Hannah Montana candy vs. Glamour Shots
I read an article today about Glamour Shots - the ubiquitous photography studio in every mall in the US - suing the Walt Disney company and its subidiaries over the use of the words “Glamour Shots”. (PDF of the actual complaint) Among the complaints, Glamour Shots contends the photo on the candy is substandard and as such gives a bad image to the consumer, who would easily think the candy was somehow associated with the photography company. IMO, there are alot worse things than being associated with the hottest entertainment property on the planet at the moment, but…
I can buy that consumers would make that assumption and using the words “glamour shot” infringes on their name. That complaint seems legit. But worrying that the photography of Hannah Montana is (or could be) so poor that it will harm Glamour Shots is a big stretch. Glamour Shots, to me, is known as the king of vaseline on the lens of people in terrible prom dresses and hairdos they will regret in front of cheesy backdrops immortalized in celuloid form. Maybe the fine folks at GS have not seen the photos I’ve seen in junk drawers and the back of mantles.
So I did search in Google Images for “Glamour Shots”…here are some of the examples that I would think would do more harm than Hannah Montana candy would. Judge for yourself:
