February 1
...serving up your daily dish.
TBS, heavily promoting re-runs of "Sex and the City," has a quiz 
on the side of city buses and in subway kiosks. What, the ad asks, is a yogasm? Answer (b) is "Sex with Yogi Berra."
Not so funny, says Yogi, who's suing TBS for $10 million over the campaign, arguing that if offends his moral and deeply religious sensibilities.
The real answer:
(d) what Samantha has with a guy from yoga class.
It never ceases to amaze me. Don't people think before they act anymore? If you work for an ad agency, you gotta know that using someone's name or likeness without their permission is a BIG no-no.
Posted by: Miss Martta | Feb 1, 2005 10:55:18 AM
The show has been edited for TBS too. The knocked out all cursing and pulled all nudity. Apparently, their ad team is still watching the HBO reruns.
Posted by: Cheryl | Feb 1, 2005 11:33:53 AM
I doubt using Yogi's name like this is against the law. Yogi's a public person and this almost certainly falls into the fair use and/or satire provisions of copyright.
Posted by: Lex | Feb 1, 2005 11:38:01 AM
What IS this show, without cursing and nudity?
Posted by: Confused Citizen | Feb 1, 2005 11:48:26 AM
"I doubt using Yogi's name like this is against the law. Yogi's a public person and this almost certainly falls into the fair use and/or satire provisions of copyright."
Not for advertising purposes. If this was some college kid writing a satire on Yogi, that's one thing. But this is a business seeking to make $$$ off of Yogi's likeness.
Posted by: Miss Martta | Feb 1, 2005 11:52:09 AM
"What IS this show, without cursing and nudity?"
Word! Sex and the City, without the cursing and nudity, well, it just ain't Sex and the City!
Posted by: Miss Martta | Feb 1, 2005 11:53:43 AM
Even though commercial speech is given less first amendment protection than non-commercial speech (for no very good legal reason), commercial speech is not wholly suppressed. See Cardtoons v. Major League Baseball Players, 95 F.3d 959 (10th Cir. 1996), for example, where the court said that "the last thing we need, the last thing the First Amendment will tolerate, is a law that lets public figures keep people from mocking them." The right to publicity (and/or privacy) is still superceded by notions of fair use.
You could also see Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557
(1980), where the court said that commercial speech is "expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience." Since, in this case, the speech has an element of social commentary, it would probably not be considered entirely commercial.
Posted by: Lex | Feb 1, 2005 12:09:53 PM
