|
Post by rknron on Aug 27, 2009 23:33:41 GMT -5
this may involve the alleged Kim Fowley sex education class with statutory rape allegations.
|
|
|
Post by crave on Aug 29, 2009 11:21:42 GMT -5
I keep trying to argue the point that Lita, Joan, Cherie & Sandy all own the name over on Jett's board, but no one seems to think so. I know for a fact that either Cherie said this or Lita did.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Aug 29, 2009 12:18:07 GMT -5
Good luck with that over there.
But Read my earlier Trademark Post! Lita and Cherie HAVE said this- and it's true.
|
|
|
Post by dagtoking1 on Aug 30, 2009 7:21:31 GMT -5
Yes, it is very difficult on Joan's board to post an opinion about this without someone taking a stance like you are trying to bash Joan somehow. I really can't believe that people are blaming Jackie for turning down participating in this project like she owed it to the fans or something. What short memories people have. Don't they remember Joan refusing to participate in Edgeplay and even going so far as objecting to the band's music being used? Sheesh! And Jackie was not the one who filed this action after all.
Thanks Danna for the explanation. Very enlightening.
|
|
|
Post by crave on Aug 30, 2009 7:56:47 GMT -5
You got a 22 year old over there who has been a fan for about 2 years who thinks she runs the show and knows it all. Very hard to have much of a conversation over there when about 4 people know everything on every topic.
|
|
|
Post by insertusernamehere on Aug 30, 2009 12:17:49 GMT -5
Glad to see it's not just me that gets frustrated with Joan's board. I've pretty much given up on it. This one is much better, anyway.
I'm just curious as to why all this legal stuff is coming up now, and not during the planning or writing phases?
Also, is it just me, or has my avatar picture thingy disappeared?
|
|
|
Post by dagtoking1 on Aug 30, 2009 18:43:08 GMT -5
I can't see your avatar right now. Mine does the same thing when I post from my office (I can't see it).
|
|
|
Post by dagtoking1 on Aug 31, 2009 13:37:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by littlesister on Sept 1, 2009 10:32:55 GMT -5
I keep trying to argue the point that Lita, Joan, Cherie & Sandy all own the name over on Jett's board, but no one seems to think so. I know for a fact that either Cherie said this or Lita did. This statement is true. Only those 4 girls own the name. NONE of the bassists, including J. Fox, own the name.
As much as I love Jackie, she has no legal rights to the name or how it's used or any money that is made from this new movie.
|
|
|
Post by litigiouslaguna on Sept 1, 2009 12:47:58 GMT -5
Oh, I'm sure this is just a case of sour grapes from a disgruntled ex-bass player who couldn't hack it when the going got tough. Fuchs is trying to show me and Joannie what it felt like when we screwed with them on the Edgeplay project. Ha! We really got 'em good. No Joan interview, no original Runaways music! She's going to pay damages for this, while our jury trial is publicized from coast to coast. I can smell the money pouring in already!
|
|
|
Post by litigiouslaguna on Sept 1, 2009 13:32:00 GMT -5
And let's be totally clear here. As indicated in our suit, filed Aug. 20, 2009, while Defendant Jacqueline Fuchs ("Fuchs") is merely an individual that resides and does business in California, Plaintiff Joan Jett (hereinafter “Jett”) is a VERY FAMOUS! musician and performer and is best known for her recordings “Bad Reputation,” “I Love Rock N’ Roll,”, “Crimson and Clover,” “I Hate Myself for Loving You,” “Do You Want to Touch Me,” “Light of Day,” “Love Is All Around,” and “Little Liar.”
Who you think the judge is gonna side with?
|
|
|
Post by oldmanlarkin on Sept 1, 2009 21:31:20 GMT -5
"as well as taking a large roll in a music video for The Jimmy Kimmel show."
Well it's nice to know Joan isn't above stealing buns from the caterers. Makes her seem more human to a jury
|
|
|
Post by bri0032 on Sept 2, 2009 0:47:43 GMT -5
Ha, I only remember her being a background singer and having a short solo for the "I'm F*cking Ben Affleck" video (but she did have a good line.) I'm not going to take sides for this. Jackie technically doesn't have legal rights to the name (from what I know of, anyway) and there isn't a character based on her in the movie, but I don't think Joan should've sued. I'm sure they could've just worked this out by talking. It seems to be all about the money these days. Exhibit A:
|
|
|
Post by rknron on Sept 2, 2009 1:19:57 GMT -5
I think the Judge will side with the jury, and hopefully they will vote in favour of the side that has presented the most believable evidence.
|
|
|
Post by dagtoking1 on Sept 2, 2009 7:23:18 GMT -5
litigiouslaguna LMAO
I'm sure they could've just worked this out by talking. It seems to be all about the money these days. We don't know the half of it and probably never will. Companies that become machines don't talk it out; that would be too human. I am sure we don't know the half of what went on and what is going on.
|
|