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
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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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