Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How I Got Fired From the Job I Invented

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the i-had-this-happen-too-after-i-became-king-of-the-moon dept.

Businesses 252

New submitter frost_knight writes "Travel blogger Turner Barr discovered that his entire brand, image, and web personality has been hijacked by a multi-billion dollar company for use in a marketing campaign. 'The video for their marketing campaign was particularly creepy for me, as even my age and personality didn’t escape the level of detail spent on creating this doppelganger (they used a paid actor of course). ... I’m no longer even the first thing that comes up when you Google my brand name. I’ve turned down work opportunities and put on hold any future travel job plans to deal with lawyers, long distance phone calls, corporate executives and other such nonsense — all along feeling misled and patronized. This situation has been extremely confusing for not only myself, but also for participants in company’s marketing campaign who message me thinking that I am am part of the company.'"

cancel ×

252 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

who are intelectual property laws protecting again (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44081677)

Who are intellecutal property laws protecting again. Once again, they always protect those with enough lawyers to make them work.

Re:who are intelectual property laws protecting ag (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44081697)

Who are intellecutal property laws protecting again. Once again, they always protect those with enough lawyers to make them work.

Of course the laws protect those who worked hard to make the laws (the layers). If they didn't, it wouldn't be fair.

Re:who are intelectual property laws protecting ag (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44082185)

Slashdot Group Think is against IP laws... Well, they are actually for them but only for Slash Nerds, no one else.

Re:who are intelectual property laws protecting ag (1)

kermidge (2221646) | about a year ago | (#44082643)

The layers do get compensation of a sort as food and shelter but the living conditions are horrid and the retirement plan sucks.

Re:who are intelectual property laws protecting ag (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44081823)

It is only fair. If the citizens cared about their rights, they would hire lobbyists.

Re:who are intelectual property laws protecting ag (3, Insightful)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44082299)

Fair is where the bus was headed when you went under it.

Re:who are intelectual property laws protecting ag (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44082561)

"Fair is where the bus was headed when you went under it."

      No, fair is where you were walking to when the bus heading for crooked ran over you!

celle

Re:who are intelectual property laws protecting ag (5, Insightful)

24-bit Voxel (672674) | about a year ago | (#44082635)

These days you only have the rights that you can afford to defend.

Re:who are intelectual property laws protecting ag (-1, Troll)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44081879)

Who are intellecutal property laws protecting again. Once again, they always protect those with enough lawyers to make them work.

Wait, since when is writing about travel intellectual property.

Its been done since dirt, first with books published after the fact, then letters sent back to newspapers, then video travelogues, then cheap blogs written from a laptop.

He invented nothing.
His only intellectual property is his own writings, photos, and videos etc.

The IP is his trademark(s) that mark his business (5, Insightful)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#44082221)

Coke didn't invent soda, Slashdot didn't invent news aggregation and discussion.
What belongs to each of these companies is the NAMES they do business under
In order to know whether you're buying soda made by Coca-Cola or some other company, the law protects the Coke mark.
His mark is Around the World in 80 Jobs. It seems that employees of Arecco contacted Barr, thinking that he was part of the promotion. If their use of the Around the World in 80 Jobs mark confused their own employees, it could certainly confuse the public, making them think Barr was involved in the promotion.

Re:The IP is his trademark(s) that mark his busine (-1, Flamebait)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44082279)

His mark is Around the World in 80 Jobs.

Registered trademark? Site doesn't say that.
Is it a company, incorporated or registered somewhere? Site doesn't say that either.
Says his name is turner. Got tired of searching to find where exactly Turner lists his last name and legal address.

His copyright line says copyright is held by Around the World in 80 Jobs, but Around the World in 80 Jobs is the name of a blog so
its not clear who specifically owns the copyright. In fact by handing the copyright to a blog, which has no legal standing, he may have
thrown his ownership away.

Re: The IP is his trademark(s) that mark his busin (5, Informative)

YodaDaCoda (1927704) | about a year ago | (#44082349)

Google the tort of passing off. It is not necessary for a trademark to be registered for it to be legally defendable.

