Ok, so I just ticked off a celebrity...

[digidoodles]

I have a regular pr contract with a client... we take current news stories that relate to the client's business, discuss the current news story and then throw in a quote of the client discussing some aspect of the news story as it relates to their service.

I always utilize celebrities.. they are the one in the news within the industry of my client. It gets great google news love! At any rate, one of my pieces from last week really ticked off this particular celebrity and they contacted my client and demanded they remove the PR piece stating "its not accurate and no permissions were granted". I pulled the info from an abcnews piece this particular celebrity PERSONALLY did. Nothing other than what was contained in the abc news piece was mentioned. So, I'm pretty sure that was a cover... and the real beef was "no permissions were granted".

So, my question is this... permission? For simply talking about a piece that the celebrity voluntarily did for a national news agency?

Am I missing something here?

Any insight would be helpful (sorry for being vague.. but...

Warmly,

Brandi

[Collette]

Brandi - Did you attribute the info to abcnews? If not, the pr piece may "appear" as though your client had personal contact with the celebrity. In which case, if the celebrity wants to be a PIA, they have an opening for making trouble. Inference, misquoted, unduly maligned, etc...

If you did attribute abcnews as the info source, and gave them full credit (as in: "In a feature aired on ABCNews on Feburary 19, 2010, John Doe Wannabe said, "Blah, blah, blah.") then you should be fine.

The celebrity usually doesn't have exclusive and onimpotent right to decide what does and does not get quoted from a news piece. If anything, ABCNews would have copyright.

Even with copyright, so long as you attribute within Fair Use, you're covered.

[digidoodles]

Yes and yes regarding the citations.

That was my line of thinking "since when does being a celebrity give you the right to state when, where and how your name will be used in conversation or quoted from your own quote?"

And, here's another thing.. I always make it clear in the PR piece that there is no association. Well, I mean, I don't say "there is no association.." but it's like a PR piece I read last week.. that Dr. Gupta guy that does a piece on ABC news. They did the exact same thing-- quoted a news story and then he commented on the medical study. Anyone with half a brain could tell he wasn't involved in the study nor the story. It was an aside, like "This study shows us that cancer is blah blah blah. That's the reason blah blah blah. People should blah blah blah." (Did that make sense?)

At any rate, I think it's ridiculous. My client thinks it's ridiculous. But, if I mentioned the name of the celebrity... you'd offer me the same response "we don't want to buy that trouble".

Thanks, Collette

Warmly,

Brandi

[The Copy Nazi]

Comes under "fair use". Ignore them or cross petition.

[digidoodles]

I should have told y'all before hand.. that we pulled the piece.. simply because.. we aren't going to wrestle that bear.

At any rate, I was kind of venting, I suppose.

It's a shame people don't know what battles are worth fighting. Unfortunately, this individual... is a fighter. Ha.

Warmly,

Brandi

[Ken_Caudill]

Originally Posted by digidoodles

I should have told y'all before hand.. that we pulled the piece.. simply because.. we aren't going to wrestle that bear.

At any rate, I was kind of venting, I suppose.

It's a shame people don't know what battles are worth fighting. Unfortunately, this individual... is a fighter. Ha.

Warmly,

Brandi

Sometimes, discretion really is the better part of valor. You probably did the right thing.

[rickstooker]

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Sometimes, discretion really is the better part of valor. You probably did the right thing.

Yes -- celebrities can afford more and better lawyers than you can.