March 3
...serving up your daily dish.
Not only is TBS not apologizing to Yogi Berra over its Yogasm ad campaign, it's asking the court to dismiss charges and make Yogi to pay the legal bills.
In January, Yogi sued TBS over the ad campaign for "Sex and the City" reruns. In the disputed ad, actress Kim Cattrell is shown with a multiple choice quiz, "What is a Yogasm?" One of the answers, "sex with Yogi Berra," offended the baseballl legend.
One of TBS's defenses in the suit: Yogi isn't even the guy's real name, so how can Yogasm be a commercial misuse? Yogi was born Lawrence Peter Berra in 1925.
If I was his age, I would be glad to have inspired a yogasm.
Posted by: RudeBuddha | Mar 3, 2005 11:11:25 AM
I'll take Yogi's side on this one. He is a wonderful, generous guy who never says no as far as I know to anything asked of him charity wise. His museum is wonderful and he is a real asset to our community. I hope he cleans them out for millions.
Posted by: Mr. Baseball | Mar 3, 2005 12:01:36 PM
unfortunately, he won't. He may even have to pay their expenses. I think he is getting some questionable legal advice here.
He is a public figure and as such his name is fair game for ridicule, satire and the like. He could only claim $$ if they were claiming an "endorsement" which does not exist.
He will lose or the suit will be dropped.
How do you think Saturday Night Live would do if it weren't possible to make considerable "fun" of public figures?
Posted by: Right of Center | Mar 3, 2005 12:07:49 PM
I want him to repay me for that picnic basket he stole last time I was in Jellystone.
Posted by: Lex | Mar 3, 2005 12:13:13 PM
Thers's a vast difference between making fun of famous people in comedy skits and using their image for advertising. You can't even use their likeness without permission.
I love Yogi, and I love that he chose to live in my town. I agree, let him clean them out for millions!
Posted by: Martin | Mar 3, 2005 1:48:16 PM
ROC is right - there's a lot you can get away with under the guise of parody, though i don't know if this instance qualifies as such. either way, these cases are always really iffy.
given my relative indifference to the show (i prefer chucks over manolos, thanks) it would be interesting to see something come of this - but i'm sure nothing will. the guy whose arm serves as Triumph the Insult Comic Dog would have been long chopped off by now. :)
Posted by: schmee | Mar 3, 2005 3:08:00 PM
"Thers's a vast difference between making fun of famous people in comedy skits and using their image for advertising. "
Not really in the eyes of the law. (although I am no lawyer), both situations are for profit making money enterprises and are using the name(s) for parody.
He could claim a share of the money made by the use of his name in the parody, but then he would have to show how much of the money made was a direct result of the use of his name, but how do you do that?
Posted by: Right of Center | Mar 3, 2005 3:15:58 PM