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.'"
Who are intellecutal property laws protecting again. Once again, they always protect those with enough lawyers to make them work.
This adecco page has twitter feed deal at the bottom and it's a riot to read right now. Apparently they haven't caught on that this story is getting a lot of attention yet.
https://www.adeccowaytowork.com/en/career-center
I'm gonna guess clicking through on the facebook deal next to it would lead to similar stuff.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Who are intellecutal property laws protecting again. Once again, they always protect those with enough lawyers to make them work.
Of course the laws protect those who worked hard to make the laws (the layers). If they didn't, it wouldn't be fair.
I was so ready to side with Adecco on this. It's really not a very original twist on 'Around the world in 80 days', and it's really just a limited time use by them. Then I saw they've applied a TM to the term. They made his whole point for him.
"Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
Apparently from Adecco:
"We have seen and heard your sincere concern about our recent youth employment initiative and take your feedback very seriously. We deeply regret if we hurt Turner Barr. This was never our intention when we set up our "Around the World in 80 Jobs" contest. We clearly see that Turner is an inspiration to many people. We feel there should be more of such initiatives that inspire people to live their dreams and achieve their ambitions. Unfortunately, we moved forward with a name and contest that clearly upset Turner and his community. We sincerely apologize for that mistake.
When Turner contacted us about his concern, and we understood the full situation, we immediately engaged with him to try to make things right. Unfortunately, we have been unable to find common ground so far.
Most of all, we are sorry that an initiative we truly care about - youth unemployment - has been negatively received."
In other words, "we told him we'd buy out all the rights in exchange for a snickers bar and a firm handshake, but much to our surprise he turned our generous offer down, so it's his fault"?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
It is only fair. If the citizens cared about their rights, they would hire lobbyists.
Why is anyone surprised? Adecco's entire business model is profiting off the labor of others.
Most of all,, we are sorry that we got caught stealing someone else's idea and then trademarking it.
I feel sorry for people that don't drink, because when they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're gonna feel
How was he fired exactly? I totally get that he got screwed and all, but I don't see how this led to a firing in any stretch of the imagination.
I would send anyone to addeco, when I had a brief period of unemployment in 2011 I went to addeco, dream jobs? Hell you are lucky if they can find you anything even if your sitting in their office all day, saying I will do any work as long as its not against the law!
Willful copyright infringement for commercial gain is a criminal offense under 17 U.S.C. Â 506 and 18 U.S.C. Â 2319
If the value of the reproduced works exceeds $2500 it is a felony.
His trademarks and copyrights were both infringed. If he engaged in commerce in the United States since 1976 he was required to register neither.
He might even have a case for unfair competition and illegal use of his likeness. Depends on how aggressive his attorneys are.
They turned the display of the twitter feed off on their page; it was filled with comments saying they stole the work and they were unethical. But you can still enjoy the hate here: https://twitter.com/search?q=AdeccoUSA&src=typd
no comment
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 .
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."
"Should" is overrated. Justice is just a meme that have no meaning in the real universe. No matter how much people believe in it, in the end is money what counts (over certain amount, no matter if everyone knows what you did)
At https://www.adeccowaytowork.com/en/contact
For example:
You disgust me. I expect never to make use of your services, either looking for my next position, or when I am part of the hiring process where I work.
As an active web developer with a strong network built up over 15 years in the industry, I intend to make sure the details of your parasitic behaviour are shared as widely as possible. Everybody who works in the digital economy will see this as a crime that could have been perpetrated on themselves.
I will encourage everyone I can to see themselves as a potential victim of such cavalier behaviour and to boycott your services therefore. I know how many of my colleagues already despise the way big business flouts IP laws, whilst simultaneously using these same laws to crush players too small to afford protracted legal battles.
You are in a service industry and person you have just ripped off is the archetypal representative of your customer. I can only hope that the impact on your bottom line is what it deserves to be. I will do what I can to encourage everyone to make it so.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/06/22/2316215/how-i-got-fired-from-the-job-i-invented
Yours sincerely,
[name redacted]
Incidently their twitter feed is interesting reading at the moment. As is their facebook page.
Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
Coke didn't invent soda, Slashdot didn't invent news aggregation and discussion.
