Charlie Sheen Reps Claim Publicity Rights To Shut Down Group Critical Of Sheen's Treatment Of Women
from the duh,-losing dept
The insanity that is Charlie Sheen is boiling over into the kind of stuff we follow. Given the massive focus on Sheen and his antics over the past few weeks, a bunch of people who appear to have no relationship with Sheen at all have been rushing to the Trademark Office to secure tradmarks on some of Sheen’s popular new catchphrases. I can’t really see how most of these could stand, as Sheen would have a pretty strong claim against them, but there are some serious players involved. Hell, even Jimmy Buffet is trying to register “Tiger Blood” for a new cocktail. Yum.
That said, the merchandise group FEA Merchandising, which is a subsidiary of Live Nation, is apparently trying to crack down on competing Sheen merchandise, but is often doing so in questionable ways. For example, it’s forced offline a group that was selling “Unfollow Charlie” t-shirts in an attempt to raise money for women’s rights, and specifically the group RAINN (Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network). The person who set up the t-shirts, Kate Durkin, was reasonably horrified at the glorification of Sheen (some might claim that it was really more schadenfreude) during his… antics. So she’s selling t-shirts and trying to get people to stop following Sheen on Twitter.
Reasonable enough, but FEA got Zazzle to take down her store. Why? You guessed it: Another questionable publicity rights claim. Durkin is wondering if she’s being blocked because her campaign is critical of Sheen. It sounds like FEA is going after all sorts of folks, critical or not, but it still raises serious questions about publicity rights laws (yet again), if they can be used to stifle a protest against someone’s actions.
Filed Under: charlie sheen, publicity rights
Comments on “Charlie Sheen Reps Claim Publicity Rights To Shut Down Group Critical Of Sheen's Treatment Of Women”
I still have no idea who the heck this Sheen guy is, or why anyone cares about him.
Re: Re:
Good to know. Thanks for sharing.
Re: Re: Re:
You’re welcome! ^_^
Re: Re:
He’s mentioned somewhere in Revelations.
I’m still waiting for his signature line of coke and hookers to hit the market, maybe as some sort of Sheenslist operation.
Re: Re:
“I’m still waiting for his signature line of coke and hookers to hit the market, maybe as some sort of Sheenslist operation.”
Gold dentures by Sheen, I think.
What's it all about
For anyone, like me, whose knowledge of Charlie Sheen was limited to a description of ‘that guy the media won’t shut up about’ it may help to hear what he’s done to earn such scorn.
To that end I have found a clear piece from Jezabel detailing his ‘exploits’; and two pieces from the NYT (whoops, I guess I don’t have javascript on) about perceptions of the women involved and the lack of reaction by his employer.
Also of interest may be this observation from a feminist.
Here’s hoping the attempted misuse of publicity rights bites him in the ass so hard that the Streisand effect gets renamed to the Sheen effect.
Re: What's it all about
Problem is that Sheen wants the publicity, just not factual publicity.
That Charlie sure is funny! = Good, but also up for dispute.
That Charlie sure has a long history of abusing women! = Bad, and a little too real.
Re: Re: What's it all about
“Problem is that Sheen wants the publicity, just not factual publicity.”
To be fair, I think it is perfectly plausible that whoever is working for him just saw that the merchandise mentions him and took action based on that alone. Perhaps the Streisand effect will be enough to tutor them to be more concious of free speech issues in future.
Charlie is a steaming sack of monkey dung
Actually, I probably shouldn’t associate even the dung of innocent simians with the vapid heap of mindless protoplasm that comprises that moron’s corpus and that of his equally mindless and doltish followers. His sole talent today is demonstrating to the public what an emotional meltdown is. Other than that, I’m sure he’s basically a good person.
What I didn't see...
It certainly appears all of the women involved in Charlie Sheen’s exploits are there by choice–there’s not been a single story about any gal being forced to be in a sex/drugs party.
So, is this group claiming women shouldn’t have the right to choose whether or not they’re going to be involved in a sex & drug party with a wealthy celebrity? I’ll bet they’re advocates of ‘women should be at home in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant too.’
These stupid misogynistic groups really get my dander up.
;-P
Re: What I didn't see...
At the risk of ‘Derrr, you need a sarcasm detector’, what is your actual point? I’m having trouble telling which bit to take seriously.
Re: Re: What I didn't see...
Nobody’s being forced to participate in Sheen’s celebrations/self destruction.
For some inexplicable reason, a womens’ rights group is up in arms about Sheen’s activities. The message from the womens’ rights group is ambiguous at best, and their goal is laughable as they are apparently attempting to stem the tide of popular culture.
I hope that is succinct enough for you.
(PS – I try to make it a point to only harass AC shills, we cool?)
Re: Re: Re: What I didn't see...
“Nobody’s being forced to participate in Sheen’s celebrations/self destruction.”
That’s not the issue, the issue is him being violent. Are you suggesting that his violence is mitigated by their choice to go near him? If so then can I use that as a defence against hitting misogynists? After all, if they come near someone who hates them then the violence doesn’t really count.
“For some inexplicable reason, a womens’ rights group is up in arms about Sheen’s activities.”
