B. Mamula
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
A California company that peddles the "cutting edge of countercultural
streetwear" has drawn the attention of children's television icon Fred Rogers.
Rogers and Pittsburgh-based Family Communications Inc. on Thursday filed a
copyright infringement lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Serial Killer
Inc. of El Segundo over a T-shirt that bears the word "Pervert" underneath a
likeness of Rogers.
The company name, Serial Killer, also appears on the shirt, which is sold
through an Internet site.
"They trade on what they think is humor," said attorney Thomas C. Wettach, who
represents Rogers and FCI, a nonprofit corporation housed at the Oakland
offices of public television station WQED. "It's sad."
Rogers was unavailable for comment late Friday.
The 10-count civil lawsuit accuses Serial Killer of trading on Rogers' familiar
image, hurting his reputation and invading his privacy. Rogers is seeking a ban
on sales, recovery of all profits made from T-shirts that have already been
sold and reimbursement of undetermined legal fees.
Serial Killer officials did not return a call or e-mail inquiry seeking comment
yesterday.
"We are a company on the cutting edge of countercultural streetwear," Serial
Killer's Web site proclaims. "Serial Killer products are funny and make old
people upset."
In addition to T-shirts, Serial Killer sells hats, stickers, and other gear for
pre-adolescent youths.
Rogers, 70, who is a native of Latrobe, Westmoreland County, has produced
children's shows since 1954. His "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" is now seen on
more than 300 stations and watched in roughly a million households each week.
The lawsuit is the second such challenge by Rogers in as many months. In
December, Rogers and FCI sued Texas-based Gadzooks Inc. over a T-shirt that
bears the likeness of Rogers holding a large silver handgun.
Accompanying the image are the words: "Won't you be my neighbor?" and "Welcome
to My Hood."
Wettach said preliminary talks with Gadzooks since filing of the lawsuit have
resulted in the company's promise to pull the T-shirts. Wettach said he had not
received written confirmation the shirts had been pulled from shelves.
The two recent lawsuits are the first since 1990, when Rogers sued a Kansas
City, Mo., chapter of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Wettach said. As a
result of the lawsuit, the Klan agreed to stop using an imitation of Rogers'
voice on its answering machine.
Rogers' Neighborhood Trolley is a registered trademark that is used to help
children "keep clear the difference between reality and fantasy," according to
the most recent lawsuit. "Rogers has become a symbol for children whose parents
wish to shield them from the dangers and violence found in society today."
Wettach said Rogers' strategy is first to "be reasonable" in trying to get
Serial Killer to stop selling the shirts. If negotiations fail, then Wettach
said he would ask the court to order a halt to the sales.
Rogers has "gained a reputation for deeply supporting children's strivings to
accomplish developmental tasks such as learning, self-control, to wait and
persist, and learning to talk about feelings," according to the lawsuit.
Serial Killer's T-shirt, the lawsuit said, is "repugnant to the core of Rogers'
and FCI's reputation, and sends a disturbing message to their preschool
audience that they condone the corruption of children."
*************************************
Join the Joe1orbit Serial and Mass Murder Mailing List! For more information on
my Mailing List, please visit:
http://members.aol.com/Joe1orbit/MailingList1.html
**************************************
www.chrysalis.org/bhoyl
>Hello,
>
> Okay folks, time to begin my Saturday posting spree. Gonna try and get in 10+
>new thread TC News posts today, because I am going to be busy with a different
>activity, not internet related at all, for just about all day tomorrow. Gotta
>make up for my lack of Sunday posts with an extra large dose of Saturday
>postings.
>
> As reported in previous months, the PBS children's TV personality Fred
>Rogers, who is pretty popular & famous among children past and current for his
>"Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" TV show, has gotten upset over the fact that a
>company is using his photo on nasty tee-shirts that they sell, primarily over
>the internet. This company sure has a COOL name, "Serial Killer Incorporated".
>We learn below that Fred's attorneys have now filed a second lawsuit against
>this company, trying to force them to stop selling tee-shirts with a
>picture/drawing of Fred and the word "Pervert" directly underneath the
>picture/likeness. Fred claims that his "image" is protected by copyright. I
>disagree. He is a public figure and if someone wants to screen print a photo of
>a public figure and add whatever words or comments they wish onto the
>tee-shirt, and then sell the shirt, this should be 100% protected by the
>freedoms that the constitution of amerikKKa CLAIMS to provide to you
>citizen-slaves.
