Found this recent interview while going through old Google alerts:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/musi...CGJ/story.html
Also, I found this piece of "Boys of Summer" interesting:
http://cosmicamericanblog.blogspot.c...y-sticker.html
Interesting, thanks soda.
~Sara
If I can't have it all, just a taste will do...
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/ne...r-pun-20141010
They pride themselves on the fact that they have never allowed their names, likenesses or music – individually or as a group – to be used to sell products.Not counting that Pepsi ad, or that Jack Lalanne fitness ad, huh? (Those featured Glenn, not Don). Those were done during the 'vacation' era but they were product endorsements.
Think I might be with Don on this one. Plus, the Eagles can't support this clothing company because then they'd need to wear their shirts. That can't happen because they make shirts longer so they stay tucked in, and the last thing Glenn needs is longer shirts!
http://ultimateclassicrock.com/don-h...ading-lawsuit/
VK
You can't change the world but you can change yourself.
I cringe every time I read about Don initiating yet another lawsuit, and I think the lawyer is grossly overstating the case when he says that "large numbers of consumers [....] will unquestionably believe that Mr. Henley is associated with and/or has endorsed the company and its products" (see complaint here). Only the stupid would believe that the Eagles endorse the shirt thanks to the cheesy slogan. He can reasonably assert that SOME will, but large numbers? He has no figures or statistics to back that up, which means it is indeed quite "questionable" a claim, regardless of the lawyer's choice of adverb. This is something I tell my students never to do in argument papers - claim something is "unquestionable" without proof - so I notice this type of thing, lol.
That said, the clothing company is indeed using Henley and the Eagles to sell their product without his consent. They are hoping to profit from his name, and while perhaps they meant no harm, I can see why Don objects in principle. He'll win this case; he's established his own precedent when he sued Dillard's for a similar infraction and won (see info on that here).
However, someone needs to tell Henley's spokesperson that the statement he/she gave to the Hollywood Reporter claiming that the Eagles "pride themselves on the fact that they have never allowed their names, likenesses or music – individually or as a group – to be used to sell products" is inaccurate. They can make that claim for Henley, but not for all of the Eagles "individually."
You can't tell me these Marketing guru's didn't know how sensitive Don can be about these things and how lawyer-happy he can be. IMO they had it coming, even though I believe 50+ percent of people wouldn't catch the Eagles reference. So I do believe it is exaggerated, but I find it hard to believe they didn't know how he reacts to these kinds of things. They either didn't care, or didn't know to do their research on him.
I actually think the word play is rather cleaver, but I also think over 50% of the people wouldn't even get it....Henley can sue whoever he wants, but it's unlikely the company made much money off his name here. Henley is a type of shirt that has been around for ages. If I were him, I would be like, "who cares", but this is Don we're talking about. He will spend as much on the lawsuit as he will make on it, making it not even worth it, but just to prove his point, he will pursue it. He brings even more attention to the company by doing this too.