5 ms·

Hoo boy we have some classics in that category in the UK. My personal fave is when morning TV host Lorraine Kelly successfully argued she wasn’t hosting as her

Hoo boy we have some classics in that category in the UK. My personal fave is when morning TV host Lorraine Kelly successfully argued she wasn’t hosting as herself but acting a character called Lorraine Kelly, with very favourable tax consequences.

Corrado 2y ago
I think Steven Colbert hosted a show using himself as the host. I’m not sure about the tax implications though.
- technothrasher 2y ago
  I'm pretty sure that was Chuck Noblet pretending to be Steven Colbert.
- DFHippie 2y ago
  If there were any tax implications, they were incidental. The show was parody, so the opinions he espoused in character were necessarily ones he didn't actually hold.
- gwbas1c 2y ago
  And then when he tried using the "Steven Colbert" character on a different show, Comedy Central threatened him because Steven Colbert does not have rights to the "Steven Colbert" character.
  - bloomingkales 2y ago
    That doesn’t seem like that should be possible. He sold his identity for life? Hollywood really does ask for your soul huh. It would make sense why he’s never even jokingly gone back into that character on his new show.
    - treis 2y ago
      It's not his identity, though. It's a character that he plays.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - mrkstu 2y ago
        Yep- if Pee-wee Herman’s character were instead named after the actor, Paul Reubens, that character could still be licensed/sold. Paul Ruebens could still do interviews, and take jobs under that name, without permission, but he’d better not show up in the Pee-wee outfit.
    - ipaddr 2y ago
      And others can take your identity. If you happen to have the name Michael Jordan try putting out your own running shoes under your name.
  - kjs3 2y ago
    Al Shugart started Shugart Associates and pretty much created the 5 1/4" floppy market. He sold to Xerox. He later started Shugart Technology and was promptly threatened with a lawsuit because he literally had sold his rights to his own name (in the particular context). He changed the name to Seagate Technology and the rest is history. Yes, you can be enjoined from using your own name.
    - gwbas1c 2y ago
      > Yes, you can be enjoined from using your own name. This is not that case. In popular media when "The Colbert Report" was broadcast, Steven Colbert was very open about the fact that he was playing a character on TV who happened to have the same name as him. In the case of "The Tonight Show featuring Steven Colbert," he is not playing the character from the Colbert Report. The very specific bit was from after the 2017 election when Trump was elected. Steven Colbert did a bit, in character as "Steven Colbert", with props from "The Colbert Report", and a guest appearance from Jon Stewart. (Because the main focus of "The Colbert Report" was to mock conservatives.) Otherwise, everything Steven Colbert (the person) does on "The Tonight Show featuring Steven Colbert" does not involve the "Steven Colbert" character from "The Colbert Report."
      - jonhohle 2y ago
        Prior to the Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert was a character on the Daily Show, also a CC property. Craig Kilborn was able to leave the Daily Show and take bits like 5 questions with him. However, CC was a much smaller network at the time.
      - Spoom 2y ago
        To be fair, in Steven Colbert's case, he definitely was playing a character on The Colbert Report. A ridiculously conservative one that asked guests repeatedly if George W. Bush was a great president, or the greatest president. It was very over the top.
      - ipaddr 2y ago
        And that's when he stopped being funny. As a big fan I was confused by how unfunny his tonight show content was from day one compared to everything we saw upto that point. I can see why legal action when nowhere it's not the same product. Using the same name does cause confusion in the marketplace.
immibis 2y ago
Alex Jones argued this, with the obvious implication, that whoever buys Infowars also owns the character of Alex Jones, and Alex Jones cannot play Alex Jones any more without infringing their copyright. (But I suspect this incoming government doesn't care to apply logical consistency to his case)
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Perhaps IP law has jumped the shark.
eitally 2y ago
This is akin to Fox News arguing in court that it is, in fact, entertainment and not news, despite it's name.
- thunky 2y ago
