Pearl Jam shuts down tribute act Pearl Jamm

[Jus Lukin]

-

Edited March 11, 2022 by Jus Lukin

[mike257]

53 minutes ago, Jus Lukin said:

Does the self-contradictory fallacy of this paragraph even need pointing out?

How could an article about an artist featuring a photo of some bloke pretending to be said artist not be considered to be harming, or at least embarrasing the brand of the actual artist?

No matter how hearfelt the love for an artist, it doesn't give an imitator any right to the intellectual property involved. It is completely and utterly up to the creator of the material (or whomever to which they have sold it) to decide what is done with it, and by whom.

I think it says more about the dreadful standards of quickfire internet journalism these days, that someone writing an article about a famous bloke fails to make sure they're using a picture of the right person!

I absolutely agree that IP rights are immutable and that the control of their use sits with the owner, and I agree that the owner of said IP has every right to act to protect it.  I'm also aware that it's an important part of trademark law that you have to demonstrably act against infringement or risk having your failure to act used against you in a future trademark case. 

I do think, for a group of artists that have made it their business to stand up against corporate interests that they disagree with, it doesn't sit very well as a way to treat people and could have been handled in a more sensitive and constructive manner. 

Edited January 23, 2021 by mike257

[Jus Lukin]

-

Edited March 11, 2022 by Jus Lukin

[Dad3353]

T'would have been simpler, and more correct, to have informed the group and asked permission before adopting the very similar name. If they'd got the green light, all well and good; if not, time still to come up with another name (and run that past the group if there's any doubt, too...). It seems quite obvious, to me.