What belongs to each of these companies is the NAMES they do business under
In order to know whether you're buying soda made by Coca-Cola or some other company, the law protects the Coke mark.
His mark is Around the World in 80 Jobs. It seems that employees of Arecco contacted Barr, thinking that he was part of the promotion. If their use of the Around the World in 80 Jobs mark confused their own employees, it could certainly confuse the public, making them think Barr was involved in the promotion.
Fair is where the bus was headed when you went under it.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
https://www.facebook.com/AdeccoWayToWork
We have seen and heard your sincere concern about our recent youth employment initiative and take your feedback very seriously. We deeply regret if we hurt Turner Barr. This was never our intention when we set up our “Around the World in 80 Jobs” contest. We clearly see that Turner is an inspiration to many people. We feel there should be more of such initiatives that inspire people to live their dreams and achieve their ambitions. Unfortunately, we moved forward with a name and contest that clearly upset Turner and his community. We sincerely apologize for that mistake.
When Turner contacted us about his concern, and we understood the full situation, we immediately engaged with him to try to make things right. Unfortunately, we have been unable to find common ground so far.
Most of all, we are sorry that an initiative we truly care about – youth unemployment – has been negatively received.
Your Adecco Way to Work Team
Adecco has publicly admitted it was "a mistake" and they want to "make it right".
So at this point there's no question they were in the wrong. It's just a matter of figuring out what to do about it.
* had Adecco offered a settlement WITHOUT admitting they were wrong, that offer couldn't be used against them in court .
Here, they admitted it was a mistake to use that name, and that they need to make it right.
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
Google the tort of passing off. It is not necessary for a trademark to be registered for it to be legally defendable.
Their claims that "an intern did this" on their twitter feed are a laughable, bald-faced lie.
No intern would be able to independently put together a marketing campaign like that, complete with video.
Adecco has publicly admitted it was "a mistake" and they want to "make it right".
So why is "Around the World in 80 Jobs" still plastered all over the Adecco website? Step one of "make it right" is to cease infringing.
... unless the "make it right" was a public outcry publicity stunt by Barr and Adecco.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Unfortunately, we moved forward with a name and contest that clearly upset Turner and his community.
You didn't "move forward", you mealy-mouthed bastards. You stole his IP.
we immediately engaged with him to try to make things right.
You incredibly ignorant twats. Making it right would be immediately ceasing to use his IP.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Adecco makes a majority of its money through staffing agencies it owns. There's nothing wrong with staffing agencies per se, but Adecco's outright abuse employment law in how theirs are operated. As an example, someone I know recently applied to a legal job at a law firm. They got through the interview process and were waiting for confirmation of when to start. Instead they got a call telling them the firm could not hire them because the person had worked for an Adecco owned entity within the past year, and they had an agreement not to hire people Adecco's entity had staffed within the past year. The entity is also well known for requiring more than 40 hours a week to be worked without overtime pay via exploiting a person's title of "contractor". So why is it surprising that a company that behaves like people are their property would treat the guy in the story any differently?
Maybe it's all part of the (Adecco) promotion. Way too much artificial drama days .
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?
These days you only have the rights that you can afford to defend.
He is not required to register a trademark. The only requirement is that he use it in commerce. Registered trademarks have stronger protections, but an unregistered trademark is still protected.
Wouldn't this be a good use for Kickstarter? Raise funds for fighting something like this to conclusion in order to set precedent. So Kickstarter is a way to get around traditional corporate funding. Maybe it can be a way to get around traditional corporate blackmail too!
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Maybe that's a good first step, maybe not.
Ending the contest would screw over the people already involved.
They've spoken to Barr and it's entirely possible he indicated he would rather then not shut it down at this point.
It's also possible that they're stupid.
Absolutely right! If you're lucky, you'll never have rights worth enough to pay a lawyer to sue you. My 70+ year old widowed mother is being sued by my money-crazy step-sister. There is zero merit to the case, but my poor mother has already had incurred over $200K in expenses, and they haven't even started the effort to go to trial. The judge couldn't throw out the case because the law says disputes of this type can only be decided at trial. The system is set up to take away your money and give it to lawyers, plain and simple. Anyone without enough money to play this game can be taken advantage of by any company that cares to, and the law is set up to benefit lawyers here as well.
