-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Lady Antebellum Sues the Singer Lady A Over Name Change
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
I mean, they have merchandise with Lady A, so they use it enough for that.
Not so sure that's how it works.
Lady Antebellum Is Now 'Lady A.' But So Is a Blues Singer Who's Used the Name for 20 Years
Lady Antebellum changed their name to "Lady A," unaware that there was a 61-year-old black singer with multiple albums with the same name.
www.rollingstone.com
Not so sure that's how it works.
Lady Antebellum Is Now 'Lady A.' But So Is a Blues Singer Who's Used the Name for 20 Years
Lady Antebellum changed their name to "Lady A," unaware that there was a 61-year-old black singer with multiple albums with the same name.
It would seem the quoted attourneys in that article are commenting without the knowledge that the band has been using the Lady A branding on merchandise for almost a decade. If that is true, it changes everything.
Last edited:
I guess we'll see if their lawyers can make that argument which is what they are trying to do, but it still seems like they're stealing her name and making it more difficult for her to market.
Just because they can get away with owning someone else's name because they are a huge band with Nashville music backing doesn't make it right.
She should have been suing them for using her name as sub-branding on merchandise a decade ago. So when they received push-back for their racist name, they wouldn't feel comfortable just taking it over.
It's unfortunate, but trademarks have to be actively defended to remain valid and that is for the public good writ large.
If the following quote from the times article is true (and it would be easily verified), the case is clear:
I guess we'll see. I don't know if I expect a musical act to be vigilant to trademark filings for abbreviations of a group that has marketed themselves as Lady Antebellum as an entity pretty clearly to the point where it was big news when they changed their actual band name. I think it's clear that she was using it longer than them in commerce. I think, no matter what, it's a completely shitty thing to do and they should have picked a new name.
The name is not theirs, but it also isn't owned by Lady A (the singer) because she didn't oppose the trademark by the band. They've been using it for a long time (but for a shorted time than the singer) but because she hand't said anything it seems the band can also use it.
"On the BBC Radio 2 Drivetime Show August 9, 2010, the band explained that the name comes from when the group did a photo shoot in historical costumes at antebellum houses. In American history, the Antebellum era was the period in the Southern United States before the Civil War."
Lady A - Wikipedia
And they're the ones who want to look like the good guys?.....lol
Yeah, a suit for declaratory judgment is pretty common to get an answer from a judge in the record. Don't think they have a good case, based on her prior use, but it's not like they're trying to get millions of dollars out of her, though.
Not really, McDonald's lost the Big Mac trademark despite using it for decades.
Doesn't that boil down to "whoever can pay the legal fees owns the trademark"?
White Names Matter.
Yeah, disgusting. Even if they have the trademark since 2011 they should have worked with the singer to clear things out.
Yeah, disgusting. Even if they have the trademark since 2011 they should have worked with the singer to clear things out.
It's kinda funny when you put it like that. How do they not see how they're coming off? Not a good look, at all
That was only in the EU, and as it appears because a chain called Supermac brought a claim against McDonald's for trying to have prevented Supermac from using their own name.
A key difference here is that Lady A (the band) doesn't want to prevent Lady A (the individual) from using that name.
It doesn't matter if "legally" they're right in this situation (ie if the real Lady A knew they had merch with "Lady A" and didn't do anything about it). It's really the fact that they pretended like they were changing their band name for woke points because they were "sad" and "didn't know" that using the term Antebellum was a racist way of glamorizing slavery (which... they absolutely knew, don't be naive)... and then when a black woman says "um hey... I'm already Lady A?" they don't immediately apologize and find something else... instead they double down on it proving they did not give a single shit about black people when changing their name. They just did what every corporation has been doing and capitalizing on the BLM movement.
But those of you in this thread going hard for them being "in the right" are pretty transparent tbh. Pretending like you don't see the actual issue here and instead acting like because legally they may or may not win this case, that means they're "right"
But those of you in this thread going hard for them being "in the right" are pretty transparent tbh. Pretending like you don't see the actual issue here and instead acting like because legally they may or may not win this case, that means they're "right"
They should change their name.
She had it first. Im not saying you have to give her the 10 mil, but if that's what she's asking for and you don't want to pay it change it to something else.
Not saying thats how the law works, but in this case it sure should. Making smaller musicians actively defend and police and sue to protect their name is not a reasonable ask under risk of having identity and brand for decades stolen.
She had it first. Im not saying you have to give her the 10 mil, but if that's what she's asking for and you don't want to pay it change it to something else.
Not saying thats how the law works, but in this case it sure should. Making smaller musicians actively defend and police and sue to protect their name is not a reasonable ask under risk of having identity and brand for decades stolen.
White band changes its name to that of an existing black singer, then not only claims the black singer is in the wrong for using that name but SUES that black singer because of it.
Sounds about white.
Sounds about white.
I feel like I'm missing something. The article says they were working together with Lady A for some time and both parties were in agreement, and then shortly after Lady A required $10 million for use of the name. Like, this doesn't seem as nefarious as people are making it out to be.
They weren't. Lady Antebellum's band name was Lady Antebellum. They registered a trademark for Lady A as a lot of businesses do to cover their bases and as sub-branding for merchandising. They probably also realized they may need to back off their racist brand some day.
"Lady A" has been actively performing with this as her stage name long before Lady Antebellum.
They are stealing her name.
The idea that Lady Antebellum agreeing to not sue her with the threat of lawsuit for her to forfeit the name is some horseshit. It's the kind of thing companies do to try to shut up smaller businesses.
The correct reaction to being called out for your racist name would be to completely change the name. Not abbreviate it, then get called out for absorbing someone else's brand, then leak the negotiations to say everything is okay, then leak the dollar figure she is asking for to take her name, only to then sue her and pretend "we're all in this together."
The music industry has a long history of theft and appropriation. Black people should just be happy the band's lawyers aren't forcing her to erase her existence off the internet and the Seattle music scene is the expectation from a lot of people.
If they officially change their name to Lady A then suddenly it makes it insanely difficult for Lady A to advertise herself as an artist because the big rich entity that now calls itself "Lady A" is going to be what fans think of when they see it advertised.
So she wants to be compensated for the impending loss of her business, essentially. I think that's fair.
Also, anyone in the music business knows when this time comes and her life is ruined forfeiting her right to sue means she will just have to watch as this racist band uses her name with her coerced permission as her career is fucked. The new band just absorbs her livelihood.
This is essentially why it needs to be fought. They can't claim to be doing something because of morals and ethics and then achieve that measure by completely going against those supposed morals and ethics.
They're in a position that allows them to pick a different name instead of Lady A, but they don't want to be inconvenienced.
The REAL Lady A doesn't want to lose her livelihood and career.
Big difference, yeah?