Re:who are intelectual property laws protecting ag (1, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year ago | (#44081889)

Is this just a knee-jerk, canned argument that gets posted by a bot when this topic comes up? I noticed the "authentic" spelling error.

What IP was violated? Trademark, copyright, or patent? In which jurisdiction did this white male backpacker register?

Nah, let's trot out the old tired meme again. Heck, it always works!

Re:who are intelectual property laws protecting ag (4, Informative)

The Cat (19816) | about a year ago | (#44081919)

His trademarks and copyrights were both infringed. If he engaged in commerce in the United States since 1976 he was required to register neither.

He might even have a case for unfair competition and illegal use of his likeness. Depends on how aggressive his attorneys are.

Re:who are intelectual property laws protecting ag (1)

Reeses (5069) | about a year ago | (#44082435)

He is required to register a trademark. Not a copyright.

But, if he relies on the at-large copyright, it's not as strong as if he actually registers through the Copyright Office.

Re:who are intelectual property laws protecting ag (5, Informative)

The Cat (19816) | about a year ago | (#44082647)

He is not required to register a trademark. The only requirement is that he use it in commerce. Registered trademarks have stronger protections, but an unregistered trademark is still protected.

Re:who are intelectual property laws protecting ag (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#44081927)

Powerful incumbents against competition. Laws are working as intended.

Adecco will not win. IP law protects Barr (4, Interesting)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#44081995)

They are protecting Barr. Are you under the impression that just because Adecco typed TM they'll win?
It is pretty clear that Barr's trademark has priority under law and he's virtually guaranteed to win. It seems Barr and Adecco just haven't yet agreed on how much Adecco needs to pay Barr to make up for their employee's misbehavior .

Re: Adecco will not win. IP law protects Barr (1)

Dzimas (547818) | about a year ago | (#44082155)

Adecco registered the phrase "Around the world in 80 jobs" with the uspto, and a trademark was granted on April 13th. It will be expensive and time consuming for Barr to fight them -- if he ends up tens or hundreds of thousands in debt, he loses. That said, this story is in the process of going viral, and it will make Adecco look like thieving toads. That still won't help Turner much.

Adecco admits it was "a mistake" "make it right" (4, Insightful)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#44082327)

Adecco has publicly admitted it was "a mistake" and they want to "make it right".
So at this point there's no question they were in the wrong. It's just a matter of figuring out what to do about it.

* had Adecco offered a settlement WITHOUT admitting they were wrong, that offer couldn't be used against them in court .
Here, they admitted it was a mistake to use that name, and that they need to make it right.

Re:Adecco admits it was "a mistake" "make it right (4, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#44082439)

Adecco has publicly admitted it was "a mistake" and they want to "make it right".

So why is "Around the World in 80 Jobs" still plastered all over the Adecco website? Step one of "make it right" is to cease infringing.

... unless the "make it right" was a public outcry publicity stunt by Barr and Adecco.

Re:Adecco will not win. IP law protects Barr (3, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year ago | (#44082179)

What good will it do to him if he would win years after bankrupcy? Unaffordable justice is not justice at all.

Re:who are intelectual property laws protecting ag (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44082231)

the jews

Re:who are intelectual property laws protecting ag (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44082237)

I agree, I've been robbed of my work.
      Jules Verne

funny (5, Informative)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about a year ago | (#44081689)

This adecco page has twitter feed deal at the bottom and it's a riot to read right now. Apparently they haven't caught on that this story is getting a lot of attention yet.

https://www.adeccowaytowork.com/en/career-center [adeccowaytowork.com]

I'm gonna guess clicking through on the facebook deal next to it would lead to similar stuff.

Re:funny (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44081775)

Maybe they need to fill a job for "weekend social media monitor". LOL

Re:funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44081855)

Yeah their facebook and twitter are a riot to read. Their most recent post on Facebook [ http://goo.gl/hbHBf ] also suggests they're not going to admit to it yet, but the follow up replies are hilarious.