There is a defense. If you're bright, and a fast learner, you can represent yourself, and hopefully not cock it up. It will take even more of your time than hiring lawyers, but the expenses will be tiny. Naturally, judges, who all happen to be lawyers, take a dim view of this approach. It's a good thing the people passing the laws that lawyers live by aren't lawyers themselves! ... Oh, wait!
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
IF by seeing this fiasco you don't realize that corporate "persons" are psychopaths, I don't know what will do. I'm reading their disgraceful lawyered-up damage-control non-apologies and I wonder if it is possible for them to actually take reponsiblity and fix things the way it should be done. They might be unable to do so by good will because psychopaths don't recognize good from wrong. Money is the only think they care, so asking them gently about fixing it won't work. Big enough stick is the only thing that will work. Turning their ad campaign into a messy blow by flooding their twitter/facebook/whatever with comments about them being thieves etc. is the best one we have - and I'm delighted to see it in full force. Hurting corporation's bottom line is the only way to force it to behave properly.
I don't know.. It seems to be a bit calculated and scripted to me. I mean, that "depression-beard" and those staged photos.. I bet they didn't come together "in the moment". There's some core of truth in there somewhere I'm sure, but the whole thing on top doesn't seem 100% genuine. I have a feeling most of this stems from working with his lawyer in preparation for a lawsuit. With that said, Adecco is a piece of crap unethical company. There was a social dumping scandal here in Norway a couple of years ago where they really showed their true colors. So I hope he gets them either way.
Fare is what you should have paid to be in the bus instead of under it.
Isn't there also something like "trademark through use"? He's been using the phrase for ages, and has the domain registered in his name for a long time - that should have some value (and if it doesn't, it's damn well time it did IMHO).
Insert
If that were the case, he wouldn't be ranting about it on his blog, and we wouldn't have a story.
Unless he's calculated that he can get more out of them if he turns the screws a bit.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I thought it was binders full of lawyers.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
There is a defense. If you're bright, and a fast learner, you can represent yourself, and hopefully not cock it up. It will take even more of your time than hiring lawyers, but the expenses will be tiny. Naturally, judges, who all happen to be lawyers, take a dim view of this approach. It's a good thing the people passing the laws that lawyers live by aren't lawyers themselves! ... Oh, wait!
Judges don't take a "dim view" so much as go out of their way to make sure pro pers understand what's going on. This does frequently involve advising them to get an attorney, but more often it involves giving them more chances than represented parties get to do things right. It's frankly tiresome for practicing attorneys on the other side, not because it means we can't trip them up but because it means slow going and higher fees for OUR OWN clients -- not to mention frequently having to respond to ridiculous arguments, and do so in a more meticulous and careful manner than we'd have to if it were an attorney on the other side. This is because no judge wants to deal with an accusation (made far too easily by people who don't understand the legal system) the he or she was unfair to a self-represented litigant. It's bad PR for the judiciary overall (and people are already far too willing to blame judges generally without understanding what their job actually is) and it could lead to reversals on appeal.
I know it's easy to hate lawyers because we're very expensive and, much of the time, you're only hiring a lawyer if something has gone wrong, or you're afraid of something going wrong. So there's already a negative association. But only a tiny fraction of lawyers are ACTUALLY unscrupulous. Views like the one expressed in your comment are under-informed and contribute to an overall toxic climate when it comes to legal work. Not to mention, it makes the judiciary an easy target for budget cuts, which, guess what, means that the only way to fund the judiciary is through increased filing costs, reduced services to the public, and the like. Guess who this helps? Hint: not the little guy who doesn't have the money to make up the difference himself.
Nothing new here. Back when the Nissan car company was still called 'Datsun' a fellow named Uzi Nissan registered the domain nissan.com, ran his businees under that domain name for several years, even called his ISP that. Then the newly-renamed Nissan corporation sued him, and after forcing him to spend a huge pile of money on legal fees ended up with the domain. One of the first web commerce sites was a German artists' cooperative called Etoy, and they sold their members' work through the web site called etoys.com. Then Toys Are Us decided to get on the web, sued the co-op for 'cyber squatting', and ended up with the domain. Those of us who have been on the www for more than a decade have seen many of these games play out, and the result is always the same; deep pockets always win.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin