Too bad . . . you shouldn't have gone into politics.

[quade 4]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/01/arnold.doll.ap/index.html

Nice try Arnold, but you're a -public- figure now.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[christelsabine 1]

He was an actor, right?

probably, he's missing something?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[likearock 2]

Quote

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/01/arnold.doll.ap/index.html

Nice try Arnold, but you're a -public- figure now.

One thing in that article did catch my eye:

Quote

The Bosleys' business gets about $1.50 per doll, while a fund that provides grants for cancer research gets $5 per the doll. The sale price is $19.95 each.

Does anyone really think it costs $13.45 each to manufacture and distribute those things?

Sounds like a scam to me.

Wayne

[quade 4]

Well, they aren't saying they're a non-profit. They're saying that they're donating some profits. I don't think it's a scam. Just good business.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[likearock 2]

Quote

Well, they aren't saying they're a non-profit. They're saying that they're donating some profits. I don't think it's a scam. Just good business.

Quote

"This isn't something we did for a profit," Toby Bosley said.

Also, by saying that they're only taking $1.50 and giving $5.00 to charity, the implication is that they're primarily a charity. But I'm sure they're pocketing more than they're giving away.

The issue with Schwartzenegger I would think would have to do with not being compensated by a company that's profiting off of his celebrity. Not being a lawyer, I can't say how legitimate is his claim.

Wayne

[quade 4]

Unfortunately, he doesn't really have a leg to stand on now that he is a "public" person.

Actors and models -can- have some (maybe a lot) of control over how images of them are used, but -public- persons (the President for example) do not.

If I wanted to make a poster of GWB (pro or con) and sell it in Liberty Park, (as long as I had the proper business licenses) there's nothing GWB could do about it. In fact, it would be protected under the 1st Amendment.

The bobblehead dolls are -exactly- the same thing (protected speech).

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Unfortunately, he doesn't really have a leg to stand on now that he is a "public" person.

Ok, I'm going to try to ask a question, but I'm probably going to screw up the terminology, so please bare with me.

Would his likeness being used as a product still be a 1st admin issue if his likeness had been trademarked/copywrited/whatever due to his acting career? I see it as possibly being similar to me making bobble head dolls of HellBoy or one of the X-men or Mad Max and selling them. If I hadn't been licensed by the holding firm, then it is an infringement. Right?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[quade 4]

Ahhhhh! Finer points!

Any of his -movie- characters (most of the later ones he partly owns) would still be protected -except- when used as parody.

So, for instance, if you make a "Terminator" action figure and sell it, you're going to have some angry lawyers from the movie studio (and rightfully Arnold) and they'll definitely win a copyright infringement lawsuit.

However, if you can make a cross between the "Terminator" and Governor Arnold, (hell, it doesn't really have to pass a joke test, but you can call it a parody anyway), THEN not only do you win, but you're protected by the 1st Amendment. My guess is that the defense will work both the "free use parody" aspects of this as well Arnold now being a public figure.

Right now, I can't see anyway they can lose this unless they simply "settle" out of court.

If a reasonable person could confuse "real" merchandise with "parody" merchandise, then it might get a little gray, but I don't see how that's possible in this case as the bobble-heads in question don't seem to depict any specific movie -- only Govenor Arnold in general.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[likearock 2]

Quote

Unfortunately, he doesn't really have a leg to stand on now that he is a "public" person.

Actors and models -can- have some (maybe a lot) of control over how images of them are used, but -public- persons (the President for example) do not.

If I wanted to make a poster of GWB (pro or con) and sell it in Liberty Park, (as long as I had the proper business licenses) there's nothing GWB could do about it. In fact, it would be protected under the 1st Amendment.

The bobblehead dolls are -exactly- the same thing (protected speech).

I wonder how far you can go though when the profit motive is involved.

Suppose I owned a liquor company and found a George Bush lookalike to pose for a billboard while holding onto a glass of single malt.

What do you think the courts would say then?

Wayne

[quade 4]

Probably not smart from a marketing standpoint (you'd probably piss off your Republican consumers), but totally legal. Which brings up another important point, just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's the "smart" thing to do.

Case in point, Americana image ads after 9/11 ran rampant. At first they were kinda touching, but -quickly- the consumers turned on them as being distasteful -- trying to make a profit out of the tragedies.

So, you wanna make a micro-brew called "Drunken Presidents" and feature Clinton and GWB in your ads -- go right ahead. After all, they both had been known to enjoy a -really- good bender in their youth. I don't wanna be any part of your next tax audit, but that's a different matter altogether.

