Copyright Dispute Over Tanning Lotion From Jersey Shore's 'JWOWW'

from the j-what? dept

We've actually written about a copyright dispute involving a shampoo bottle in the past. And now we've got a copyright dispute involving a tanning lotion bottle. Honestly, though, it appears to be more of a stupid contractual dispute with the plaintiffs throwing in a copyright claim just for the hell of it. The details, at THREsq, talk about how Jersey Shore's Jenni "JWOWW" Farley is being sued for offering up a tanning lotion in the bottle seen here:
Apparently the plaintiffs run a company that sells tanning solution, and they had worked with Farley's ex-boyrfriend/ex-manager to create the product. They claim they designed and registered the copyright for the bottle. However, after Farley and the guy split, the lotion still came out, but without the partner company. All in all this seems like it should be a straight contract dispute (which the plaintiffs allege as well), but thanks to copyright they get to pile on.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Aug 12th, 2011 @ 3:16am

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Just John (profile), Aug 12th, 2011 @ 3:25am

    Diamonds on tissue paper ring a bell?

    Honestly, if they can take diamonds on a tissue paper to court, then this one meets the proper monkey test as well.

    Sounds like since it seems to be more linked to a lovers spat and custody rights (of the copyright, before someone misunderstands and tells me no children were hurt in the making of this), seems like she should just buy said tissue paper and leave the lawyers out of it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    marcbl, Aug 12th, 2011 @ 3:53am

    Q: who the fuck cares?
    A: People who read People.

    What's the tech tie-in here?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Schmoo, Aug 12th, 2011 @ 4:19am

    Re:

    Copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Aug 12th, 2011 @ 4:21am

    Re:

    Despite the Oompa-Loompa orange tone to one of the people involved, it is a copyright dispute over a bottle design.

    We discuss copyright here... and this is a...
    *throws hands up*

    Nope still can't do it...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    nunya_bidness, Aug 12th, 2011 @ 4:36am

    Re:

    The real question is why would anybody make bronzer for black people?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Aug 12th, 2011 @ 4:42am

    Re: Re:

    To keep this blog in business...

    http://www.paleisthenewtan.com/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Aug 12th, 2011 @ 6:27am

    I'm having a really, really hard time

    developing the slightest bit of interest in this case. The people who are involved directly are all morons. The people who actually buy this POS are even more hopeless.

    Dermatologists will love this stuff, however, since somewhere down the line it will generate more business income for them, cutting and freezing off the various growths that will manifest years later on the people who think spending a lot of time frying in the solar glare is a good thing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Aug 12th, 2011 @ 6:31am

    Re: I'm having a really, really hard time

    this could just be a bottle of instant orange for those on the go kids without time to spend 6 hours a day in the tanning bed...

    This topic is like a car wreck... can't ... look .... away...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Krusty, Aug 12th, 2011 @ 6:59am

    What is this "jersey shore" you speak of?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 2011 @ 7:04am

    They claim they designed and registered the copyright for the bottle. However, after Farley and the guy split, the lotion still came out, but without the partner company. All in all this seems like it should be a straight contract dispute (which the plaintiffs allege as well), but thanks to copyright they get to pile on.

    You didn't explain WHY this is only a contract dispute and not a copyright one as well. Do you actually have an argument? This appears to be another desperate attempt by you to diss copyright law--and of course, you give no basis or argument for your position.

    Here's the complaint for reference: http://ia700707.us.archive.org/8/items/gov.uscourts.okwd.81394/gov.uscourts.okwd.81394.1.0.pdf

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    thedigitari, Aug 12th, 2011 @ 7:19am

    copyright?

    this is just a simple matter, Boy meets girl, girl has boobs, girl dumps boy, boy loses boobs, this is just about a couple of Boobs

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Stephen, Aug 12th, 2011 @ 9:32am

    bottle copyright

    What this suit suggests is that the lotion itself is not the draw, that, like vodka, which is exactly the same from brand to brand, the appeal is in the brand made manifest by the bottle.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Any Mouse (profile), Aug 12th, 2011 @ 9:55am

    Re:

    Sheesh, it's thick, today, isn't it? I'm less than knowledgeable about such things, and I can put the pieces together. They had a contract with a company to produce this lotion. Before the product hit the markets, they split from the company, yet they still put out the product the partner company had worked hard on creating for them. If copyright were not in place on a stupid fucking bottle, it would be a simple contract dispute, and it SHOULD BE, but copyright rears its ugly head, once more.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Aug 13th, 2011 @ 6:37am

    Re: bottle copyright

    Oooh publicity rights vs copyright. FIGHT!

    Because if JWOWW is intrinsic to the overall copyright on the design, then without her approval they can not market it without another lawsuit. Unless of course the contract states otherwise, and I am sure her former manager/boyfriend was very knowledgeable about these sorts of things when they signed the contract.

    And of course them going to another production firm, I am willing to bet they disclosed they had a prior contract on the item in question.

    My one hope in all of this is they sue until she vanishes.
    Then we can hope other lawsuits will then remove the orange tint from the tv screens 1 at a time.
    It will not be fast enough, but hopefully the world can recover from the idea that being a loudmouthed shallow ass makes you important.
    *leans head to side listening off camera*
    This just in... we're screwed still.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This