question of the day: Famous creative types pushing back against corporate greed: hot new trend or momentary pissing into the wind?
You may have heard, earlier this week, about how Elvis Costello is warning his fans away from his new limited-edition box set, The Return of the Spectacular Spinning Songbook [Amazon U.S.] [Amazon Canada] [Amazon U.K.], because the price Universal Music has set for it -- US$264.89/Can$224.89/£212.99 --
appears to be either a misprint or a satire.
That’s from the musician’s own Web site.
Bizarrely, Tim Jonze at the Guardian tries to spin this as Costello throwing a temper tantrum and sabotaging his own career, and suggests that spending any amount of money, no matter how small, for anything creative is something only fools do. Which is a ridiculous overreaction to Costello’s stance.
Today, I learn this, via The Hollywood Reporter:
Jesse Eisenberg has filed a lawsuit against Lionsgate and Grindstone Entertainment for allegedly turning his less-than-five-minute cameo in the horror flick Camp Hell into an above-the-title star turn. The actor is using the Los Angeles Superior Court to make a point. According to the complaint, "Eisenberg is bringing this lawsuit in order to warn his fans and the public that, contrary to the manner in which Defendants are advertising the film, Eisenberg is not the star of and does not appear in a prominent role in Camp Hell."
THR reporter Eriq Gardner struggles to imply that the suit has little merit on the basis of California law on publicity rights, but the way in which he does so is intriguing:
The lawsuit struggles to live up to its billing as a dispute over publicity rights, quantum meruit, and unfair business practices. Instead, the lawsuit sometimes resembles a consumer class action, saying that the producers are "continuing to perpetrate a fraud on the public," that Eisenberg's fans and the public "should be protected" from false advertising, and that by misusing Eisenberg's likeness, the producers "fraudulently induce his fans to purchase a copy of the DVD of the Picture."
Gardner is suggesting that perpetuating a fraud on Eisenberg’s fans isn’t a big deal, but I suspect fans care very much about being cheated.
Are these two instances just a coincidence? Might something bigger and angrier be in the air? Famous creative types pushing back against corporate greed: hot new trend or momentary pissing into the wind? Or is even the griping of creative people against the corporations the profit off them merely one more way to grab publicity and make even more money?
(If you have a suggestion for a QOTD, feel free to email me. Responses to this QOTD sent by email will be ignored; please post your responses here.)
Disqus commentsblog comments powered by Disqus
Thu Dec 01 11, 11:37AM
join the conversation:
talk amongst yourselves
by MaryAnn Johanson
Return of the Spectacular Spinning Songbook
· Cellular (review)
· Colin Firth and Natalie Portman are Oscar shoo-ins; everything else up for grabs: Oscar predictions
· Alliance of Women Film Journalists 2010 EDA Awards nominees
· Online Film Critics Society 2010 Award nominees
· cinematic roots of: ‘The Social Network’
· The Social Network (review)
· Rio (review)
· Holy Rollers (review)
· new this week in U.S., Canadian, and U.K. theaters: ‘Despicable Me,’ ‘Predators,’ ‘The Twilight Saga: Eclipse,’ more
· new this week in U.S., Canadian, and U.K. theaters: ‘The Twilight Saga: Eclipse,’ ‘The Last Airbender,’ ‘Shrek Forever After,’ more
London photo of the day: polite notice