Re:funny (1)

afidel (530433) | about a year ago | (#44081875)

If you look at the homepage it's obvious that same block of script was placed at the bottom right corner but was removed, they just forgot to remove it from the career center page =)

Re:funny (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44081943)

Our values

  Demonstrate respect for the rights and dignity of all people and organisations by being fair, just and compassionate.
  Take responsibility for our actions and hold ourselves and each other accountable for what we say and do.
  Communicate in an honest way with our colleagues, associates, investors, customers, suppliers, governments and the communities in which we work.
  Act with integrity by demonstrating the courage and strength of character to do what is right even when it is difficult or unpopular.

http://www.adecco.co.uk/en-GB/aboutus/Pages/Ourvalues.aspx

The twitter feed has been turned off (5, Informative)

howardd21 (1001567) | about a year ago | (#44081969)

They turned the display of the twitter feed off on their page; it was filled with comments saying they stole the work and they were unethical. But you can still enjoy the hate here: https://twitter.com/search?q=AdeccoUSA&src=typd [twitter.com]

Re:funny (4, Funny)

samkass (174571) | about a year ago | (#44082461)

Their "Core Values" page is also unintentionally hilarious. http://www.adecco.com/en-US/About/Pages/CoreValues.aspx [adecco.com] . For the first two, I think they're using the wrong definition of "take".

Entrepreneurship
* We constantly take initiatives to make "better work, better life" a daily reality
* We take ownership and stand by our own results
* We act upon opportunities ...

Re:funny (1)

RussR42 (779993) | about a year ago | (#44082497)

Did you notice that it's right under a box titled "How's your net rep?" subtitled "Do you know you digital reputation?"

Money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44081693)

They have money. You don't. End or story. That's all you need to know.

Re:Money (1)

lsolano (398432) | about a year ago | (#44081741)

Please, do not take this as the normal way things should be.

Re:Money (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#44082119)

"Should" is overrated. Justice is just a meme that have no meaning in the real universe. No matter how much people believe in it, in the end is money what counts (over certain amount, no matter if everyone knows what you did [rollingstone.com] )

George Zimmer? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44081705)

George "I guarantee it" Zimmer, is that you?

Re:George Zimmer? (4, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44081733)

Apparently from Adecco:

"We have seen and heard your sincere concern about our recent youth employment initiative and take your feedback very seriously. We deeply regret if we hurt Turner Barr. This was never our intention when we set up our "Around the World in 80 Jobs" contest. We clearly see that Turner is an inspiration to many people. We feel there should be more of such initiatives that inspire people to live their dreams and achieve their ambitions. Unfortunately, we moved forward with a name and contest that clearly upset Turner and his community. We sincerely apologize for that mistake.

When Turner contacted us about his concern, and we understood the full situation, we immediately engaged with him to try to make things right. Unfortunately, we have been unable to find common ground so far.

Most of all, we are sorry that an initiative we truly care about - youth unemployment - has been negatively received."

Re:George Zimmer? (5, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | about a year ago | (#44081781)

When Turner contacted us about his concern, and we understood the full situation, we immediately engaged with him to try to make things right. Unfortunately, we have been unable to find common ground so far.

In other words, "we told him we'd buy out all the rights in exchange for a snickers bar and a firm handshake, but much to our surprise he turned our generous offer down, so it's his fault"?

Re:George Zimmer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44082343)

Sounds just like Barak's "most generous offer" :-)

Re:George Zimmer? (5, Insightful)

show me altoids (1183399) | about a year ago | (#44081859)

Most of all,, we are sorry that we got caught stealing someone else's idea and then trademarking it.

Re:George Zimmer? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44082057)

I'm George Zimmerman, founder and member of the neighborhood watch. You're gonna like the way your niggers look, I guarantee it.

Funny? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44081951)

Fuck'N A Dude! People make a lot of money writing shit like that!