  It's true though. All cable news is "entertainment news", not "news". Nobody should have been getting their "news" from Tucker Carlson, Don Lemon, or Rachel Maddow. IMO they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news without putting entertainment in front.
  - dingnuts 2y ago
    Thank you for pointing this out. Carlson and Maddow made nearly identical arguments in court and if both are not mentioned in the same breath, the speakers bias is instantly displayed to anyone who is educated on this topic. > IMO they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news without putting entertainment in front. Agreed but the average person wouldn't understand that Entertainment News was different than News. The problem goes deeper. I despair.
    - smallmancontrov 2y ago
      Carlson's texts were wild, they proved that he knew he was spreading lies and did it anyway for views. That's why Fox settled with Dominion for $787 million dollars. Meanwhile, OAN sued Maddow for calling them Russian propaganda and her lawyers responded by flexing, doubling down with receipts under oath. Signing up for consequences if they were wrong, and receiving none because they were correct. So no, these are not the same, and anyone who argues that they are immediately reveals themselves to be partisan hacks.
      - ipaddr 2y ago
        They are not the same because one had text indicating they were aware? While the other claimed to be braindead and no texts to prove otherwise? They are literally the same with one case having a text message. They are both not news and if you think that one and not the other is news than you might be the partisan you are trying to label others as.
panzi 2y ago
I'm not from the UK, but wasn't there also a cake Vs biscuits thing for tax reasons?
- seabass-labrax 2y ago
  Yes, Jaffa Cakes - minature sponge cakes flavoured with Jaffa oranges. Cakes aren't subject to Value Added Tax in the UK, which allows them to be sold more cheaply to the consumer or have a greater profit margin. A tribunal confirmed that they are true, real and genuine cakes, so you may feel entitled to enjoy your tax-free treat! https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/9249366/Jaffa-Cakes-definitely-not-biscuits-prepare-to-take-on-imitators.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandco...
  - wbl 2y ago
    There is a musical I saw at the fringe about this.
    - pinkmuffinere 2y ago
      I love strange musicals! Link in case anyone else is curious: https://playbill.com/article/is-it-a-cake-or-a-biscuit-a-jaffa-cake-musical-explores-the-age-old-dessert-question https://playbill.com/article/is-it-a-cake-or-a-biscuit-a-jaf...
  - panzi 2y ago
    It's wild to me that anything you can buy in a store, especially something frivolous like cake, might be tax free.
    - walthamstow 2y ago
      Sales tax is horrendously regressive and during a war you will find that things like cakes and biscuits are not actually frivolous at all. We drink a lot of tea.
    - 2y ago
seanhunter 2y ago
There was also the famous decision in the Jaffa Cake case where the VAT treatment depended on whether or not a Jaffa cake was a cake or a biscuit https://standrewseconomist.com/2023/12/31/let-them-eat-cake-not-biscuits-why-the-uks-tax-system-is-broken/ https://standrewseconomist.com/2023/12/31/let-them-eat-cake-... The tribunal decided that Jaffa Cakes were cakes because when they go stale they go hard like a cake whereas a biscuit tends to go soft when it goes stale.
- ryao 2y ago
  I remember hearing about this because the one who wanted it classified as a biscuit proposed the test that determined it was a cake. That is the sole reason I remember this story.
- walthamstow 2y ago
  There’s another one about Walkers taste sensations poppadom snacks. Question was, is it a crisp or not? Can’t remember the outcome
  - epicalex 2y ago
    The specifics were about whether it required any additional preparation like a traditional poppadom vs being a ready to eat snack like a crisp. Walkers lost the case. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/19/walkers-mini-poppadoms-are-crisps-in-all-but-name-judges-rule https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/19/walkers-min...
- EspadaV9 2y ago
  Which was a silly case to bring forward because they are clearly a cake. It's literally a sponge cake bottom.
FireBeyond 2y ago
I had a friend that argued that Marshall Mathers (Eminem) could never actually be sued for defamation because most of the defamatory things "he" said wasn't actually him saying it, but Slim Shady. Hah.

Corrado 2y ago

I think Steven Colbert hosted a show using himself as the host. I’m not sure about the tax implications though.

technothrasher 2y ago
I'm pretty sure that was Chuck Noblet pretending to be Steven Colbert.
DFHippie 2y ago
If there were any tax implications, they were incidental. The show was parody, so the opinions he espoused in character were necessarily ones he didn't actually hold.
gwbas1c 2y ago
And then when he tried using the "Steven Colbert" character on a different show, Comedy Central threatened him because Steven Colbert does not have rights to the "Steven Colbert" character.
- bloomingkales 2y ago
  That doesn’t seem like that should be possible. He sold his identity for life? Hollywood really does ask for your soul huh. It would make sense why he’s never even jokingly gone back into that character on his new show.
  - treis 2y ago
    It's not his identity, though. It's a character that he plays.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - mrkstu 2y ago
      Yep- if Pee-wee Herman’s character were instead named after the actor, Paul Reubens, that character could still be licensed/sold. Paul Ruebens could still do interviews, and take jobs under that name, without permission, but he’d better not show up in the Pee-wee outfit.
  - ipaddr 2y ago
    And others can take your identity. If you happen to have the name Michael Jordan try putting out your own running shoes under your name.
- kjs3 2y ago
  Al Shugart started Shugart Associates and pretty much created the 5 1/4" floppy market. He sold to Xerox. He later started Shugart Technology and was promptly threatened with a lawsuit because he literally had sold his rights to his own name (in the particular context). He changed the name to Seagate Technology and the rest is history. Yes, you can be enjoined from using your own name.
  - gwbas1c 2y ago
    > Yes, you can be enjoined from using your own name. This is not that case. In popular media when "The Colbert Report" was broadcast, Steven Colbert was very open about the fact that he was playing a character on TV who happened to have the same name as him. In the case of "The Tonight Show featuring Steven Colbert," he is not playing the character from the Colbert Report. The very specific bit was from after the 2017 election when Trump was elected. Steven Colbert did a bit, in character as "Steven Colbert", with props from "The Colbert Report", and a guest appearance from Jon Stewart. (Because the main focus of "The Colbert Report" was to mock conservatives.) Otherwise, everything Steven Colbert (the person) does on "The Tonight Show featuring Steven Colbert" does not involve the "Steven Colbert" character from "The Colbert Report."
    - jonhohle 2y ago
      Prior to the Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert was a character on the Daily Show, also a CC property. Craig Kilborn was able to leave the Daily Show and take bits like 5 questions with him. However, CC was a much smaller network at the time.
    - Spoom 2y ago
      To be fair, in Steven Colbert's case, he definitely was playing a character on The Colbert Report. A ridiculously conservative one that asked guests repeatedly if George W. Bush was a great president, or the greatest president. It was very over the top.
    - ipaddr 2y ago
      And that's when he stopped being funny. As a big fan I was confused by how unfunny his tonight show content was from day one compared to everything we saw upto that point. I can see why legal action when nowhere it's not the same product. Using the same name does cause confusion in the marketplace.

immibis 2y ago

Alex Jones argued this, with the obvious implication, that whoever buys Infowars also owns the character of Alex Jones, and Alex Jones cannot play Alex Jones any more without infringing their copyright. (But I suspect this incoming government doesn't care to apply logical consistency to his case)

throwaway48476 2y ago
Perhaps IP law has jumped the shark.

eitally 2y ago

This is akin to Fox News arguing in court that it is, in fact, entertainment and not news, despite it's name.

thunky 2y ago
It's true though. All cable news is "entertainment news", not "news". Nobody should have been getting their "news" from Tucker Carlson, Don Lemon, or Rachel Maddow. IMO they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news without putting entertainment in front.
- dingnuts 2y ago
  Thank you for pointing this out. Carlson and Maddow made nearly identical arguments in court and if both are not mentioned in the same breath, the speakers bias is instantly displayed to anyone who is educated on this topic. > IMO they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news without putting entertainment in front. Agreed but the average person wouldn't understand that Entertainment News was different than News. The problem goes deeper. I despair.
  - smallmancontrov 2y ago
    Carlson's texts were wild, they proved that he knew he was spreading lies and did it anyway for views. That's why Fox settled with Dominion for $787 million dollars. Meanwhile, OAN sued Maddow for calling them Russian propaganda and her lawyers responded by flexing, doubling down with receipts under oath. Signing up for consequences if they were wrong, and receiving none because they were correct. So no, these are not the same, and anyone who argues that they are immediately reveals themselves to be partisan hacks.
    - ipaddr 2y ago
      They are not the same because one had text indicating they were aware? While the other claimed to be braindead and no texts to prove otherwise? They are literally the same with one case having a text message. They are both not news and if you think that one and not the other is news than you might be the partisan you are trying to label others as.

panzi 2y ago

I'm not from the UK, but wasn't there also a cake Vs biscuits thing for tax reasons?

seabass-labrax 2y ago
Yes, Jaffa Cakes - minature sponge cakes flavoured with Jaffa oranges. Cakes aren't subject to Value Added Tax in the UK, which allows them to be sold more cheaply to the consumer or have a greater profit margin. A tribunal confirmed that they are true, real and genuine cakes, so you may feel entitled to enjoy your tax-free treat! https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/9249366/Jaffa-Cakes-definitely-not-biscuits-prepare-to-take-on-imitators.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandco...
- wbl 2y ago
  There is a musical I saw at the fringe about this.
  - pinkmuffinere 2y ago
    I love strange musicals! Link in case anyone else is curious: https://playbill.com/article/is-it-a-cake-or-a-biscuit-a-jaffa-cake-musical-explores-the-age-old-dessert-question https://playbill.com/article/is-it-a-cake-or-a-biscuit-a-jaf...
- panzi 2y ago
  It's wild to me that anything you can buy in a store, especially something frivolous like cake, might be tax free.
  - walthamstow 2y ago
    Sales tax is horrendously regressive and during a war you will find that things like cakes and biscuits are not actually frivolous at all. We drink a lot of tea.
  - 2y ago

seanhunter 2y ago

There was also the famous decision in the Jaffa Cake case where the VAT treatment depended on whether or not a Jaffa cake was a cake or a biscuit https://standrewseconomist.com/2023/12/31/let-them-eat-cake-not-biscuits-why-the-uks-tax-system-is-broken/ https://standrewseconomist.com/2023/12/31/let-them-eat-cake-... The tribunal decided that Jaffa Cakes were cakes because when they go stale they go hard like a cake whereas a biscuit tends to go soft when it goes stale.

ryao 2y ago
I remember hearing about this because the one who wanted it classified as a biscuit proposed the test that determined it was a cake. That is the sole reason I remember this story.
walthamstow 2y ago
There’s another one about Walkers taste sensations poppadom snacks. Question was, is it a crisp or not? Can’t remember the outcome
- epicalex 2y ago
  The specifics were about whether it required any additional preparation like a traditional poppadom vs being a ready to eat snack like a crisp. Walkers lost the case. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/19/walkers-mini-poppadoms-are-crisps-in-all-but-name-judges-rule https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/19/walkers-min...
EspadaV9 2y ago
Which was a silly case to bring forward because they are clearly a cake. It's literally a sponge cake bottom.

FireBeyond 2y ago

I had a friend that argued that Marshall Mathers (Eminem) could never actually be sued for defamation because most of the defamatory things "he" said wasn't actually him saying it, but Slim Shady. Hah.