So How Does The Idea Apply...
Oct. 5th, 2005 01:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
badstarOkay kids! More debate.
For anyone involved in the discussion of using a name or likeness without consent (in that context, for spiritual/ritual/religious purposes...scroll down to the entry titled "Here's The Line..And Here's Someone Pole Vaulting It...." if you don't know what I'm talking about and care to know.)
So here's a real-life situation of similar structure but completely different details and context.
A coven in Colorado is holding a fundraising event at the end of the month. The fundraiser was originally intended to raise money for St. Jude's Children's Hospital in Memphis. Some people in town found out about this and made a stink because the coven was renting an American Legion Hall. These people circulated a petition to try to get that organization to cancel the hall rental and took the issue as far as the city council. As far as the town's concerned, the issue has dropped and an apology was issued to the coven. The event has not been canceled. The issue has made national news. St. Jude's has since sent the coven a letter asking them to stop using the St. Jude's name for the fundraiser because the situation has gotten too much media attention. They say that they authorized the coven to raise money for them but not to use their name. Huh. The coven has since changed the focus of their fundraiser to a Native American reservation in South Dakota.
St. Jude's has not consented to the use of their name in this situation. If the coven had not chosen to raise money for another organization, but kept with the hospital, should St. Jude's have remained detatched and felt no effect? Or would they have been violated in some way?
(It's interesting but not relevant to the question to note that St. Jude's authorized the group to raise money for them, but not use their name.)
Articles on the story...no registration to read.
Hospital for kids tells pagan group to count it out
Letter to pagan group from St. Jude's
Curious to see what y'all do with this.
For anyone involved in the discussion of using a name or likeness without consent (in that context, for spiritual/ritual/religious purposes...scroll down to the entry titled "Here's The Line..And Here's Someone Pole Vaulting It...." if you don't know what I'm talking about and care to know.)
So here's a real-life situation of similar structure but completely different details and context.
A coven in Colorado is holding a fundraising event at the end of the month. The fundraiser was originally intended to raise money for St. Jude's Children's Hospital in Memphis. Some people in town found out about this and made a stink because the coven was renting an American Legion Hall. These people circulated a petition to try to get that organization to cancel the hall rental and took the issue as far as the city council. As far as the town's concerned, the issue has dropped and an apology was issued to the coven. The event has not been canceled. The issue has made national news. St. Jude's has since sent the coven a letter asking them to stop using the St. Jude's name for the fundraiser because the situation has gotten too much media attention. They say that they authorized the coven to raise money for them but not to use their name. Huh. The coven has since changed the focus of their fundraiser to a Native American reservation in South Dakota.
St. Jude's has not consented to the use of their name in this situation. If the coven had not chosen to raise money for another organization, but kept with the hospital, should St. Jude's have remained detatched and felt no effect? Or would they have been violated in some way?
(It's interesting but not relevant to the question to note that St. Jude's authorized the group to raise money for them, but not use their name.)
Articles on the story...no registration to read.
Hospital for kids tells pagan group to count it out
Letter to pagan group from St. Jude's
Curious to see what y'all do with this.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-05 07:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-05 07:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-05 10:22 pm (UTC)the way i see it, its a matter of publicity. its sad that the local folks made such a fuss, but since they did it has drawn negative publicity to the hospital. the hospital is a money-making business just like anything else and cant afford negative publicity. its a horrible, stupid consequence of living in the media-obsessed, bottom-line, capitalistic society we all know and love.
this situation is different from the last one. large institutions are different than individuals. institutions have no feelings to be hurt. they can face similar consequences (being ostracized, for example), but for an institution it will hit on a financial rather than an emotional level. and theres really no violation.... hospitals are organizations whose policies and practices are open to public scrutiny and accountability already. the ruckus of the townspeople caused the public to be *more* aware of this hospital's practices, whereas normally no-one would have noticed or cared where the money was coming from. (and the hospital hadnt told the coven *beforehand* not to use its name. it only became an issue after the public became aware of it.) if anything, if there was a violation, it was caused most of all by the townspeople dragging this aggreement (between the hospital and coven) into the public's attention.