The parent should leave technology immediately and start his own PR firm!

Re:George Zimmer? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#44082175)

we immediately engaged with him to try to make things right

With lawyers.

I guaranteed that they'll end up suing Barr. For something. It doesn't really matter what, as long as he can't afford to defend himself.

Re:George Zimmer? (4, Interesting)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a year ago | (#44082335)

I guaranteed that they'll end up suing Barr. For something. It doesn't really matter what, as long as he can't afford to defend himself.

Here would be an interesting usage of crowd funding

Re:George Zimmer? (4, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | about a year ago | (#44082493)

Unfortunately, we moved forward with a name and contest that clearly upset Turner and his community.

You didn't "move forward", you mealy-mouthed bastards. You stole his IP.

we immediately engaged with him to try to make things right.

You incredibly ignorant twats. Making it right would be immediately ceasing to use his IP.

Re:George Zimmer? (5, Interesting)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | about a year ago | (#44082587)

God what a smug lawyered-up non-apology. It is all about deflecting blame and nothing about actually accepting responsibility. Hell, by the end they are practically blaming the victim for not only what they did to him, but for hurting his own cause. It is hard to imagine a more arrogant response.

Do they honestly think such crap will do anything other than fan the flames higher? Does this shit work on anyone?

Re:George Zimmer? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44081803)

They screwed George big-time didn't they.

I have such a hard time trusting anyone who wears a suit. As old as I am, it seems like everytime I have dealt with any person of the suit, they had a high probability of earning their money through trickery and deceit, not work.

Do I ever feel uneasy when a suit guy walks into a room. Too many times a suit guy is trouble, pure trouble.

Re:George Zimmer? (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#44082541)

I like working in a place where our VP sits in the same fishbowl as the rest of us, and wears a polo shirt and jeans.

In fact, while I've seem him dressed and made up look like the front man for Rammstein (in the office, yet), I've never (in 6+ years) seen him in a suit (not even in the office).

If you knew where I worked, you'd never believe me in a million years, either. :)

TM, are you kidding me? (5, Informative)

patrixmyth (167599) | about a year ago | (#44081721)

I was so ready to side with Adecco on this. It's really not a very original twist on 'Around the world in 80 days', and it's really just a limited time use by them. Then I saw they've applied a TM to the term. They made his whole point for him.

Re:TM, are you kidding me? (5, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44081759)

I think the issue goes beyond them just using the same name. From the summary:

"'The video for their marketing campaign was particularly creepy for me, as even my age and personality didn’t escape the level of detail spent on creating this doppelganger (they used a paid actor of course)."

It sounds like they intentionally made it resemble him as closely as possible. It's sort of like those dollar store markers that are "Sharple" brand in a script that makes it look almost identical to "Sharpie", mostly just to confuse people into getting your knockoff.

Re:TM, are you kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44082441)

My favorite is the pair of "Coby" headphones, in the same font that Sony uses for their logo.

Re:TM, are you kidding me? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44081761)

Personally I was ready to side with them after the clown described himself as an entrepreneur. The he doubled down on that with the photo of himself sleeping on trashbags subsequent to the apple mac/coffee cups photo. What a self indulgent little shit, when people are homeless the world over.

Sometimes bad things happen, sometimes you deserve for them to happen, sometimes they happen anyway and people laugh. This would fall into the latter category. The twitstorm is just icing on the cake.

Re:TM, are you kidding me? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44082045)

He's some hipster douchebag getting a free slashvertisement here.

Re:TM, are you kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44081789)

He didn't trademark first? Then it's not technically "stealing". It's a dirty, low-down thing to do, but it's not stealing.

Re:TM, are you kidding me? (4, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44081813)

Trademark exists to prevent consumer confusion. It seems like trademarking something already in use by someone else is just a big ol' recipe for confusing ready to be put in the oven.

