Ariana Grande used her similarity to sue 21 forever. What exactly does it mean?
Ariana Grande is suing the popular store for allegedly using her “likeness.”
Ariana Grande does not ask for permission before interpolating “My ring Things” to “7 rings” in The Sound of Music. And 90% of the royalty was paid to Rodgers and Hammerstein. Grande’s team took the finished song to Concord, the company that owns the legendary Broadway duo catalog.
This week, Popstar filed a $ 10 million lawsuit against a first-fashion retailer in a federal court in Los Angeles.Grande is guaranteed by Grande, as represented by lawyer Daniel Petrocelli (OJ Simpson’s civil honors major). Grande’s dissenting views include Instagram images of similar models based on the “7 rings” video.
In the screenshots included in the complaint, the Forever 21 model has worn fluffy pink pompoms, purple camo pants and white socks on the head.
Some of Forever 21’s articles use captions whose lyrics are quoted with “7 ring”, alleging that some video clips include songs. Intellectual property lawyers say Grande has a strong case and will probably win the agreement. And they say that these types of legal battles can affect more and more artists as the music industry is looking for money other than selling or streaming music.
“This is the future of the music business,” said Ken Abdo, an entertainment lawyer involved in Prince’s real estate dispute.
Although the 21st court has not yet responded to the lawsuit, the public reaction strikes the atmosphere of reconciliation.
The company said in a statement, “We do not mention any pending lawsuits based on company policy every 21 years.” We are Ariana Grande ’s big supporters, while arguing against his claims, Over the past two years we have been working with license companies. We hope to find a mutually agreeable solution and continue to work together. “
According to Grande’s lawsuit, Forever 21 contacted the representative before thanking for the next February album.
“Especially, Grant’s support contract forever focused on social media marketing such as Twitter, Instagram posts, Instagram stories, etc.” Grande suggested that Forever 21 suggested, “
It is inadequate for artists and claims that [Forever 21] simply stole it without paying its rights as the law requires.
Although this case is centered on social media, Grande’s most powerful legal precedent has been related to other media for decades.
California has the right to public relations law, which basically means that you cannot use a person’s “similarity” without consent.
The epoch-making decision of this law is that in 1993 the Supreme Court brought the video game show landlady Vanna White to file a lawsuit for advertising, showing the same style of robot as himself, and changing the word “Wheel of Fortune” Was done when possible.
“This is a typical example of using an image of someone’s celebrity without permission for commercial benefit,” said Kendall Jenner’s business representative intellectual property lawyer Jeff Kobulnick.
Music lawyer Mattias Eng, who recently included legal credibility to Travis Scott’s Astroworld, verifies a $ 2.5 million through a Doritos ad that used the best song of the style that Tom Waits waited in 1990 through this case Is said to be above.
“Go up to the right.” In other words, the model is similar to Grande, but can you actually misunderstand her as a singer?
Grande has filed other lawsuits that could potentially move forward, including “7 ring” piracy.
However, her case can be a problem related to her similarity, a fertile area where the pop star litigation can proceed.
“The music business is not just about music, it’s about aesthetics, lifestyle and impact on nearby celebrities.”
Social media sells records with musicians using their images It ’s now easier than ever to sell your product, California’s official rights.