Slashdot Mirror


How I Got Fired From the Job I Invented

New submitter frost_knight writes "Travel blogger Turner Barr discovered that his entire brand, image, and web personality has been hijacked by a multi-billion dollar company for use in a marketing campaign. 'The video for their marketing campaign was particularly creepy for me, as even my age and personality didn’t escape the level of detail spent on creating this doppelganger (they used a paid actor of course). ... I’m no longer even the first thing that comes up when you Google my brand name. I’ve turned down work opportunities and put on hold any future travel job plans to deal with lawyers, long distance phone calls, corporate executives and other such nonsense — all along feeling misled and patronized. This situation has been extremely confusing for not only myself, but also for participants in company’s marketing campaign who message me thinking that I am am part of the company.'"

4 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Adecco will not win. IP law protects Barr by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They are protecting Barr. Are you under the impression that just because Adecco typed TM they'll win?
    It is pretty clear that Barr's trademark has priority under law and he's virtually guaranteed to win. It seems Barr and Adecco just haven't yet agreed on how much Adecco needs to pay Barr to make up for their employee's misbehavior .

  2. Official Rules: No Infringing, Copying Tolerated by theodp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Contest Rules: "Participants warrant and agree that their entry, including all content of the entry will at all times be (a) the original independent creation of the participant submitting it, (b) exclusively and solely owned by the participant (including the copyright therein), and (c) free of any claims, including copyright or trademark claims by other parties. Participants further warrant and agree that their entry, including all content of the entry, in whole or in part (a) does not and will not infringe any third party rights (including intellectual property rights or rights of privacy, publicity or confidentiality), (b) has been created by the participant and if the content features a person other than the participant, the person(s) featured in the content (and their parent/legal guardian if they are under the age of majority in their jurisdiction of residence) must have consented to their image being used in connection with this contest, and (c) is not unlawful, fraudulent, defamatory, obscene, profane, derogatory, pornographic, sexually inappropriate, politically incorrect, violent, abusive, insulting, scandalous, inflammatory, harassing, threatening, racist, ageist, sexist, objectionable with respect to religion, origin or gender, not suitable for children under 15, or otherwise unsuitable for publication or objectionable."

  3. Re:George Zimmer? by manu0601 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I guaranteed that they'll end up suing Barr. For something. It doesn't really matter what, as long as he can't afford to defend himself.

    Here would be an interesting usage of crowd funding

  4. Re:George Zimmer? by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    God what a smug lawyered-up non-apology. It is all about deflecting blame and nothing about actually accepting responsibility. Hell, by the end they are practically blaming the victim for not only what they did to him, but for hurting his own cause. It is hard to imagine a more arrogant response.

    Do they honestly think such crap will do anything other than fan the flames higher? Does this shit work on anyone?