topic Re: This is terrible! in Community Chat

This is terrible!

my oh my — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 03:35:25 GMT

The great grandchildren of Anna Short Harrington, the face of the Aunt Jemima brand, are suing Quaker Oats, their parent company Pepsi Co, and Pinnacle Foods Group for $2 billion.

D.W. Hunter and Larnell Evans, Harrington’s great grandsons, filed the class action suit claiming the companies, who all sell different forms of Aunt Jemima products, have refused to pay an “equitable fair share of royalties” to their family for more than 60 years. Court documents say that Harrington portrayed the character in commercials and other public appearances for 15 years. It also says that Quaker Oats used her pancake recipes and trademarked her likeness as Aunt Jemima in 1937.

Hunter and Evans are accusing the companies of conspiring together to deny Harrington ever worked for them, telling her family that they couldn’t find any pictures or record of her employment. The defendants say they now have the proof they need to prove the companies’ claims to be false, including Harrington’s death certificate that lists Quaker Oats as her employer and an image on file at the United States Patent and Trademark.

The suit also accuses Quaker Oats of using industrial spies to wrongfully take Harrington’s pancake recipes.

PepsiCo has not commented on the suit, according to CNN Money.

http://www.essence.com/2014/08/12/aunt-jemimas-family-sue-quaker-oats-2-billion-royalties?lXFv&xid=stumble&lQZv

Re: This is terrible!

NoelSeven — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 03:37:43 GMT

I hope the family wins. Numerous celebrities have sued because their image and their input was used with no share for them, even after death.

Re: This is terrible!

KathyPet — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 03:46:23 GMT

Anyone can file a suit and claim anything they want. Whether they can prove their claim in court is another story completely.

Re: This is terrible!

cody2 — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 03:48:54 GMT

I suppose I would need more history on the contract in place to use her likeness on their products. I am a little suspicious as to why this is just coming up after 60 years.

Re: This is terrible!

NoelSeven — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 03:49:16 GMT

On 11/7/2014 KathyPet said: Anyone can file a suit and claim anything they want. Whether they can prove their claim in court is another story completely.

This claim would be very easy to verify. We all know the image was used, over and over. It would be up to the company to prove they paid for its continuing use, which I suspect they did not.

Re: This is terrible!

raven-blackbird — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 03:52:57 GMT

On 11/7/2014 NoelSeven said:
On 11/7/2014 KathyPet said: Anyone can file a suit and claim anything they want. Whether they can prove their claim in court is another story completely.

This claim would be very easy to verify. We all know the image was used, over and over. It would be up to the company to prove they paid for its continuing use, which I suspect they did not.

not quite.............since the family is the one that filed the suit........THEY bear the burden of proving she was not paid, that she was an employee and/or she was not paid the agreed amount to use her image.........not the company.........they have the right to refute what is presented as fact/truth, but it's the families burden to prove the case..................................................raven

Re: This is terrible!

brii — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 03:54:10 GMT

I'm suspect of the family. Why after 60 years?

Re: This is terrible!

NoelSeven — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 03:54:25 GMT

On 11/7/2014 raven-blackbird said:
On 11/7/2014 NoelSeven said:
On 11/7/2014 KathyPet said: Anyone can file a suit and claim anything they want. Whether they can prove their claim in court is another story completely.

This claim would be very easy to verify. We all know the image was used, over and over. It would be up to the company to prove they paid for its continuing use, which I suspect they did not.

not quite.............since the family is the one that filed the suit........THEY bear the burden of proving she was not paid, that she was an employee and/or she was not paid the agreed amount to use her image.........not the company.........they have the right to refute what is presented as fact/truth, but it's the families burden to prove the case..................................................raven

No, they don't. You can't prove a negative. Her image has been in use for a long time, they obviously haven't paid for that, either.

Re: This is terrible!

scotttie — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 03:57:19 GMT

Come on. Give the grandchildren some money . I suspect they have at least some merit to their case. Quaker can well afford it.

Re: This is terrible!

brii — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 03:57:48 GMT

She may have given up her right to use her image or there might have been a one time payment made for that right.

Re: This is terrible!

raven-blackbird — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 03:59:20 GMT

On 11/7/2014 NoelSeven said:
On 11/7/2014 raven-blackbird said:
On 11/7/2014 NoelSeven said:
On 11/7/2014 KathyPet said: Anyone can file a suit and claim anything they want. Whether they can prove their claim in court is another story completely.

This claim would be very easy to verify. We all know the image was used, over and over. It would be up to the company to prove they paid for its continuing use, which I suspect they did not.

not quite.............since the family is the one that filed the suit........THEY bear the burden of proving she was not paid, that she was an employee and/or she was not paid the agreed amount to use her image.........not the company.........they have the right to refute what is presented as fact/truth, but it's the families burden to prove the case..................................................raven

No, they don't. You can't prove a negative. Her image has been in use for a long time, they obviously haven't paid for that, either.

Noel..............if you file a suit, you have the burden of proof...........those companies can say not one word and win the case IF the plaintiff does not prove their case..........never mind, just read below..................................raven

http://www.cochranfirm.com/resources/PersonalInjury/burdenofproof.html

Re: This is terrible!

VioletEyes — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 04:00:30 GMT

I thought she signed away her rights. (one time payout)

Wasn't a similar thing like this brought up a few years ago. I thought I read that she didn't know what she was signing and that's why her heirs are suing.

Re: This is terrible!

Autumn in NY — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 04:02:06 GMT

I believe she was probably swindled out of her image and her recipe. It doesn't surprise me since it happened so long ago and likely the took full advantage of her.

Billions seem excessive though, which tells me that the great grand kids are greedy just like the people they are suing.

Re: This is terrible!

raven-blackbird — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 04:04:35 GMT

On 11/7/2014 Autumn in NY said:
I believe she was probably swindled out of her image and her recipe. It doesn't surprise me since it happened so long ago and likely the took full advantage of her.

Billions seem excessive though, which tells me that the great grand kids are greedy just like the people they are suing.

I think you've summed it up beautifully......................................raven

Re: This is terrible!

NoelSeven — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 04:05:23 GMT

On 11/7/2014 Autumn in NY said:
I believe she was probably swindled out of her image and her recipe. It doesn't surprise me since it happened so long ago and likely the took full advantage of her.

Billions seem excessive though, which tells me that the great grand kids are greedy just like the people they are suing.

It seems excessive to me, also. And a lot would have to do with the original contract, although celebs and the families of celebs have sued for images used after death, contract or no contract.

Re: This is terrible!

betteb — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 04:13:48 GMT

On 11/7/2014 raven-blackbird said:
On 11/7/2014 Autumn in NY said:
I believe she was probably swindled out of her image and her recipe. It doesn't surprise me since it happened so long ago and likely the took full advantage of her.

Billions seem excessive though, which tells me that the great grand kids are greedy just like the people they are suing.

I think you've summed it up beautifully......................................raven

I agree, I'm sure they took advantage and should pay up. Billions? Almost all litigation starts out astronomical. The ask for billions and settle for much less.

Re: This is terrible!

nunya — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 04:15:57 GMT

Nancy Green's family, she was the original, have joined in the suit, last I read.

Re: This is terrible!

Kachina624 — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 04:57:37 GMT

Another money grab attempt by people who've done nothing to earn it. I hope Quaker Oats prevails.

Re: This is terrible!

raven-blackbird — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 05:02:11 GMT

On 11/7/2014 kachina624 said: Another money grab attempt by people who've done nothing to earn it. I hope Quaker Oats prevails.

I tend to agree with you...........especially the ""who've done nothing to earn it""................................raven

Re: This is terrible!

KathyPet — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 05:06:13 GMT

So Anna herself never sued the company for any payment, her children and her grandchildren never sought any money from the company. now her great grandchildren say they are due payment. Seems suspicious to me that none of the family members that personally knew Anna thought they were due any payment but now these great grandsons who didn't even know her think they are due money.