Fabric Material:
- 100% Certified Organic Cotton ring-spun jersey
- Light fabric (5.3 oz/yd² (180 g/m²))
- Runs true to size
6 Easy Step To Grab This Product:
- Click the button “Buy this shirt”
- Choose your style: men, women, toddlers, …
- Pic Any color you like!
- Choose size.
- Enter the delivery address.
- Wait for your shirt and let’s take a photograph.
Shipping:
It takes 1-3 days to fulfill an order, after which it’s shipped out. The shipping time depends on your location, but can be estimated as follows: USA: 2-7 business days International: 10-20 business days. Available Size: XS, S, M, L, XL, 2XL, 3XL, 4XL, 5XL Available Color: Black, Cardinal Red, Forest Green, Gold, Navy, Royal, Sport Grey, White…STORAGE INSTRUCTIONS:
Do not use detergent containing chlorine, Do not use detergent, Drying, normal temperature, low heat. Regular ironing can be done by steam or dry ironing, and ironing cannot be more than 110 degrees Celsius. Delivery Your order will be printed exclusively for you within a few days. If you are in the US, Canada or Europe, you will receive your order within 3-7 business days after printing is complete. For all other countries, please allow between 10-14 business days. And you wanna design your own shirt by yourself for your team, your group or your family, you can sent us your design to gmal address [email protected].. We will make it for you. This shirt the official design from Hulktee.com. Available for T-shirt, hoodie, tank top, long sleeve, sweater, youth tee, onesie for men and women. Have a nice day!| SHIPMENT METHOD | PROCESSING TIME | ESTIMATED DELIVERY TIME | SHIPMENT COST |
|---|---|---|---|
| Domestic US | 1-3 business days | 2-5 business day | USA First Hoodie or Sweat: $8 Additional Hoodie or Sweat: $2 First Shirt: $5 Additional Shirts: $2 |
| International | 2-5 business days | 10-20 business day | International Hoodie or Sweat: $10 Shirt: $8 |
| SHIPMENT METHOD | PROCESSING TIME | ESTIMATED DELIVERY TIME | SHIPMENT COST |
|---|---|---|---|
| Domestic UK | 1-3 business days | 2-5 business day | UK First Hoodie or Sweat: $8 Additional Hoodie or Sweat: $2 First Shirt: $5 Additional Shirts: $2 |
| Europe | 1-3 business days | 10-20 business day | Europe First Hoodie or Sweat: $8 Additional Hoodie or Sweat: $2 First Shirt: $5 Additional Shirts: $2 |
The sheer quantity of things wrong him these idiots to not realize part of what makes America great is we get to make fun of our leaders as much as we damn want. It really is a testament to the White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt besides I will buy this mental health crisis in this country when we have aggressively unwell people not only running, but successfully obtaining powerful seats in the government. For fuck sake, we have a hooker who likely paid someone to take her online GED course in congress getting cheered as she disparages a former waitress who got her degree and obtained the American Dream the other party claims to tout! Kimmel misrepresented himself to induce Santos to create personalized videos “capitalizing on and ridiculing” his “gregarious personality,” the lawsuit alleges. In one of the clips, Santos offers congratulations to the purported winner of a beef-eating contest, calling the feat of consuming 6 pounds (2.7 kilograms) of loose ground beef in under 30 minutes “amazing and impressive.”
White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt, hoodie, tank top, sweater, long sleeve tee
“Frankly, Kimmel’s fake requests were funny, but what he did was clear violation of copyright law,” Robert Fantone, an attorney for Santos, said in an email. Hilarious. No way I’m letting my attorney put that out, which makes total sense why Santos would see nothing wrong with it. I would bet Cameo is helping Santos with this. It’s going to be a question of who owns the White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt besides I will buy this video. Cameo says any videos you pay for are only licensed to you If the video is licensed to Jimmy Kimmel, there’s nothing from stopping him from sharing it on a platform called the Jimmy Kimmel Show. There’s no way Cameo would take George’s side on this matter. A big portion of their publicity comes from viral moments that have been shared by news outlets- such as the famous clip of Smokey Robinson struggling with seeing a different spelling of Hanukkah to the point that he thought it was a brand new holiday to him. And if for some reason Cameo did want to come after Jimmy Kimmel, Disney could easily counter that by threatening to pull the plug on any of their contracted talent from appearing on Cameo. There’s no exclusive talent contracting in Hollywood. That practice died off in the 60s or 50s I think. Studios bend over backwards for talent. For Disney specifically, see the dispute between Scarlett Johansson over the loss of incentives when Disney released Black Widow 2 straight to D+. I’d be shocked if Kimmel didn’t get the use of the clips through ABC legal who looked at the T&Cs of cameo before allowing it to air. If there’s any language prohibiting the commercial exploitation of the material, it looks like George could have a leg to stand on, but I haven’t read the language and could care less who’s more right in this situation.
Yep, every show makes sure every clip they use is legally cleared. This doesn’t always mean paid for, but the White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt besides I will buy this network legal departments know the T&C of all the social media platforms like the back of their hands. In the case of a Disney/Marvel star, it can be as simple as a clause where they can’t appear on a talk show that’s not part of the greater ABC/Disney family for a certain length of time surrounding their new movie’s release. Or it could be something like not allowing them to be available for bookings on Cameo because they feel it cheapens the talent’s personal brand in a way that could affect their brand. This happens in the music world too. For example if a band signs on to play at Coachella there’s usually a several month period around the festival where a band isn’t allowed to perform within a 500-1000 mile radius of the event.
