Merchandising and the live sector; the importance of trade mark law and passing off.

Interest in and demand to attend live events has grown substantially in the last decade and the live experience is currently the engine room of the wider music business. Live music has become so central to the music business that recordings have a diminished importance and even, on occasions, a different role. Whereas before bands used to give away the single to sell the album, now they give away the album to sell the concert ticket. The strength of live music is that one cannot download or stream a genuine experience. But is difficult to gather people’s attention, therefore the live performance has to be exceptional. The positive side is that artists are really there to perform instead of marketing themselves over the internet, so it should be one of their strengths.

The sale of merchandising is the: “use of your name & reputation to sell goods”. Selling merchandising is part of the branding process. Any sort of musician that wants to make a sustainable career out of it needs to have a solid brand. The selling of merchandise is a way to add value to the brand. There has to be a merchandising deal for each product the artist wants to get involved with.

First is important to start with a simple logo. For example the misfits skull, is one of the most popular things in the punk-rock world and is just a single colour skull. Once the artist gets some clients and more attraction they can start to push more things out of the lorry. But until then is essential to keep it simple in order to get a return on the investment. Being realistic with the images and the cost that goes into it, they can make sure to make some profits.

Some artist are content to limit their branding activities to tour merchandising deals to help support a tou...

... middle of paper ...

...y would have received for the endorsement if it had been legitimate.

Another more recent case is Rihanna’s case:

In this case, the singer took the clothing giant Topshop to court in London over a t-shirt they sold with her face on it. This was also a false endorsement because it wasn’t approved by her. She argued that the shirt might have damaged her image because fans could have thought that it was genuine merchandise. So she wiped up a law sued claiming she is entitled to damages for the unauthorised use of her picture. The judge ruled in his favour, so she won the case. The judge who presided over the case said that the sale of the shirt was damaging her good will and it represented a loss of control over her reputation in the fashion sphere. While the judge did not make any assessment of damages, experts believe it could amount to staggering 4.5 million dollars.