Violet Blue
The web’s been abuzz for the last couple of weeks over a public spat between ‘Boing Boing’ and Violet Blue. Too many bits have been wasted on the politics of the dispute, but according to my inbox the reasons for Boing Boing’s actions are still far from clear to many.
So here it is.
Xeni Jardin de-listed all the posts she made linking to Violet Blue in protest at Ms. Blue’s move to trademark her professional name, which successfully forced the original Violet Blue to shut down her website. Violet Blue the Blogger (’The Blogger’) wasn’t published under that name until the year 2000. Violet Blue the pornster (’The Pornster’) appeared in ‘Smut 14′ as Violet Blue back in 1999. The blogger had a legal team, the pornster didn’t, and justice wasn’t done.
The Pornster is mostly retired, but still makes the occasional movie and looks after her young family and elderly grandparents. She also cuts hair. Her name is key to her brand and the blogger’s taken that from her. She now has to trade as ‘Noname Jane’ despite being the original Violet Blue harming her income and making her suffer the indignity of a clearly wrong court decision.
That’s what Xeni Jardin objected to and that’s why the blogger’s pretending she doesn’t know what the problem is. In fairness the blogger probably didn’t know she was making the mistake when she did but it’s impossible for her to pretend she’s been in the public eye as a writer with that name since 1999 and by doing so she’s stolen another person’s professional identity and ability to profit from it.
I’m confused - why wouldn’t the dissimilar industry clause kick in and allow one Violet Blue who was a writer and another who was a sex performer?
Rich - It’s probably arguable but that all depends on money. If it were the case the writers trademark would be much devalued and that clearly isn’t the thinking of the writer as she’s taken action against the performer to start with.
You could argue they’re too close. The writer has been involved in performance art (if memory serves). The disambiguation would be difficult for casual parties. If anyone should be stepping back the writer should. It has happened to a number of UK bands who’ve had to re-name in the US. It’s amazing she won to start with.
While for a while I thought the trademark case might indeed be the reason, it doesn’t hold up on further investigation. The “unpublishing” took place late July? August? 2007. The trademark lawsuit was filed on 10/22/2007. That’s way too late to be the cause here.
Seth - you’re right but have to allow for an escalation. I doubt the writer went legal immediately, and may have threatened other action in the proceeding months. In fact that’s almost guaranteed given the expense of a court action.
However you’re also obviously right. There’s more to this story than I know right now. The writer’s silence is telling. Normally when someone is defending themselves they seek to refute allegations. Why isn’t that happening?
I would have thought that if it was the full reason Boing Boing took the action they did they’d be public about it as their stance on copyright/etc. seems to be their rallying call.
Oh well. Glad to see you posting again and glad to see your take on things as always
The author, real name Wendi Sullivan, did not warn the actress, it appears, but did brag to friends that she was going to do this. Wendi has pro-bono legal representation, and the actress could not afford any real representation. It appears she had a lawyer who has done not much more than bill her and who has not objected to a single thing or investigated a single thing at any time in this process.
Well, I can’t prove a negative, but it’s hard to see the trademark dispute being treated as any sort of secret or private matter. If it were the cause, Xeni Jardin could just say “related to the trademark lawsuit”.
How could the writer refute allegations when, according to her, no reason has been given? And there’s been nothing said in public that anyone can investigate - it’s all been argument by innuendo. I mean “Violet behaved in a way …” - how does one defend oneself against that, besides “WHAT???”.
There’s a recent blog post by the writer which is as much of a defense as seems possible under the circumstances:
http://www.tinynibbles.com/blogarchives/2008/07/the-accretion-of-little-things.html
Tom B - Thanks. It appears to be a Xeni issue more than a Boing Boing issue. Those bloggers aren’t even on the same continent most of the time. Aside from the issue at hand, Xeni seems to be stating her right to control her own material.
B&K - That makes a lot of sense and concurs with what I’ve heard.
Seth - I’m assuming the writer knows what’s upset Xeni, it would be even more surreal if she was truly at a loss and presumably, would be making the case that it’s unfair to be judged in secret.
I don’t follow the writer’s post. Unless she’s living with Xeni there can only be a handful of points of contact between them. To be totally unaware of any upset, and not to know anyone who can inform her, seems impossible.
The fact the David Pescowitz’s posts linking to the writer are back up is evidence of that. He told the LA Times he didn’t necessarily agree with Xeni’s position. For that to occur they must have had a discussion of the issue at hand.