Apollo 15 Moonwalker astronaut David Scott lawsuit against Moonwatchmaker C° Bulova ...

http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-041118a-moon-watch-astronaut-lawsuit.html

 

I'm sure Scott would have made a deal had they asked. Pure rudeness on Bulova's part.

 

So he made $1.6 million from selling a gift from Bulova. Perhaps he should take that into consideration? On another note, as NASA rejected the MK II Speedmaster on the grounds that a mineral crystal was too dangerous, what was he doing taking this up?

 

Where does it say Bulova gave him the watch?

 

It was a prototype made for him especially if I remember correctly

 

Was the $1.5m he got for the watch not enough? Emotional distress! Man up ffs, I thought you had the Right Stuff.

 

That's a bit different then.

 

I have both versions of this watch - on bracelet and on the strap. It's kinda cool, and only runs about +10 sec/year for me.

I hope this case doesn't end up removing the watch from the market, or changing the watch substantially from how it is now. Dave Scott made $1,625,000 off of the free watch Bulova gave him. Shouldn't that be enough? Regardless, I'm sure Bulova will have to change how they market the watch from now on.

 

I tend to agree with Bulova on this one, and I think the judge does, too:

“While the court remains perplexed why Scott insists on a claim that adds nothing to the case, this supernovic white dwarf star of a claim burns on," wrote the judge.

Methinks that judge wanted to be a novelist or a poet.

 

I thought that but the use of Parsec earlier on and that bit suggests that the writer was being a little liberal with the quotes so the judge's pronouncements may have been rather more sober. Sober as errr.

 

It's easy to see Scott as off-base on this one, but using one's name and/or likeness to make money from a product without permission seems reason enough to object to me. If the guy wants to lay low, I think that's his prerogative.

 

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html

It seems to me only NASA would have the right to sue.

 

This watch was not issued by NASA, hence why he was able to sell it in the first place

 

But the picture used is owned by NASA.

 

Even were that grounds for a suit (which it is not), most NASA images are in the public domain and can be used for commercial purposes as long as they don't convey the idea that the product is endorsed by NASA.

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/Advertising_Guidelines.html , bullet point 4

 

Being in the public domain is exactly why I do not think Scott has a case. NASA on the other hand could imply that using their images in a promtional setting would violate their terms of use. NASA has all the rights attached to the images/videos, Scott has none. Without seeing the actual promtional materials, who knows.

 

$1.3M, actually. The larger number includes the buyer's premium paid to the auction house.

 

Welcome to the weird rules of copyright laws. It’s about them using his image in marketing materials. Some times you have to do seemingly stupid lawsuits to protect your rights.

 

I see your point. As this concerns Scott himself though, I do believe he has a case if they used his likeness, or implied that he endorsed the watch - but there is certainly a grey area if the only images they used were NASA's images of Scott doing his job as an employee of the US Govt.

 

I think parsec is a legit term..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsec