Even if you haven't been following this story, which has been big big news within the independent music scene for nearly two months now, the latest development is pretty fascinating. According to a an article in Toronto's weekly EYE newspaper, two of the bands featured in Camel's advertisement without their knowledge or prior consent have filed a massive class action lawsuit against both RJ Reynolds and Rolling Stone for uauthorized use of artist’s names for commercial advantage (right of publicity) and unfair business practices. The artists in the suit, art-punks Xiu Xiu and hardcore noisemakers Fucked Up have retained renowned intellectual property attorney Christopher J Hunt and are gunning for more than a simple apology from the corporate forces they believe took their names in vain.
While EMERGE certainly respects the rights of these and other artists to ensure that their names and likenesses are used only with their permission, the conflict over the blurring lines between content and advertising does highlight some difficult ambiguities. It can be argued that any advertising-supported medium is at its core a vehicle for delivering commercial messages and information. If Rolling Stone and Camel must seek approval before featuring artists in an advertorial section like the one in question, why do they not need to seek the same clearance to simply write about a band opposite a full page ad for Camel or any other product? Don't get us wrong here... We're not saying Fucked Up is wrong for feeling aggrieved. We're just wondering if this sort of suit will ultimately limit what can and cannot be published by setting a precedent requiring prior consent for anything that is underwritten through the sale of advertising. Comments are welcome, so please, don't be shy and chime in!
Posted by James Friedman
