Naked sued by Tom Cruise. Amnesia joins the fun.

From Adnews today  (https://www.adnews.com.au/News.cfm?NewsId=4380) - (login required so we’ve clipped the article below).

Recap of events:
1. Naked Communications post a dubbed video of Tom Cruise claiming he’s their latest employee (here).
2. Amnesia sends a fake email (read on to view this) to Naked Communications impersonating Tom cruise’s agent. The email threatens a lawsuit.
3. The YouTube Video and fake lawsuit email story grabs the media headlines in Australia. (read on, Adnews article below)…

 

After some attention and speculation, we confessed today seeing as it was starting a bit of a fuss…

Tom Cruise sues Naked

SYDNEY: Naked Communications has received an email from Tom Cruise’s publicist, Rogers and Cowan in New York, demanding its “Tom Cruise works at Naked Communications” video be removed from YouTube.

The email, sent yesterday to Naked’s Sydney office, claims the video constitutes an infringement of the 1968 Australian Copyright Act.

“The unauthorized use of the likeness of my client Mr. Cruise, and the copying and distributing via the internet of the aforementioned material without express permission, constitutes an infringement and violation of the Australian Copyright act of 1968 / 31 and recognized international copyright laws,” reads the email.

Digital agency Amnesia has fessed up to the prank, however.

“We figured if they could impersonate Tom Cruise, then WE could impersonate his agent,” Amnesia CEO Iain McDonald said.

Some intentional typos and the fictional name sign-off of Heywood Jablome (standing in for “Hey, would you blow me”) were designed to give the game away, McDonald said.

Naked’s Simon Corbett said the agency sussed out the email was a hoax early on. “Either way, it’s really funny,” Corbett said.

Amnesia’s blog entry on the Cruise / Naked affair has been ranking highly on Google search results. “We’d like to thank Naked for promoting us so well,” McDonald said.

Speaking before Amnesia owned up to the prank, Neil Wallman, lawyer at Powel Legal, said the use of satire meant the Australian Copyright Act did not apply. “A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if it is for the purpose of parody or satire,” said Wallman.

Story by: Mark Chenery
- 05 March 2008

Image of email below:

The offending Naked email (header and footer info have been removed, but we made it look authentic as we could to cause a stir) :