She ‘Got Time For That’: Sweet Brown Sues Apple For $15 Million

[puckhead193]

http://newsone.com/2275971/sweet-brown-sues-apple/

Didn't see this posted but thought it was funny...

Internet sensation Sweet Brown is suing software giant Apple for profiting from her YouTube success without permission, reports Business Insider.
Sweet Brown is suing Apple, a radio program called The Bob Rivers Show, and a handful of other parties for unauthorized use of her likeness, according to court documents.
The basis of the lawsuit stems from a song called “I Got Bronchitis.” The Bob Rivers Show, according to Sweet Brown’s complaint, produced the song with samples from Wilkins’ interview with the local TV-news station. The song sampled phrases like, “Ain’t nobody got time for that,” “Ran for my life,” and “Oh, Lord Jesus it’s a fire.”
The suit claims that in April 2012, the defendants started selling the song on iTunes for profit. It also claims the radio program and its owner falsely advertised that Sweet Brown had given her consent for the radio station to use her voice and likeness in the song.
The suit was first filed in the District Court of Oklahoma County in June 2012. At that time, Wilkins sought a total of $15 million from the defendants. The suit has since moved to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

 

[ericrwalker]

God I hope they allow video and audio recording during settlement talks and/or doing the court proceedings.

This ought to be entertaining.

 

[Mr. McMac]

Who the hell is Sweet Brown?

 

[ericrwalker]

Who the hell is Sweet Brown?

This:

 

[jumpmandds]

Lmfao

 

[Shrink]

Who the hell is Sweet Brown?

This:

YouTube: video

Ah, the wonderful world of the internet!

So depressing...

 

[tekno]

Didn't see this posted but thought it was funny...

I'm assuming that whole news story is made up. Sweet Brown doesn't own any of the rights, the broadcaster that filmed her for the news report do. She would have given her consent to be filmed (purely by giving the interview in front of a camera) and so has no rights over the material or any subsequent uses of it.

 

[Squilly]

LOL! Famous meme. She's famous.

 

[Mr. McMac]

This:

YouTube: video

Thanks buddy. In the scheme of things, I'm glad I'm old....lol!!!!

Edit: That said, this video is hilarious!

 

[puckhead193]

Isn't the Antoine Dodson song on iTunes? is he getting paid?

 

[gnasher729]

She'd have to prove that she has some copyrighted work. And then she would have to show actual damages.

 

[firedept]

It amazes me how trivial little things are allowed to even make it to the courts. What does it say about our legal system? Oh well, guess we all need a dose of humour in our lives every once in awhile.

 

[malman89]

Isn't the Antoine Dodson song on iTunes? is he getting paid?

The version I saw actually was posted by him and I saw a follow up interview where he bought a house for his mom to get her and his family out of the projects. So he definitely made a bit of coin off that, though I'm sure some other people with their own versions did too.

 

[MuffCabbage]

It amazes me how trivial little things are allowed to even make it to the courts. What does it say about our legal system? Oh well, guess we all need a dose of humour in our lives every once in awhile.

wat

 

[RawBert]

Love that vid.

 

[TyPod]

aint nobody got time for that!

 

[FreakinEurekan]

I'm assuming that whole news story is made up. Sweet Brown doesn't own any of the rights, the broadcaster that filmed her for the news report do. She would have given her consent to be filmed (purely by giving the interview in front of a camera) and so has no rights over the material or any subsequent uses of it.

Not true. News organizations have the right to use the content they gather for news purposes, but that doesn't give them carte blanche to reuse, sell, or assign that content for other uses. This would fall under "Fair Use" copyright exceptions, and that exception generally doesn't allow commercial works.

 

[NewAnger]

Who the hell is Sweet Brown?

This. Never heard of her.

 

[rhett7660]

Wow.....just wow. Yup that is pretty much I have for this one.

 

[tekboi]

she won't win...

 

[alphaod]

Yeah okay.

 

[MrMacMack]

I think there's more going down here. Look on the brick wall. 10.6 and 10.7 in yellow paint. This must be a snow leopard and lion thing.

 

[Shrink]

LOL! Famous meme. She's famous.

Yes, and isn't that a pathetic commentary on parts of our culture...and those who are making her famous.

 

[MuddyPaws1]

Not true. News organizations have the right to use the content they gather for news purposes, but that doesn't give them carte blanche to reuse, sell, or assign that content for other uses. This would fall under "Fair Use" copyright exceptions, and that exception generally doesn't allow commercial works.

That is incorrect. I can actually go out in public and film anyone on the street and sell that video for a profit. The courts have decided this a long time ago. Do you think movie producers that use "B roll" shots of busy city streets go out and get permission from everyone in the shot? No they don't. It falls under the expectation of privacy laws.

I have been taken to court twice for this and the plaintiff lost both times.