Re:TM, are you kidding me? (5, Informative)

The Cat (19816) | about a year ago | (#44081903)

It is trademark infringement. Use in commerce is sufficient. It doesn't need to be registered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_trademark_law#TM_vs._.C2.AE [wikipedia.org]

On the other hand, fraudulent claim of a trademark is actionable under 15 U.S.C. Section 1120.

Re:TM, are you kidding me? (2)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44082007)

If you use it in commerce and it is sufficiently distinct, it's trademarked, it just isn't a registered trademark.

Re:TM, are you kidding me? (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year ago | (#44081989)

That is interesting. The IP thief themselves trade mark it, their for admitting that what they did was theft.

Re:TM, are you kidding me? (1)

Marcion (876801) | about a year ago | (#44082289)

I can't see the Youtube video but it does seem a rather simple swap of "days" to "jobs" that could have been invented independently. A bit too generic.

If you don't trademark... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44081837)

If you don't trademark then someone else will.

Why is anyone surprised? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44081857)

Why is anyone surprised? Adecco's entire business model is profiting off the labor of others.

Re:Why is anyone surprised? (3, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#44082409)

You're telling me that a company that uses more than 650,000 partially-employed associates [adecco.com] to design "creatives" satisfying 100,000 clients at any given time, is not taking a scrupulous, careful, original approach to designing marketing campaigns?!

Not to be a detail nazi, but... (2, Insightful)

TrumpetX (445716) | about a year ago | (#44081861)

How was he fired exactly? I totally get that he got screwed and all, but I don't see how this led to a firing in any stretch of the imagination.

Re:Not to be a detail nazi, but... (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44081901)

It's a bit of hyperbole. I think he's saying he was "fired" because he's been spending so much time dealing with this that he doesn't have the time or energy left to do the job.

Re:Not to be a detail nazi, but... (2)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year ago | (#44082373)

*Bit* of a hyperbole... "I haven’t been able to write a new post in over a month while dealing with this — my creative energy has been zapped."

So, he couldn't write *anything* in an entire month because of this? I can see a couple of days, but at this point that's really his problem.

Re: Not to be a detail nazi, but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44082491)

I take it that you've never been on the side of pissing away tens of thousands of dollars on attorneys, giving never ending depositions and sworn statements, all the while needing to keep a purely random work schedule simply to keep the checks going out to your legal firm.

Off topic (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year ago | (#44081863)

I would send anyone to addeco, when I had a brief period of unemployment in 2011 I went to addeco, dream jobs? Hell you are lucky if they can find you anything even if your sitting in their office all day, saying I will do any work as long as its not against the law!

Re:Off topic (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44082111)

It seems you should not have mentioned the whole "not against the law" and they would have had plenty for you

Re:Off topic (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44082523)

In my experience of desperately sending resumes to half a dozen such agencies in the past year, they're all pretty much just as worthless. Except they're damn good at spamming your email all the time, telling you about a one week temp job that starts the day they call you that just so happens to be the one day you actually managed to line up an interview out of town (and so they later basically blacklist you for not taking it), and blaming you for any and all of their screwups. Oh and of course telling you that you have something lined up on Monday, which the client backs out of during the week leading up to it, and then they never bother to call you to let you know so you almost go and show up if you hadn't thought to call and make sure it was happening.

Not that I hate temp agencies and recruiters with the fiery passion of 1000 suns or anything.

FYI (4, Informative)

The Cat (19816) | about a year ago | (#44081891)

Willful copyright infringement for commercial gain is a criminal offense under 17 U.S.C. Â 506 and 18 U.S.C. Â 2319

If the value of the reproduced works exceeds $2500 it is a felony.

Re:FYI (1)

Pichu0102 (916292) | about a year ago | (#44081907)

Now who do we report this to, then?

Re:FYI (1)

The Cat (19816) | about a year ago | (#44081933)

The FBI or a United States Attorney.

Re:FYI (2)

stox (131684) | about a year ago | (#44082015)

Who will tell you that they are way too busy with helping the MPAA, RIAA, and other important campaign donors.

