It was on the news, but I’m not so sure that it’s actually widespread information quite yet.
http://www.financebehavior.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Baby-Gaga_Ice-Cream.jpg
Some place in the UK is serving an ice cream made of breast milk. Kinda strange and I won’t be eating it anytime soon (as if I’d be in the UK?) and that’s not the issue. It’s name? Baby Gaga. I understand the name perfectly in the sense that it’s breast milk. Breast milk is for babies and babies say “gaga.” Simple enough. No REAL harm, no foul even if it is a single letter away from Lady Gaga. However, it’s the manner in which the ice cream is served that is the reason behind the issues.
No, that picture above is not Lady Gaga partaking in some Baby Gaga. It’s a server of the ice cream. If you haven’t heard, Gaga (the lady) is threatening to (or is in the process of, or has given up. Any new news on that?) sue them for basically using her to sell their product without her consent.
The creator of Gaga (the baby) is trying to claim that all is well and good because the name is clearly not copyrighted, not the same as “Lady Gaga” and has everything to do with the product. That, to me, seems like a flimsy excuse thought up pre-production in case something like this happened. The only way one could possibly claim that a name of a product so similar to the pop star with servers looking like THAT has nothing to do with Gaga would imply that said creator lived under a rock.
http://www.popjolly.com/restaurant-sells-breast-milk-ice-cream-1850
Mirror Mask, cone boobs (okay, Madonna started that one, whatever), full body jumpsuit, BUT with a clearly swimsuit style/no pants bodice as a part of it. Oh, and the long blonde wig with blunt cut bangs.
Mirror Mask (Poker Face video)
Funky cone boobs (except instead of implying that the shoot out whipped cream, they shoot out fireworks.)
No pants swimsuit bodice thing. Pretty much her signature look. DEFINITLY her signature look. (the bowels of google search)
long blonde wig with blunt cut bangs (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0xob1YAafaWvMqR3ZW-wv34Q01DsRdoZ-R5uaH0gVYhvncdsf0XgE9RzTg8zCmKvn7SvHwuaoUWZr3RI6iK1uxuWZQRWZOPDjLKdaQeN3w9_kD6EKjc9CF9b1yGFsQS7YzvjKQTclXsVj/s1600/Lady-Gaga.jpg )
There’s really no point in arguing that this is blatantly using Lady Gaga, her popularity and her crazy image to sell their own product. Everything about Gaga has been done before by other people and in different ways, but to put them all together? It’s 100% her. I know life would be more convenient if you could just blatantly rip off something popular for your own personal gain, and to some degrees you CAN, but the more obvious you make it and less unique your product is in comparison to the original the more likely you are to get your ass sued.
Prime example would be Harajuku Lovers, Gwen Stefani’s brand of clothes and purfumes. A lot of people started making similar styles of clothes to them, and a lot of people started using cute little Japanese girls on their stuff, but when “Forever Love” the Forever 21 version created almost exact duplicates, with almost the same logo, they got sued. They went as far as t-shirs with patches with similar styles in the same places AND almost the exact same phrase on the back. Where “Our love is the real thing” was placed, in the same font wrote “Our style is the real thing.”
Sometimes, there’s really no reason to try to defend yourself when your clearly in the wrong, because you just end up looking like an ass hat.
XoXo,
S
No comments:
Post a Comment