|
Author
|
Topic: Astronaut Bruce McCandless sues singer Dido
|
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 10-04-2010 02:32 PM
   
McCandless is perfectly identifiable. He was the only astronaut I know of in an MMU that flew that far out and had his picture taken where he was facing the shuttle. All the other shots of astronauts in MMUs were different views (usually with backs to the shuttle to capture satellites). Plus, Bruce flew the MMU by itself without any additional equipment since it was intended to only test the MMU. The MMUs flown on the Solar Max and other satellite pickup missions were equipped with capture devices (TPAD for Solar Max and the Stingers for the twin satellite capture mission). The capture devices were very obvious.As for the visor down bit, the photo is as identifiable as Bruce as the famous astronaut on the moon portrait is of Aldrin. |
GACspaceguy
Member Posts: 2476
From: Guyton, GA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 10-04-2010 03:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dom:
I think the only people who noticed Dido's use of this paragraph from an obscure "Irish Rebel Song" were Dido herself and a right-wing tabloid newspaper trying to create a little controversy...
My point was not that this was his reason; my point is we do not know his reason and should not assume it is for financial gain. |
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 10-04-2010 03:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
As for the visor down bit, the photo is as identifiable as Bruce as the famous astronaut on the moon portrait is of Aldrin.
We know this. The general Dido-buying public does not. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-04-2010 03:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Greggy_D:
The general Dido-buying public does not.
The implied assumption here is that who the general (Dido-buying) public can identify matters. Since in some states, the right of publicity applies to any individual, famous or not, it would seem to suggest that recognition is not always a factor. Someone (an attorney) better versed in this area of the law is needed before we draw any conclusions. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 10-04-2010 04:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by GACspaceguy:
...my point is we do not know his reason and should not assume it is for financial gain.
I agree that we should not assume the lawsuit is for profit. He might just want the album withdrawn and released with another cover. I would not take it (the cover) to a signing and ask him to sign it however. As far as lawyers opinions, I guess the court will have the final say in the matter.
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-04-2010 04:35 PM
I have just received and read the full legal complaint as filed on behalf of Capt. McCandless and it provides more details as to why a lawsuit was brought against Dido, Sony Music and Getty Images.With regards to the question of identifying McCandless in the photo, the complaint states in part: There are several versions and releases of the Album, one or more of which include the following statement: "cover image: us astronaut bruce mc candless demonstrating the first space suit to give complete, untethered, freedom of movement outside a spacecraft in february [sic] 1984". As to defending his right of publicity: Several companies have sought McCandless' endorsement of commercial products. On several occasions, McCandless has endorsed such commercial products, pursuant to license agreements that grant limited rights for such companies to use his persona in advertising layouts in return for appropriate consideration. McCandless has also sought to protect and enforce his rights by opposing commercial use of his persona without his consent and by requiring offending parties to compensate him for such unauthorized use. Perhaps most of interest though are the details of an alleged breach of contract between the defendants -- Sony and Getty Images -- and McCandless. ...Plaintiff is informed and believes and, on that basis, alleges that the Sony Defendants and the Getty Defendants entered into a written contract with Plaintiff on September 3, 2010, as memorialized by e-mail correspondence on that date (hereinafter the "Contract").Among other things, pursuant to the Contract, the Getty Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff the sum of Thirty-Two Thousand Five-Hundred dollars ($32,500 U.S.D.) within ten (10) business days of September 3, 2010. Among other things, pursuant to the Contract, the Sony Defendants and the Getty Defendants agreed to cooperate fully, to execute any supplementary documents, and to take any and all actions that may be necessary or appropriate to give full force and effect to the terms and intent of the Contract. Plaintiff has duly performed any and all obligations, and/or conditions precedent to the obligations of the Sony Defendants and the Getty Defendants, pursuant to the Contract. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, on that basis, alleges that the Sony Defendants and Getty Defendants breached their obligations pursuant to the Contract, including without limitation by the Getty Defendants failing to pay Plaintiff the sum of Thirty-Two Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($32,500 U.S.D.) with ten (10) business days of September 3, 2010 and by Sony Defendants and Getty Defendants refusing to cooperate fully to execute supplementary documents to give full force and effect of the terms and intent of the Contract. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 10-04-2010 04:42 PM
That clears the air quite a bit. If they identified Capt. McCandless and used his name then they should pay him.I don't know about the contract, a contract by e-mail sounds dubious, nonetheless they did apparently use his name and identified the picture as the one he was in so he should receive payment whatever that is determined to be. |
OV-105
Member Posts: 816
From: Ridgecrest, CA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 10-04-2010 04:48 PM
Sounds like anything with the music business, slow in paying. They always seem to pay real slow, and don't pay until the court tells them. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 10-04-2010 05:24 PM
That definitely sheds a lot of light on the situation. The question of the photo being an identifiable likeness of McCandless is a moot point, if booklet for the CD identifies McCandless by name. Also, it appears that neither Sony or Getty dispute that fact and had agreed to pay him compensation for the use of his image, but then failed to deliver on that contract within the specified time.In the end, I'm guessing McCandless will get his payment and the case will be settled out of court. It's probably not worth Sony's time to go to court over such a small sum of money. |
Apollo Redux
Member Posts: 346
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Registered: Sep 2006
|
posted 10-06-2010 03:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Playalinda:
And for this fact aren't we all?
If you're (not you in particular) instinct is to get a lawyer (for a benign instance like this one), then the term 'opportunist' could not be used in a more negative connotation. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 10-06-2010 04:17 PM
And what is wrong with being an opportunist?Dido and Sony put out the CD to make money. Are they opportunists because we have to pay (not me) to listen to the music. Yes I know the arguments were that we trained and flew them, nonetheless they were (and are) taking the risks. How many in the forum went to a public university or took grants? Tuition at a public university does not cover the cost of attendance. Is the person who got his education there an opportunist because he used his education to make a good salary? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-10-2011 02:24 PM
On Jan. 14, 2011, Bruce McCandless and the defendants reached an undisclosed settlement and the lawsuit was dismissed. |
Topic Closed
advertisement