For activities read: allegedly hitting a girl in the head for refusing to have sex in 1994; allegedly knocking out and threatening to kill his then-girlfriend in 1996; allegedly throwing chairs at and threatening numerous times to kill his then-wife in 2006; allegedly strangling, holding a knife to the throat of, and threatening to kill his then-wife in 2009; allegedly put his hands around the neck of and threatening to kill a paid companion in 2010; and now allegedly threatening one of his ex wives again. Inexplicable indeed.
“The message from the womens’ rights group is ambiguous at best”
Please expand on this statement.
“their goal is laughable as they are apparently attempting to stem the tide of popular culture.”
So, you agree that popular culture encourages violence against women, yet find it laughable that people should try and change that?
“(PS – I try to make it a point to only harass AC shills, we cool?)”
I’m just discussing the issue. I’m perfectly fine with you disagreeing with me.
Re: Re: Re:2 What I didn't see...
Ah… I was unaware of Charlie Sheen’s violence issues. Apologies on the misunderstanding. My comment was directed entirely on the topic of “hookers n blow”.
Re: Re: Re:3 What I didn't see...
‘Ah… I was unaware of Charlie Sheen’s violence issues. Apologies on the misunderstanding. My comment was directed entirely on the topic of “hookers n blow”.’
No problem. I’m amazed that the guy is more notorious for two non issues than for being violent and abusive.
Re: Re: Re:2 What I didn't see...
For activities read: allegedly hitting a girl in the head for refusing to have sex in 1994; allegedly knocking out and threatening to kill his then-girlfriend in 1996; allegedly throwing chairs at and threatening numerous times to kill his then-wife in 2006; allegedly strangling, holding a knife to the throat of, and threatening to kill his then-wife in 2009; allegedly put his hands around the neck of and threatening to kill a paid companion in 2010; and now allegedly threatening one of his ex wives again. Inexplicable indeed.
I don’t know much about Charlie Sheen, but if this is true it’s really more than odd that any women still wants to be around him. Maybe money does compensate for a guy’s shortcomings?
Ahh Carlos...such a fool...
I, for one, can’t wait for the drug-abusing misogynistic warlock to move to his new location under a bridge somewhere. How many months until the public loses interest in the immature drug-adled rantings of Mr. Sheen? Who’d hire him now anyway? Soon enough he’ll burn up all his cash, and the show will be over. He’s just another celebrity joke.
It’s off-topic, but I thought it was hilarious that he made a fuss about Chuck Lorre’s name not being real when Charlie Sheen is the stage name of Carlos Estevez. Props to Mr. Lorre for not engaging on the issue, though it seems in retrospect like the obvious winning move.
Kate Durkin will only be able to exploit the public interest in Mr. Sheen while the spotlight is on him, and proceeds presumably go to a good cause, so wtf? Why doesn’t she make a more blunt statement by pointing out the obvious: Mr. Sheen likes to beat up girls?
Re: Ahh Carlos...such a fool...
“Why doesn’t she make a more blunt statement by pointing out the obvious: Mr. Sheen likes to beat up girls?”
Well, I’m no expert on defamation laws… but I’d start there. I prefer Kate’s approach anyway as it’s more likely to engage people. They’re more likely to ask ‘What do you have against Charlie?’ than dismiss you as a walking billboard.
Re: Re: Ahh Carlos...such a fool...
Point taken, but IMHO subtlety is overrated in this case. Ugly behaviour begets ugly comment.
As others have pointed out, people seem to tolerate Mr. Sheen’s bad behaviour because he’s charming, famous, and wealthy. If it was your neighbour who had been arrested multiple times for beating and threatening to kill his spouse, this issue wouldn’t be worthy of debate, as it appears to be due to Mr. Sheen’s celebrity. He is responsible for his own actions, and has been very public about it. He’s on tour so he can keep talking about it. He does seem to skip over the parts where he gets arrested for hitting his girlfriend(s), and/or shows up to work under the influence of narcotics or alcohol, late, unprepared, or not at all.
I think the point of the original article, that Ms. Durkin shouldn’t have to contend with Mr. Sheen’s legal threats, is a valid one.
Mr. Sheen likes to beat up women. Unfollow Charlie indeed.
Re: Re: Re: Ahh Carlos...such a fool...
“Point taken, but IMHO subtlety is overrated in this case. Ugly behaviour begets ugly comment.”
I get very emotional about these issues so I find it important to focus on what might achieve something rather than what makes me feel better. I’m fine with calling the guy names, but campaigns can become overly aggressive and do more harm than good if restraint isn’t exercised (just look at PETA’s attempts to make people feel guilty; I haven’t noticed a positive effect but I have noticed people making fun of not eating meat).
Duh.......
Winning!
I am glad the latest news from Charlie Sheen is this… He is crazy, he doesn’t deserve all the attention. Get him outta here!
FEA has no leg to stand on
FEA has no leg to stand on. “Unfollow Charlie” out of context could mean ANYTHING. Sure in the context of Charlie Sheen, it mean asking people to stop following Charlie Sheen. But what about Charlie Chaplin? Checkpoint Charlie? Find more Charlies here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie
Sheen and his publicists don’t own the name “Charlie”.
Re: FEA has no leg to stand on
Five O’clock Charlie. Seriously, unfollow that guy. Flying with his poor eyesight shouldn’t be encouraged, especially during war times.
Some is selling "Unfollow Charlie" @ Zazzle
http://www.zazzle.com/unfollow_charlie_tshirt-235164601327175800