Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

She ‘Got Time For That’: Sweet Brown Sues Apple For $15 Million

puckhead193

puckhead193

macrumors G3
Original poster
May 25, 2004
9,570
852
NY
http://newsone.com/2275971/sweet-brown-sues-apple/

Didn't see this posted but thought it was funny...

Internet sensation Sweet Brown is suing software giant Apple for profiting from her YouTube success without permission, reports Business Insider.
Sweet Brown is suing Apple, a radio program called The Bob Rivers Show, and a handful of other parties for unauthorized use of her likeness, according to court documents.
The basis of the lawsuit stems from a song called “I Got Bronchitis.” The Bob Rivers Show, according to Sweet Brown’s complaint, produced the song with samples from Wilkins’ interview with the local TV-news station. The song sampled phrases like, “Ain’t nobody got time for that,” “Ran for my life,” and “Oh, Lord Jesus it’s a fire.”
The suit claims that in April 2012, the defendants started selling the song on iTunes for profit. It also claims the radio program and its owner falsely advertised that Sweet Brown had given her consent for the radio station to use her voice and likeness in the song.
The suit was first filed in the District Court of Oklahoma County in June 2012. At that time, Wilkins sought a total of $15 million from the defendants. The suit has since moved to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
Click to expand...
 
ericrwalker

ericrwalker

macrumors 68030
Oct 8, 2008
2,812
4
Albany, NY
God I hope they allow video and audio recording during settlement talks and/or doing the court proceedings.

This ought to be entertaining.
 
T

tekno

macrumors 6502a
Oct 15, 2011
842
4
puckhead193 said:
Didn't see this posted but thought it was funny...
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that whole news story is made up. Sweet Brown doesn't own any of the rights, the broadcaster that filmed her for the news report do. She would have given her consent to be filmed (purely by giving the interview in front of a camera) and so has no rights over the material or any subsequent uses of it.
 
gnasher729

gnasher729

Suspended
Nov 25, 2005
17,980
5,565
She'd have to prove that she has some copyrighted work. And then she would have to show actual damages.
 
firedept

firedept

macrumors 603
Jul 8, 2011
6,277
1,130
Somewhere!
It amazes me how trivial little things are allowed to even make it to the courts. What does it say about our legal system? Oh well, guess we all need a dose of humour in our lives every once in awhile.
 
M

malman89

macrumors 68000
May 29, 2011
1,651
6
Michigan
puckhead193 said:
Isn't the Antoine Dodson song on iTunes? is he getting paid?
Click to expand...

The version I saw actually was posted by him and I saw a follow up interview where he bought a house for his mom to get her and his family out of the projects. So he definitely made a bit of coin off that, though I'm sure some other people with their own versions did too.
 
FreakinEurekan

FreakinEurekan

macrumors 603
Sep 8, 2011
5,518
2,583
tekno said:
I'm assuming that whole news story is made up. Sweet Brown doesn't own any of the rights, the broadcaster that filmed her for the news report do. She would have given her consent to be filmed (purely by giving the interview in front of a camera) and so has no rights over the material or any subsequent uses of it.
Click to expand...

Not true. News organizations have the right to use the content they gather for news purposes, but that doesn't give them carte blanche to reuse, sell, or assign that content for other uses. This would fall under "Fair Use" copyright exceptions, and that exception generally doesn't allow commercial works.
 
M

MrMacMack

macrumors 6502a
Oct 24, 2012
837
0
I think there's more going down here. Look on the brick wall. 10.6 and 10.7 in yellow paint. This must be a snow leopard and lion thing. ;)
 
M

MuddyPaws1

macrumors 6502
Jul 14, 2012
399
0
FreakinEurekan said:
Not true. News organizations have the right to use the content they gather for news purposes, but that doesn't give them carte blanche to reuse, sell, or assign that content for other uses. This would fall under "Fair Use" copyright exceptions, and that exception generally doesn't allow commercial works.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. I can actually go out in public and film anyone on the street and sell that video for a profit. The courts have decided this a long time ago. Do you think movie producers that use "B roll" shots of busy city streets go out and get permission from everyone in the shot? No they don't. It falls under the expectation of privacy laws.

I have been taken to court twice for this and the plaintiff lost both times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom