Travis Barker Lawsuit

budgie · Post by **budgie** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:48 am

Blink 182's former drummer filed a lawsuit against an energy drink company yesterday (January 16), claiming that it wrongfully used his picture.

Travis Barker is alleging that Rockstar beverage's website published a photo of him "holding a can of one of Rockstar's beverages, and identifying him and his endorsement by name" without his consent.

The lawsuit claims that the company unjustly used his photo and image to endorse their product, alleging invasion of privacy, unfair competition and misappropriating his likeness to promote the product, reports the Associated Press.

The lawsuit also claims that Barker is "a prominent figure in the rock music world" and is seeking unspecified punitive damages.

http://www.nme.com/news/blink-182/33726

discuss

Rick · Post by **Rick** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:23 am

hmm odd. i wanna see the pic

BrandonCorey · Post by **BrandonCorey** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:28 am

Wow, man I'd be happy if my picture was on a can :) but thats totally wrong so good for u travis.

Asho_DirtyPoo · Post by **Asho_DirtyPoo** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:08 am

I think that if Travis doesn't want to be seen drinking something, he shouldn't drink it in public where his picture can (and will) be taken.

Post by **Dylan** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:54 am

dude, you misled me. i thought someone was sueing HIM. i even said "haha!" when i read the topic title.

you should change it to be less misleading. like "Travis Barker files lawsuit"

Post by **Boni** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:59 am

NoReason27 wrote:dude, you misled me. i thought someone was sueing HIM. i even said "haha!" when i read the topic title.

you should change it to be less misleading. like "Travis Barker files lawsuit"

I totally thought the same

Spanky. · Post by **Spanky.** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:14 pm

boniboyblue wrote:
NoReason27 wrote:dude, you misled me. i thought someone was sueing HIM. i even said "haha!" when i read the topic title.

you should change it to be less misleading. like "Travis Barker files lawsuit"
I totally thought the same

I didn't

http://www.last.fm/user/cbar05 · Post by **Bobbyjames** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:52 pm

i just read this on the NME website. made me laugh tbh.

budgie · Post by **budgie** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:34 pm

NoReason27 wrote:dude, you misled me. i thought someone was sueing HIM. i even said "haha!" when i read the topic title.

you should change it to be less misleading. like "Travis Barker files lawsuit"

yeah but wheres the fun in that?!

http://www.last.fm/user/cbar05 · Post by **Bobbyjames** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:59 pm

budgie wrote:
NoReason27 wrote:dude, you misled me. i thought someone was sueing HIM. i even said "haha!" when i read the topic title.

you should change it to be less misleading. like "Travis Barker files lawsuit"
yeah but wheres the fun in that?!

lmao

Bass Cone · Post by **Bass Cone** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:25 pm

Asho_DirtyPoo wrote:I think that if Travis doesn't want to be seen drinking something, he shouldn't drink it in public where his picture can (and will) be taken.

True...But they still didn't have the permission to use it.

Asho_DirtyPoo · Post by **Asho_DirtyPoo** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:02 pm

Paparazzi post pictures of people all the time that they don't have "permission" to post...meh...he needs to get over it.

Don't be a celebrity if you don't want people to take pictures of you and post them on the internet.

Rick · Post by **Rick** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:07 pm

yeah i think it comes with the territory, the only difference between this and paparazzi shots is that they are making money from a product because of his image. basically, hes endorsing the product, but he didn't want to. i mean i really don't think its a big deal, its not like its scarring his image because he was drinking this product or whatever, its just to make money.

Asho_DirtyPoo · Post by **Asho_DirtyPoo** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:34 pm

Yeah, but he was drinking it out in public...he shoulda seen it coming.

In conclusion - celebrities need to shut up and quit whining about being famous; they knew what they were getting themselves into :P

http://www.last.fm/user/cbar05 · Post by **Bobbyjames** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:36 pm

from the above comments, it shows he hasnt got much else to do atm, bodes well for +44 really. arnt they they meant to be writing or recording or something?

Rick · Post by **Rick** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:36 pm

yeah, and i'm sure this lawsuit wasn't much of his choice anyways, i just bet their lawyers found a way to make some money.

itszack · Post by **itszack** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:00 pm

they cant do that!
they couldve atleast ask for his permission

tomhoppus · Post by **tomhoppus** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:45 pm

ha ha way to bring this thread back up

http://www.last.fm/user/cbar05 · Post by **Bobbyjames** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:12 pm

lol.

while we're back on the topic, does anyone know whats goin on with thsi case???