Bill Wymen, founding member of the Rolling Stones, is suing another man named Bill Wymen to get him to stop using HIS OWN FUCKING BIRTHNAME!! He says that it’s too confusing for the public because BW2 writes about music and people will think that it is BW1 from the Stones!
Can you fucking believe that? What lawyer told him that he has any chance in hell of winning this suit? He musta dipped into Keiths crack stash or some shit.
The kicker is that BW1 wasn’t even born Wymen. His birth name is something else I can’t remeber.
What makes people think they can sue for silly ass shit like this? WTF is wrong with the world?
Pssst… It’s “Wyman.” (Or are you trying to avoid litigation?)
Actually, I started using the psuedonym “Mudd” after succumbing to pressure from that guy who used to play bass for Canned Heat, and now plays for Tom Waits’ band. He had a better case though, since “Larry” doesn’t appear on my birth certificate – my folks decided to call me by my middle name from the get-go. (God knows why…)
To play devil’s advocate a bit, it does make some sense, in an abstract way. After all, in the theatre business, only one person is allowed to go around with any one name. So if I am in the union/guild/whatever they have with the name “Dave Jones,” and another Dave Jones comes along, he has to come up with a different name, maybe Dave E. Jones or D. Jones, or Sunbeam Meadowlark, but something different.
Well, just for argument’s sake, and to elaborate on Eonwe’s point above, here’s Rule 15 of the SAG Rules and Regulations:
Now, given the Wyman case does not involve registration with any union or other governing body, it’s interesting to note the author of the Atlanta Journal-Constituion does admit being confused with the Rolling Stones’ Bill Wyman on at least one occasion (the residual checks he received).
Again, just as devil’s advocate, the case may have some precedent, if based on existing professional considerations in similar industries. That said, one would think Bill Wyman would be happy to know some people still think he’s alive.
Well, the writer for the AJC was named Bill Wyman at birth, in 1961, where the rolling stones bassist changed it in 1964. So I don’t think he has much of a case. Not like the writer changed it to create confusion.
Those advertisement cases made me fall in love with contracts law! Our school’s “prom” (derisive self-deprecating snicker here) is even named the Carbolic Smoke Ball. Other good ones under that area were Lefkowitz and the one where the toddler’s dad sues Timex?? watch company for millions of dollars for leading him on to open an advertisement in order to get a two dollar watch.
The one in property with the landlord hanging over the awning also makes me giggle. But Leonard v. Pepsi Co. is seriously the best one I’ve read yet. My contracts professor even showed us the commercial and the subsequent revision.
First I’ve heard of it. That’s a good’n. I’ve got to admit that I would have been pleased if John Leonard received some settlement, since, at the very least, PepsiCo grossly exaggerated the value of “Pepsi Points”. Sure, no intelligent person would take it at face-value-- but since when is advertising aimed at intelligent people?
If I can drag this even further off-topic, I’d like to see an action against whatever credit-card company it is that is running those ads of people getting their invoices with hundreds of items marked “0” Either civil or criminal. Introducing an element of gambling to buying on credit is evil – especially when “the house wins” 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time. Evil, I tells ya.
IIRC, it goes like this. Some years ago Pepsi did a promotion involving “pepsi points” redeamable for different products. In one ad they showed a kid getting ready to go to school, and using different pepsi point products along the way. So, when kid puts on the pepsi point backpack the screen flashes in subtitles the number of points that you need to get it. Jacket =1000 points, sunglasses 200 points, etc… at the end of the commercial the kid shows up for school in, you guessed it, a Harrier jet. Screen says Harrier Jet, 7,000,000 pepsi points.
Pepsi points were found under bottle caps etc, but you could also purchase them outright for $0.10. Mr. Leonard sent Pepsi 10 points, and a check for $700,000 and demanded his Harrier. (Retail value, >$40 Million)
WEll, I will concede that these are crazy lawsuits. However, I think that the one filed by Caeser Someoneorother VS McDonalds, KFC and Wendy’s takes the cake.
He is suing them because he got health problems from a daily diet of fast food. He claims that “They said 100% beef, so I thought it was healthy.” He asserts that they should have had warnings on the packaging enclosing his meals.
I assert that someone should propose, and lawmakers should adopt, a “common sense” law that prevents anyone from even filing suit when their own stupidity, lack of common sense and/or inability to accept the consequences of their own actions causes them grief.
Eat fast food three times a day for most of your life? Hey, you have a heart attack, you got what you asked for. Skateboard off a ski jump in the summer? Sorry you broke your neck, I feel bad for you. It is not, however, the owner of the ski jump’s responsibility. (Yes, someone filed one for THAT, too.)
Scotticher there was a rather long debate maybe two months ago on tort reform over in GD. It was a bit of a train wreck, but there was some valuable discussion too…
Perhaps Bill could take lessons in grace from Queen drummer Roger Taylor- did he sue Duran Duran for having their own drummer named Roger Taylor? Did he say, “I was a famous drummer first! You have to change your name!” No! He simply trusted that people would eventually figure out who was who.
But this suit still isn’t quite as silly as the one launched by that woman who sued the Broadway production of “Cats,” on the grounds that Rum Tum Tugger did lewd pelvic gyrations in her face, when she was sitting in the front tow.
