|
|
Subject: Surfer film promotion faces legal questions | Author | Messages | 
Ray Sidman
Posts: 1179
 | Posted: 5/30/2007 1:47:03 PM |  The U.S. Mint has declared a promotion for the new 20th Century Fox and Marvel Entertainment film Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, to be illegal. The promotion, by 20th Century Fox with the Franklin Mint and promoted by Marvel Entertainment at its website, utilizes 40,000 U.S. quarters color-enhanced by the Franklin Mint to advertise the movie.
The altered coins -- all 2005 California state quarters -- show the Silver Surfer on their reverse (back) along with the text "www.riseofthesilversurfer.com." According to the U.S. Mint statement, "The United States Mint first became aware of 20th Century Fox's and The Franklin Mint's plans early this week. Our Chief Counsel's Office does not render legal advice or opinions on such matters, but informed 20th Century Fox and The Franklin Mint's publicity agent, Lippin Group, of the Federal laws that may be applicable to their proposed use of U.S. coinage in their promotion.
"The promotion is in no way approved, authorized, endorsed, or sponsored by the United States Mint, nor is it in any way associated or affiliated with the United States Mint."
The statement went on to cite Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 475, regarding "imitating obligations or securities, advertisements" (bolding by CBGXtra): "Whoever designs, engraves, prints, makes, or executes, or utters, issues, distributes, circulates, or uses any business or professional card, notice, placard, circular, handbill, or advertisement in the likeness or similitude of any obligation or security of the United States issued under or authorized by any Act of Congress or writes, prints, or otherwise impresses upon or attaches to any such instrument, obligation, or security, or any coin of the United States, any business or professional card, notice, or advertisement, or any notice or advertisement whatever, shall be fined under this title."
As confirmed to CBGXtra.com by the U.S. Mint, any legal action would be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Secret Service.
For commentary from the people at CBG's sister publication, Numismatic News -- which specializes in U.S. coin news and issues and features some of the world's top experts in the field -- see this report here, and a report about the eBay sales of these quarters by F+W numismatic expert Tom Michael here.
Stay tuned to CBGXtra.com, as we will have more on this story as it develops. See UPDATES posted below, as we report them.
| 
Jeffrey Frawley
Posts: 23
| Posted: 5/30/2007 3:22:52 PM | If "(o)ur Chief Counsel's office does not render legal advice or opinions on such matters" it's a bit strange that it then quotes the relevant statutes forbidding the promotion. It sounds pretty much indistinguishable from an "opinion on such matters."
I suspect the U.S. Mint is correct on this, though.
| 
David Porta
Posts: 71
| Posted: 5/30/2007 5:05:10 PM | "shall be fined under this title"
Big deal. So, they pay a fine, and chalk it up to promotional expenses.
In business, getting caught breaking the law is just another business expense.
Wholesale producers in the food industry (industrial size bakeries, meat plants, agri-business) that get cited or shut down by FDA for violations, just re-open under another name the next week.
| perryparsons
Posts: 16
| Posted: 5/30/2007 7:02:07 PM | The fine could actually be an issue depending on how the government assessed it. 18 USC 3571(c) says that for an infraction the fine is to be not more than $10,000.00. But 18 USC 3571(d) says that the fine can be based on gain or loss. Basically the fine can be "not more than the greater of twice the gross gain". The question would be how to calculate the "gross gain" that was earned by the advertisement.
The US mint is right, this is clearly a violation of the statute. But will anyone in the secret service really care?
|
Ray Sidman
Posts: 1179
| Posted: 5/31/2007 6:38:03 AM | What I interpret the U.S. Mint statement as saying regarding its Chief Counsel's Office is: The Mint's Chief Counsel's Office does not offer legal advice or opinions in terms of possible charges, fines, or legal outcomes. They merely inform when they believe a law has been broken -- a black-and-white function.
Also, don't expect a rush on this from the Secret Service side of things. It could well be many months -- at least -- before there's discernible action on this. However, for now, that's where things stand; any investigative or legal action is in the Secret Service's jurisdiction at this point and until an investigation is completed.
| 
Gary Dunaier
Posts: 542
| Posted: 5/31/2007 12:54:19 PM | Originally posted by perryparsons:
The US mint is right, this is clearly a violation of the statute. But will anyone in the secret service really care?
You never know.
In the coin collecting world, one of the "hot" topics is the fate of the ten 1933 Double Eagles ($20 gold pieces) that were submitted to the U.S. Mint for authentication purposes, but were seized by the Secret Service, the rationalization being that they were never officially issued by the Mint. Collectors are concerned because there are other high profile, big-money rarities - such as the 1913 Liberty Head nickel (of which one recently sold for $5,000,000) and the 1804 Dollar (which has long been known as the "King of American Coins") - that, like the 1933 Double Eagle, were never actually put in circulation, and the fear is that the Secret Service might at some point in the future decide those are also illegal to own.
(Background information on the 1933 Double Eagle, from Wikipedia)
My point - and yes, I do have one - is that if the Secret Service is still making a fuss over coins that were minted almost 75 years ago, they might very well take an interest in these altered coins from this year.
|
Ray Sidman
Posts: 1179
| Posted: 5/31/2007 1:29:49 PM | UPDATE #1: CBGXtra.com has spoken to the U.S. Secret Service, and a spokesman there confirmed that the Secret Service is aware of the Silver Surfer quarter situation. However, the spokesman also said that the matter has been turned over to the Department of Justice. CBGXtra.com will have more on this, so stay tuned ...
As for why the situation isn't currently being handled by the Secret Service when it has previously handled similar and related situations (such as the 1933 $20 coins, aka "double eagles"), the Secret Service was part of the Department of Treasury -- and hence was at the head of policing Treasury matters -- until March 2003, at which time the Secret Service became part of the Department of Homeland Security.
|
Ray Sidman
Posts: 1179
| Posted: 6/6/2007 1:30:14 PM | UPDATE #2: For now, the government is still working out how to handle this case. Updates will be posted as more information is learned. CBGXtra.com continues to stay in touch with the various offices involved and potentially involved in it, including the U.S. Mint, the Secret Service, the Department of Justice, and the U.S. Attorney General.
For now, you can read what our numismatic experts are saying about it. Check the original post above for the links.
|
|
|
|