Re:FYI (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#44082133)

If Addeco is between those donors, i know who will be in jail for terrorism after putting that complaint.

Re:FYI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44082003)

Jesus. He's the only one who will act.

Re:FYI (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#44082105)

and some marketing intern does the time but $0.13 an hour in prison job is better then $0

Re:FYI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44082035)

This is exactly what copyright was created for. Too bad it won't probably be actually enforced in this case; it's only to be used against the little guy, never for him.

Re:FYI (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44082173)

Copyright is *not* trademark. Same as trademark is not a patent.

1. patent
2. copyright
3. trademark

All are different laws. The company in question is breaking trademark laws. They are not braking copyright laws AFAIK. They are not breaking patent laws AFAIK.

The solution is as simple as saying "Around the world in 96 jobs". But I guess the company is too cheap to pay 2 extra people?

Ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44081893)

So now we now that guy runs a travel blog as his hobby. What's that job he's talking about though?

To hell with both of you - I've done one better. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44081921)

I started my own site called "Around the World in 79 Jobs"

reminded me of a Canadian Cartoon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44081965)

Robinson Sucroe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_Sucroe

Ironically the women that caused all that fraud died on an operation table in a plastic surgery (ego can kill).

Re:reminded me of a Canadian Cartoon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44082097)

Sad thing is, the whole lawsuit mess about that infringement is still going on 20 years after the fact. Cinar / Cookie Jar Entertainment used every single dirty trick they could think of to smear his reputation and delay proceedings.

Re: reminded me of a Canadian Cartoon (1)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | about a year ago | (#44082107)

Thank you for the link. I chuckled when I read they renamed their company "cookie jar entertainment".

Talk about black kettles (0)

slick7 (1703596) | about a year ago | (#44081981)

Big business and their Admiralty jurists have the temerity to decide who and what belongs to whom [youtube.com] .

Official Rules: No Infringing, Copying Tolerated (4, Interesting)

theodp (442580) | about a year ago | (#44082055)

Contest Rules [adeccowaytowork.com] : "Participants warrant and agree that their entry, including all content of the entry will at all times be (a) the original independent creation of the participant submitting it, (b) exclusively and solely owned by the participant (including the copyright therein), and (c) free of any claims, including copyright or trademark claims by other parties. Participants further warrant and agree that their entry, including all content of the entry, in whole or in part (a) does not and will not infringe any third party rights (including intellectual property rights or rights of privacy, publicity or confidentiality), (b) has been created by the participant and if the content features a person other than the participant, the person(s) featured in the content (and their parent/legal guardian if they are under the age of majority in their jurisdiction of residence) must have consented to their image being used in connection with this contest, and (c) is not unlawful, fraudulent, defamatory, obscene, profane, derogatory, pornographic, sexually inappropriate, politically incorrect, violent, abusive, insulting, scandalous, inflammatory, harassing, threatening, racist, ageist, sexist, objectionable with respect to religion, origin or gender, not suitable for children under 15, or otherwise unsuitable for publication or objectionable."

Send them a message (3, Informative)

nut (19435) | about a year ago | (#44082127)

At https://www.adeccowaytowork.com/en/contact [adeccowaytowork.com]

For example:

You disgust me. I expect never to make use of your services, either looking for my next position, or when I am part of the hiring process where I work.

As an active web developer with a strong network built up over 15 years in the industry, I intend to make sure the details of your parasitic behaviour are shared as widely as possible. Everybody who works in the digital economy will see this as a crime that could have been perpetrated on themselves.

I will encourage everyone I can to see themselves as a potential victim of such cavalier behaviour and to boycott your services therefore. I know how many of my colleagues already despise the way big business flouts IP laws, whilst simultaneously using these same laws to crush players too small to afford protracted legal battles.

You are in a service industry and person you have just ripped off is the archetypal representative of your customer. I can only hope that the impact on your bottom line is what it deserves to be. I will do what I can to encourage everyone to make it so.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/06/22/2316215/how-i-got-fired-from-the-job-i-invented [slashdot.org]

Yours sincerely,
[name redacted]

Incidently their twitter feed is interesting reading at the moment. As is their facebook page.

