[Powdered Toast Man]

At the end of the day, we are talking about the use of a name that identifies a cultural group that was nearly anialated by what is now the dominant society. It was theirs long before anyone decided it would be a cool name for a vehicle. Why is this coming up now? Probably because there's no other point in history when anyone would have taken them seriously.

 

[Zagnut27]

I’d say this, if you’re going to use someone’s name or likeness to sell a product then you should probably at the very least ask permission and most likely should be paying for the usage. That seems to be common business practice. Would you expect to use someone’s music for free? Their artwork?

This nonsense about. “naming a product after them honors them”. No, naming the product after them is an attempt to use their name to help sell your product. Plain and simple. It’s not a disrespectful thing like the ridiculous Red Skins name and logo...but it’s still using something apparently without consultation or permission. Stellantis is a massive corporation. I don’t think they’ll go without any executive perks if they pay some money to use a name. Is it such a big deal to do the right thing anymore?

 

[serpens]

From the article, in case it informs any discussion beyond insinuations that natives only care about money:

The timing.


Background on why these names are construed as being offensive:



On past use of Cherokee name.



I think their opinion was made fairly clear by the first part of that statement.

Money.

Not for tribal leaders, not blackmail; trying to dig out from the poverty that has been endemic to people who were forcibly relocated to largely unwanted land, in case anyone's forgotten (as apparently people hate).


Honoring by naming cars after them.


And yes, I will keep deleting posts along the lines of “they're just looking for a bribe or a casino,” which seem little different from “them Jews, they sure love money” and “those white folk sure can't dance.”

I applaud you for this post. I was sickened by some of the posts in this thread.

 

[valiant67]

Pontiac payed a royalty per car to use the Trans Am name on their car.
Plymouth paid a fee to Warner Brothers to use the Road Runner name and graphics.

When I think about that, paying a royalty to use the Cherokee name isn't so outrageous.

 

[Powdered Toast Man]

Pontiac payed a royalty per car to use the Trans Am name on their car.
Plymouth paid a fee to Warner Brothers to use the Road Runner name and graphics.

When I think about that, paying a royalty to use the Cherokee name isn't so outrageous.

Not a bad way to look at it. And from an intellectual property perspective, if WB doesn't want the Road Runner being used on a car, then they say no and royalty or no, Plymouth doesn't use it. So if there is an agreement that can be reached with the Cherokee people on the licensing of their name, then that's fine. But it's also their right to decline any licensing agreement and keep their name to themselves and it would be on Stellantis to immediately cease use of it.

Either way, Stellantis has been using a name that doesn't belong to them.

 

[World14]

Would you expect to use someone’s music for free?

Only if you're planning to use their entire musical composition to the n for profit and without consent.
Music is (or, rather, should be) a lot harder to denote who should own it or not, as music was a thing LONG before written history. What someone creates today may have been a melody from 1,000 years ago. Someone can point that out, but these days people will automatically assume the person who wrote it today created the melody first, even if there is some sort of proof of someone else coming up with that melody a millennium ago.

 

[David S]

Pontiac payed a royalty per car to use the Trans Am name on their car.
Plymouth paid a fee to Warner Brothers to use the Road Runner name and graphics.

When I think about that, paying a royalty to use the Cherokee name isn't so outrageous.

Cherokee has been around for over 300 years, it isn't a brand name, it is a nationality.

 

[valiant67]

Pontiac payed a royalty per car to use the Trans Am name on their car.
Plymouth paid a fee to Warner Brothers to use the Road Runner name and graphics.

When I think about that, paying a royalty to use the Cherokee name isn't so outrageous.

Actually there are two differing accounts on Road Runner. One account was Plymouth could secure the name legally, but the graphics required Warner Bothers consent (and an exchange of money).

 

[Thom Paré]

It's probably time for this to be a real conversation to have and consideration for the Jeep brand. Maybe Mike Manley should reach out directly and invite Chuck Hoskin to Auburn hills for a summit. He definitely made a compelling argument in his statement, which can lead to an agreement to a possible transition away from the use of the Cherokee name.

 

[David S]

Only if you're planning to use their entire musical composition to the n for profit and without consent.
Music is (or, rather, should be) a lot harder to denote who should own it or not, as music was a thing LONG before written history. What someone creates today may have been a melody from 1,000 years ago. Someone can point that out, but these days people will automatically assume the person who wrote it today created the melody first, even if there is some sort of proof of someone else coming up with that melody a millennium ago.

Yes, I expect to use JS Bach's music for free. Things fall into the public domain.

 

[Thom Paré]

Asking permission first.

I'll say that this was by far the best reply I've read about topic anywhere.

 

[David S]

Probably a good reason not to revive New Yorker or Newport. If they brought back Sebring and Saratoga would they owe something to the track?

 

[Thom Paré]

And yes, I will keep deleting posts along the lines of “they're just looking for a bribe or a casino,” which seem little different from “them Jews, they sure love money” and “those white folk sure can't dance.”

 

[morepower]

I'm a passive aggressive guy.

I suggest a Jeep Jackson Edition.

OOOO... that one is going to hurt!

 

[codypet]

Probably a good reason not to revive New Yorker or Newport. If they brought back Sebring and Saratoga would they owe something to the track?

Am I the only one who hears Newport and thinks cigarettes? I'm a product of the 80's and a non-smoker, but still I have a negative association with the name Newport due to cigarettes.

 

[MIKE3187]

What about the use of names for military vehicles/aircraft? Does anyone know if royalties are paid/permission was obtained in those instances? Apache helicopter comes to mind, just curious

 

[Erik Latranyi]

It is funny that the Cherokee Nation said nothing for nearly 50 years.

But so many here think they should get money.

If you do not defend your "rights", you forfeit those rights. That is how the law works.

If the Cherokee Nation had expressed concerns earlier, it could be taken seriously.

That is how Stellantis lost the rights to Barracuda. It did not defend its rights to that name.

 

[Zagnut27]

Only if you're planning to use their entire musical composition to the n for profit and without consent.
Music is (or, rather, should be) a lot harder to denote who should own it or not, as music was a thing LONG before written history. What someone creates today may have been a melody from 1,000 years ago. Someone can point that out, but these days people will automatically assume the person who wrote it today created the melody first, even if there is some sort of proof of someone else coming up with that melody a millennium ago.

If you add music to a YouTube video, whether you’re earning money on said video or not, you better have permission to use it. If for no other reason than YouTube will copyright flag your video. I think the cutoff for usage is 30 seconds IIRC, my wife is the expert on that as she runs our channel.

But it’s not just music you add, it can be background music...playing in a store for instance...and they can flag you for that. They take this stuff seriously because people want to be paid for their work/property. And I see no issue with that.

 

[hmk123]

IMHO this is about human dignity. Something we as societies are still evolving when it comes to protecting, ensuring and respecting it.

 

[David S]

It is funny that the Cherokee Nation said nothing for nearly 50 years.

But so many here think they should get money.

If you do not defend your "rights", you forfeit those rights. That is how the law works.

If the Cherokee Nation had expressed concerns earlier, it could be taken seriously.

That is how Stellantis lost the rights to Barracuda. It did not defend its rights to that name.

Cherokee is the name of an ethnicity. The Cherokee nation doesn't own it, just as Germany doesn't own German and France doesn't own French.

Now it is probably not a good idea to name a vehicle after a nationality. But the difference here is the Cherokee nation never owned Cherokee for use on motor vehicles in the US, Chrysler owned Barracuda.