Yoko Ono

I have here a perfectly disgusting advertisement featuring John Lennon and Yoko Ono conducting their bagism campaign, being used to advertise Apple Computers. What I need to know is, did Ms. Ono really give her permission to use her picture in this way? Was she so star-struck by the idea of appearing alongside Gandhi that she failed to notice what a farce the whole campaign was? Or is she so famous that she doesn’t have the right to control how her likeness is used?

And here I thought this was a continuation of the “Medical term for Turd” thread.

My best guess is that the photographer, or whomever owns the rights to the photo, is the individual who must agree to Apple using it. I wouldn’t think she has “dick” to say about it.

That is your best guess, Sly? You think that photos of famous people (living) can be used in advertising without their consent? But what I really want to know is why you think Yoko Ono is a ‘turd’, if that is what you meant? My best guess is that you think she broke up the Beatles.

I would assume that for the image of John to be used, his estate would have to agree, and I would assume again that SHE is the executrix of his estate…Lot of assumptions I know, but…
Also, Pooch, of course Yoko did not break up the Beatles - she just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - next to John during the final recordings of the group.

I know that there is no accounting for what people are in love with whom - I feel that she has ridden the train for alot of years and would not be surprised if she in fact did give permission to Apple.

The worst thing that can possibly happen is not be used for something by someone - Kurt Vonnegut

I quite agree with you, CptHowdy65. I didn’t express an opinion on Yoko or the break up of the Beatles one way or the other, but I am curious as to how sly formulated his subtle Yoko=Turd.

As for the original question, the individual (or the ‘executrix of his estate’) has the right to control his name, face, image or voice for commercial purposes, as you said.

I am more disturbed by the use of Gandi. And Yoko might or might not have broken up the Beatles, Gandi certainly put the kibosh to an empire.

You cannot use the image of a living person in an advertisement without their permission.

As far as John Lennon is concerned, it would depend. California has a law against the use of the images of deceased celebrities without the consent of the estate, but that’s relatively new and the principle is still being hashed out in court. Of course, since you need Yoko’s permission anyway, it’s a moot point for this ad. Gandhi, I don’t know. It may be a matter of who’s willing to sue.

Yoko, BTW, was just one of several factors that lead to the breakup of the Beatles. Linda McCartney is another, but it seems the major reason is that LET IT BE was such an annoying and frustrating experience that the group decided to record ABBEY ROAD and call it quits.

Well, if Yoko DIDN’T give permission, it’s time for her to phone Bela Lugosi Jr., attorney to the dead stars.

No foolin’. Bela Jr. has been leading the campaign against unfair use of image. Pop would have been so proud.


Ike, an odd thing in the Lugosi case is that Lugosi owned Lugosi but Universal owns the image of Lugosi as Dracula. I seem to remember Universal suing Count Chocula, well the cereal co. Think Universal lost.

What horrifies me is the bitch trog daughter of Marlene Dietrich peddling her mother’s image for snore-stoppers and, worse yet, Mercedes-Benz! Marlene spent the 1940s giving her time and money to fight against her home country, and is still being villified in Germany for it. So “Mawia Wiva” goes ahead and sells her image to advertise a company that used slave labor and was headed by an active Nazi well after the war! That sound you hear is Marlene spinning in her grave . . .

Flora, I don’t like your condemning a company for things a previous management did decades ago. There are no more Nazis in charge of DaimlerChrysler now; it is hardly the same firm anymore. (Note that this is not meant to relieve them of any possible obligations of compensation payments etc. as are being discussed. They are of course the legal heirs of their predecessors. Frankly, I don’t know to what extent Daimler-Benz used slave labor back then, but I don’t think it should matter with regard to what car you’re going to buy today.)

Also, I don’t believe Marlene Dietrich would fight Germany today; she certainly would have no reason to do so anymore. And few people nowadays vilify anyone for fighting the Nazis.

Call me hypersensitive, but German-bashing just pisses me off.

I didn’t find Flora’s post to be German-bashing…just Nazi- and Mercedes-Benz-bashing. Which is okay by me.

I AGREE with you about mindless picking on the krauts. I’m a stone Wagnerian myself, and I get damn tired of defending his work to Jewish buddies who visualize Goebbels and Goering goosestepping around the Reichstag to the opening strains of DAS RHEINGOLD.


Wow, did I f*ck that up! Good thing I’m not in advertising.

As to my reference to Yoko and Turd: Criminy, can’t you take a joke?

Thanks for the help, but I’m not really interested in knowing if she would have had to. (I assumed so.) My question is, did she?

I think I’m only interested in Yoko Ono because my mother bore an astonishing resemblance to her in her youth. (She was actually asked on a plane once whether she was Yoko. My dad looked kind of like John Lennon, to the extent that I thought a pic on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine was actually of my mom & dad.)

After LET IT BE, I’ve always wondered how they could stand to be in the same studio long enough to record ABBEY ROAD.

Ranger Jeff
*The Idol of American Youth *

IncredibleHolg, I hope I wasn’t German-bashing; at least I didn’t intend to. My point was that Marlene would have cringed at promoting a company that in WWII did indeed do some awful things, and that’s exactly why her vengeful, malicious daughter sold her mother’s image to them. Mercedes had an active Nazi heading the company well into the 1970s, which does, in my eyes, still make them somewhat dubious. The right-wing Germans never forgave Marlene for her wartime activities; she was picketed when she gave a concert there in the '60s, and there are still protests at her grave and when a street was to be named after her. It’s like the South here still fighting the Civil war; a lot of Germans (well, OK, a few) are still fighting WWII.

Yoko Ono has this song called “Walking on thin ice” that is amazing sans John Lennon. I think she’s kinda cool all by herself…