Side note: ONE piece of government artwork that you -can't- use is the actual Seal of the President of the United States. That's covered by a specific law and strictly forbidden for commercial use. Most other government artwork however is up for grabs.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/01/arnold.doll.ap/index.html

Nice try Arnold, but you're a -public- figure now.

One thing in that article did catch my eye:

Quote

The Bosleys' business gets about $1.50 per doll, while a fund that provides grants for cancer research gets $5 per the doll. The sale price is $19.95 each.

Does anyone really think it costs $13.45 each to manufacture and distribute those things?

Sounds like a scam to me.

Wayne

I'm assuming you've never run a business. I used to manage a company that produced a product that we charged $25 for. It was basically a report of public records. We got the information for free from the courthouse. So we made $25 profit I guess? More like $3.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/01/arnold.doll.ap/index.html

Nice try Arnold, but you're a -public- figure now.

One thing in that article did catch my eye:

Quote

The Bosleys' business gets about $1.50 per doll, while a fund that provides grants for cancer research gets $5 per the doll. The sale price is $19.95 each.

Does anyone really think it costs $13.45 each to manufacture and distribute those things?

Sounds like a scam to me.

Wayne

I'm assuming you've never run a business. I used to manage a company that produced a product that we charged $25 for. It was basically a report of public records. We got the information for free from the courthouse. So we made $25 profit I guess? More like $3.

Not sure what your point is. Because you only made a $3 profit on your product, that means that the Bosley's can't be making more than that on a bunch of cheap ceramic chachkas?

Wayne

[PhillyKev 0]

It means there are other expenses to running a business besides the cost of individual production. Sales, advertising, distribution, accountants, attorneys, insurance, travel, taxes, The list goes on. You asked "Does anyone really think it costs $13.45 each to manufacture and distribute those things?". My reply was directed at answering that. Yes, I believe it.

[likearock 2]

Quote

It means there are other expenses to running a business besides the cost of individual production. Sales, advertising, distribution, accountants, attorneys, insurance, travel, taxes, The list goes on. You asked "Does anyone really think it costs $13.45 each to manufacture and distribute those things?". My reply was directed at answering that. Yes, I believe it.

Well if that's the case, it's remarkable that anything can be sold at a price under $13. Or do you believe there's something special about bobble-head dolls that requires higher infrastructure costs?

Wayne

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

Quote

It means there are other expenses to running a business besides the cost of individual production. Sales, advertising, distribution, accountants, attorneys, insurance, travel, taxes, The list goes on. You asked "Does anyone really think it costs $13.45 each to manufacture and distribute those things?". My reply was directed at answering that. Yes, I believe it.

Well if that's the case, it's remarkable that anything can be sold at a price under $13. Or do you believe there's something special about bobble-head dolls that requires higher infrastructure costs?

Wayne

No, maybe high lawyer retainer fees to defend when Arnold decides to sue.

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[rickjump1 0]

The real reason he hates these dolls is that the best seller is Anna Nicole Smith followed by Jesus.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

Well if that's the case, it's remarkable that anything can be sold at a price under $13. Or do you believe there's something special about bobble-head dolls that requires higher infrastructure costs?

It's really expensive to set up the initial molds and production.
If they only made 1000 dolls, the average cost is going to be high. OTOH, if it turns out that millions are sold, then the price would drop considerably.

How many of these things do you expect they might sell?

-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Well if that's the case, it's remarkable that anything can be sold at a price under $13. Or do you believe there's something special about bobble-head dolls that requires higher infrastructure costs?

It's really expensive to set up the initial molds and production.
If they only made 1000 dolls, the average cost is going to be high. OTOH, if it turns out that millions are sold, then the price would drop considerably.

How many of these things do you expect they might sell?

-Josh

I doubt that new molds are all that expensive. Check out how many different models they have available here.

In addition, you could have a new one custom designed for considerably less than $13,000.

As to the other infrastructure costs, I'm sure they can be amortized over proceeds from all the other dolls, which have been selling for some time.

Finally, the fact that they advertise volume discounts and wholesale pricing kind of belies the thin margins they claim they're operating under.

Wayne

[newsstand 0]

I used to have a retail store and if it is retailing for $19.95 it is probably wholesaling for about $10.00 so that is where the manufacturers expenses and profits are coming from. $5.00 of the wholesale price is going to the charity leaving $5.00 for manufacturing costs and profits. They are apparently making $1.50 profit so it costs about $3.50 to make the thing.

Think about that next time you buy anything.

edited to fix a typo.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes