Go get ’em Chuck! Almost 97 years young and still flyin’ high! When I was 12 I read the book “Yeager” (which I can’t recommend highly enough), wrote him a letter and he sent me an autographed picture which I still have framed and hanging in my man cave, 31 years later.
Sounds like there is more history between Airbus and Yeager than just the website comment, but this is just frivolous. Airbus is stating a fact. We are in trouble as a society if every time someone quotes a fact (“Tom Brady is a Super Bowl winner”) they open themselves up to litigation for infringing on someone’s likeness. Also, Yeager was part of the Air Force at the time he broke the speed limit, I believe, so maybe he wants to donate any settlement to the entity who provided him the aircraft, position, and opportunity to break the sound barrier?
If they’re using his likeness, I’d say he has a case. He’s had problems with them before; it looks like this is his way of telling them to knock it off.
I disagree, I think Mr. Yeager has every right to sue. Airbus is using his name and likeness to promote a product which may give consumers the idea that Mr. Yeager supports this product and stands behind this product and may influence someone to buy the product because of his association with it. If he has absolutely nothing to do with the product and has not used nor endorsed it the company should not be allowed to infer that he did. Also if something goes wrong with this product it could tarnish Mr. Yeager’s reputation if people believe he was involved with the product and was endorsing it.
I have to admit that my first thought was also that it was more of a factual statement of history that happens to include Yeager, but clearly they could have referenced the event (breaking the sound barrier) without directly mentioning his name, so there is a legitimate question as to intent. Even if the intent was not to benefit from using his name and likeness, though, I believe he has a strong case that it violates his right of publicity, among other rights.
While I find most lawsuits to be frivolous, there are two issues I have with Airbus over this. One: They could have picked any achievement by any pilot, yet picked the achievement and person nearly everyone is familiar with (even if in name only) and the first person most people would mention if you asked them to name a famous Pilot. Second: As his attorney stated, this isn’t a burrito. With so many other options, they specifically chose (apparently) to use the man most well known in their own industry, which could make people associate Airbus and Chuck. Had I just read the blurb, without the article, I would have assumed Chuck was supporting them. I believe he has a valid case here.
Go get ’em Chuck! Almost 97 years young and still flyin’ high! When I was 12 I read the book “Yeager” (which I can’t recommend highly enough), wrote him a letter and he sent me an autographed picture which I still have framed and hanging in my man cave, 31 years later.
Chuck Yeager has the “Right Stuff”. Sic em Chuck.
Read “Yeager” if you haven’t already. It’s a great read! General Yeager is a true American Hero.
Sounds like there is more history between Airbus and Yeager than just the website comment, but this is just frivolous. Airbus is stating a fact. We are in trouble as a society if every time someone quotes a fact (“Tom Brady is a Super Bowl winner”) they open themselves up to litigation for infringing on someone’s likeness. Also, Yeager was part of the Air Force at the time he broke the speed limit, I believe, so maybe he wants to donate any settlement to the entity who provided him the aircraft, position, and opportunity to break the sound barrier?
If they’re using his likeness, I’d say he has a case. He’s had problems with them before; it looks like this is his way of telling them to knock it off.
Admittedly, I’m biased towards Yeager…
I disagree, I think Mr. Yeager has every right to sue. Airbus is using his name and likeness to promote a product which may give consumers the idea that Mr. Yeager supports this product and stands behind this product and may influence someone to buy the product because of his association with it. If he has absolutely nothing to do with the product and has not used nor endorsed it the company should not be allowed to infer that he did. Also if something goes wrong with this product it could tarnish Mr. Yeager’s reputation if people believe he was involved with the product and was endorsing it.
I have to admit that my first thought was also that it was more of a factual statement of history that happens to include Yeager, but clearly they could have referenced the event (breaking the sound barrier) without directly mentioning his name, so there is a legitimate question as to intent. Even if the intent was not to benefit from using his name and likeness, though, I believe he has a strong case that it violates his right of publicity, among other rights.
I think referncing an achievement is in no way an endorsement. This suit is nonsensical. Yeagre should be ashamed of himself. I am.
Charles, and you are in the distinct minority on this truly great hero. By the way, learn how to spell his name.
Being in the minority does not make him wrong.
and since you always spell the drug heroin as heroine i am not sure you should be attacking people for accidentally typing the e before the r
They couldn’t come to an agreement so Airbus ran with it anyway? I’d file suit too.
While I find most lawsuits to be frivolous, there are two issues I have with Airbus over this. One: They could have picked any achievement by any pilot, yet picked the achievement and person nearly everyone is familiar with (even if in name only) and the first person most people would mention if you asked them to name a famous Pilot. Second: As his attorney stated, this isn’t a burrito. With so many other options, they specifically chose (apparently) to use the man most well known in their own industry, which could make people associate Airbus and Chuck. Had I just read the blurb, without the article, I would have assumed Chuck was supporting them. I believe he has a valid case here.