Dude (1, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#44082169)

You didn't cover your flank. You're brilliant and mobile, your adversaries aren't. Pop a Molly and think of something else - and next time, get a lawyer first. It's not like millions of others haven't been hosed by megacorps before. You should have expected this. Many of us have travelled this road.

seems obvious (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44082223)

Do on an anti-that company PR rampage. They certainly set themselves up for that! Tear them a new ass and if they have the balls to sue you for copyright infringement, you could probably beat them lawyerless it would be so much of a joke.

email to Adecco (1)

thephydes (727739) | about a year ago | (#44082247)

I just sent this email to Adecco from their contact us page. " Nice work Adecco - stealing someone else's work and ideas and claiming them as your own. Shame on you! Look on the web - The Striesland Effect is alive and well on Twitter, Facebook, Slashdot and others."

Adecco statement on their Facebook page (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44082313)

https://www.facebook.com/AdeccoWayToWork

We have seen and heard your sincere concern about our recent youth employment initiative and take your feedback very seriously. We deeply regret if we hurt Turner Barr. This was never our intention when we set up our “Around the World in 80 Jobs” contest. We clearly see that Turner is an inspiration to many people. We feel there should be more of such initiatives that inspire people to live their dreams and achieve their ambitions. Unfortunately, we moved forward with a name and contest that clearly upset Turner and his community. We sincerely apologize for that mistake.

When Turner contacted us about his concern, and we understood the full situation, we immediately engaged with him to try to make things right. Unfortunately, we have been unable to find common ground so far.

Most of all, we are sorry that an initiative we truly care about – youth unemployment – has been negatively received.

Your Adecco Way to Work Team

Re:Adecco statement on their Facebook page (1)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | about a year ago | (#44082553)

Every Addeco post has a slew of negative comments related to the theft of Turner Barrs idea.

I wonder how long it will take for them to figure out that the Internet won't forgive or forget until they do the right thing...

Kill the corporations while we still can. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44082347)

Assuming it's not too late for that.

An intern didn't do this (2)

david_bonn (259998) | about a year ago | (#44082423)

Their claims that "an intern did this" on their twitter feed are a laughable, bald-faced lie.

No intern would be able to independently put together a marketing campaign like that, complete with video.

Admit it dude, you're thrilled by the publicity. (1, Troll)

whatthef*ck (215929) | about a year ago | (#44082425)

You're obviously no fool, and you know this is the best thing that's ever happened to your blog. Youtube videos that you posted a mere two months ago are showing less than 100 views, but your most recent one where you discuss this issue has 23,000 views. I understand why you're acting so glum -- it should sweeten the "pain and suffering" damages you'll eventually get -- but not all of us are fooled by the act.

I'm not saying I blame you a bit, just that I'm not buying the "woe is me" schtick.

Felony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44082443)

Isn't this is a felony?

I feel anonymous justice coming (1)

Max DollarCash (2874161) | about a year ago | (#44082465)

... LOIC!!!!!

Why is this surprising? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44082551)

Adecco makes a majority of its money through staffing agencies it owns. There's nothing wrong with staffing agencies per se, but Adecco's outright abuse employment law in how theirs are operated. As an example, someone I know recently applied to a legal job at a law firm. They got through the interview process and were waiting for confirmation of when to start. Instead they got a call telling them the firm could not hire them because the person had worked for an Adecco owned entity within the past year, and they had an agreement not to hire people Adecco's entity had staffed within the past year. The entity is also well known for requiring more than 40 hours a week to be worked without overtime pay via exploiting a person's title of "contractor". So why is it surprising that a company that behaves like people are their property would treat the guy in the story any differently?

Here's a thought... (2)

deadlydiscs (1505207) | about a year ago | (#44082569)

Maybe it's all part of the (Adecco) promotion. Way too much artificial drama days .
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?