>
It is outrageous that a fine american such as Fred should have to be
libeled as a pervert by some greedy individual. Mr. Rogers has spent
a lifetime creating and promoting and investing in a particular image
which is rewarding to him both in terms of joy and in terms of money.
He created this Mr. Rogers image and owns it, just as the Elvis estate
owns the Elvis image. Taking the image which he spent so much time
and money to create and using it for their own profit is nothing more
than stealing. This is certainly a true crime. It is well grounded
in law that a celebrity who promotes a certain image and takes
remunerative advantage of that image has the right to protect that
image and the income from that image. They may license that image,
but without that license, it is illegal to use that image. The fact
that Mr. Rogers promoted the image is not a source of allowing others
to steal it; rather it is the real reason that he has a right to
protect the fruits (no pun intended) of that promotion.
Joe1orbit
Law...@chrysalis.org (www.chrysalis.org/bhoyl) Wrote:
>It is outrageous that a fine american such as Fred should have to be
>libeled as a pervert by some greedy individual.
Hello,
No, that is not outrageous at all. There is no proof that Fred Rogers is NOT
a pervert. Every citizen of ameriKKKa should be legally entitled to call Fred a
pervert, verbally, in writing, and on t-shirts.
> Mr. Rogers has spent
>a lifetime creating and promoting and investing in a particular image
>which is rewarding to him both in terms of joy and in >terms of money.
Yes, he is a con artist. A charlatan. An actor, pulling the wool over the
eyes of countless millions of children and adults. This t-shirt can be said to
simply expose the truth, or at least make people consider the possibility that
Fred might indeed BE a "pervert".
>He created this Mr. Rogers image and owns it, just as the Elvis estate
>owns the Elvis image. Taking the image which he spent so much time
>and money to create and using it for their own profit is nothing more
>than stealing.
I disagree. It should be just a legal as printing and selling a bumpersticker
that reads: "Bill Clinton is a serial liar".
> This is certainly a true crime. It is well grounded
>in law that a celebrity who promotes a certain image and takes
>remunerative advantage of that image has the right to protect that
>image and the income from that image.
I'm no lawyer. If that's the law, then it is a foolish, unjust, and
malevolent law. A celebrity can TRY to create whatever "image" he/she wants,
and other humans should be able to CHALLENGE the image, using publically
available promotional materials that the celebrity has created and thrust upon
the public, while adding whatever counter-balancing words or images, such as
the word "pervert", that they wish.
>They may license that image,
>but without that license, it is illegal to use that image. The fact
>that Mr. Rogers promoted the image is not a source of allowing others
>to steal it; rather it is the real reason that he has a right to
>protect the fruits (no pun intended) of that promotion.
Thanks for the legal lesson. You're probably right about what the law is. I
still stand behind my posted comments that Fred is a money-grubbing control
freak who should NOT be allowed to manipulate his image and SILENCE dissenting
voices who view him in a different light.
Take care, JOE
></PRE></HTML>
EGlas35107
Jerry Falwell lost a suit against Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine for a
cartoon that implied he engaged in incestual sex with his mother in an
outhouse. A public figure is fair game. I don't think Mr. Rogers is a
pervert, nor do I think that rev. Falwell had sex with his mother, but I do
think that free speech in this country is a guaranteed right.
Aviva
Barbrien
From: eglas...@aol.com (EGlas35107)
Aviva
********
It may be protected under some kind of licensing or copyright law but I dont
think I want to go there:))
Barbara
www.chrysalis.org/bhoyl
>
>From: eglas...@aol.com (EGlas35107)
>
>Isn't this protected under of the First Amendment?
This would be clear defamation unless the person making the statement
could prove that Mr. Rogers is a pervert. The first amendment does
protect truthful speech, but telling lies about people to their
detriment is not protected.
Appropriation of the commercial image of Mr. Rogers is not protected
either. For instance, should you want to sell t-shirts with nothing
on them but the face of Bozo the clown, you would need permission from
Bozo (or his estate). The same goes for other entertainers.