More about this White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt
“could care less”…I hate to be that guy, but this is one language mistake that just bugs me (maybe it’s my autism I dunno). Anyway. It’s “I couldn’t care less”. Because if you could care less… you failed your goal here. Cameo has two rates, if you want to use your cameo for something like the White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt besides I will buy this Jimmy Kimmel Show that you plan to make money off of, you have to pay the more expensive Business rate. Santos saw an opportunity to get some free press and he took it. Sure, we can sit here and blame-shame Santos for this. But the fact is, due to the pathetic state our political and social system(s) have devolved down to, his strategy for pursuing money/power/office/fame is one that works. Be it tiktok, instagram, or other social media; Santos knows that in the end, he will benefit from this. I hate to be the ‘don’t blame the playah blame the game’ guy, but here we are.
He doesn’t have to actually have the White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt besides I will buy this battle, he just needs the headline to generate enough attention and cameo $ to justify whatever amount he will spend on a lawyer starting and then dropping the lawsuit (or having it thrown out). (IANAL so maybe there are other risks like being penalized or counter-sued, but he’s obviously an insane person to begin with so it’s probably not worth trying too hard to fathom his reasoning.) Not so fast… Those sites like Cameo aren’t stupid. There will be something in the terms-of-use saying you can’t lie to people or use the videos for anything that wasn’t strictly in the agreement (and the terms of use). Intentionally misrepresenting yourself and lying about the usage of the video is actually a pretty big deal (they wouldn’t have been able to get him to make the video without lying or misrepresenting – and the article mentions that they did apparently use fake information). There’s almost no way that the terms-of-use didn’t think of this sort of thing (otherwise Cameo’s lawyers would be amateurs).
But, then again, Jimmy Kimmel should have had lawyers making sure they weren’t breaking the White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt besides I will buy this terms-of-use when they pulled this stunt. Someone’s lawyers fucked up royally here! Don’t just assume it was Cameo’s. It could very easily have been Kimmel’s. There seems to be stuff in there about not lying and whatnot – but I think there might be a difference between breaching Cameo guidelines and breaking the law. I mean perhaps Kimmel should be banned from Cameo – that doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a case for Santos. Doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t of course. Cameo’s license terms exclude commercial use and the transactions were conducted by Kimmel’s team using fake names during 14 transactions to conceal their intent of commercial use and ridicule. If instead of Kimmel doing this to ridicule Santos, if it was Tucker Carlson having his team do this to ridicule Emma Watson on his tv show, everyone would acknowledge the case having at least reasonable merit. Sure, he may have violated Cameo’s license terms, but they are not the ones suing him and that doesn’t mean that Santos, who is alleging copyright infringement, has a case. If instead of Kimmel doing this to ridicule Santos, if it was Tucker Carlson having his team do this to ridicule Emma Watson on his tv show, everyone would acknowledge the case having at least reasonable merit.
They’re saying it’s a clear cut violation of the White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt besides I will buy this non-commercial license of the content, especially as it was also obtained by Kimmel’s team using a bunch of fake names to conceal their plans of commercial use and ridicule. He was the infringed party, which is why he’s the entity suing. Cameo also doesn’t take ownership of the IP from the seller – the seller retains the IP and the buyer is receiving a limited use in accordance with the license terms. Just because Santos is a clown loser doesn’t mean the license terms work differently against him, and Cameo will also have an interest in this case in regard to protecting against potential exploitive use under false pretenses towards other sellers on their platform. If Kimmel paid for the creation of a media clip (ie bought the cameo and gave the instruction on what to say), wouldn’t that make him the copyright owner?
This is correct. The video is actually licensed to you from cameo, but does not transfer the White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt besides I will buy this copyright to you. Cameo has different licenses — some that allow personal use, and some that allow commercial use. Similar to how when you ‘buy’ a movie, you can’t show it to a big theater or sell your own merch with the characters in it. You actually bought a personal use license of the film that has conditions attached, and you don’t own the underlying contents. Does Santos even have standing to sue, then? It seems like Cameo would have to bring the suit based on whether or not Kimmel violated the terms of the license. If Santos has beef (har, har) with anyone, it would be Cameo, depending what kind of agreement he signed with them. I suspect he would, but I don’t know enough about the nature of the agreements Cameo has with their talent. Who exactly licenses what to whom isn’t obvious, and I’m not sure if Cameo holds the copyright of the material or if the creator retains it.
If Santos is selling his content to Cameo, and then Cameo is licensing that content to you, then he probably has no standing (unless Cameo has a duty they breached to vet purchases or similar). I think this is unlikely though. If instead Cameo just acts as a facilitator of the White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt besides I will buy this exclusive licensing of custom content to you, but Santos retains ‘ownership’ of the content, then he’s more likely to have standing. I think this is probably much closer to how the agreement is structured. Either way it’s going to come down to specifics of how the talent contracts and user TOS are written. And regardless, I bet there are some pretty broad usage rights included in the Cameo licenses, because they don’t want to be getting sued all the time and ultimately the talent can choose to decline anything they don’t want to do. If the talent could then “take backsies” when they regretted saying something dumb for $200, Cameo needs a new general counsel. So Santos likely knows he cannot win and is probably going for publicity and maybe a quick settlement because absolutely nobody wants their name to be associated with him in the news.
Yeah I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that both Cameo and Disney’s lawyers covered all their bases way more than George Santos did. Plus, if there were actual copywrite issues, Disney’s legal department would have stepped in in a heartbeat and put a stop to it. Cameo’s commercial license is specifically says you cannot use the White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt besides I will buy this video for television, film or streaming services (and there’s a whole section in the license about what is and isn’t a streaming service). What’s more likely here is that ABC’s lawyers looked at the potential for damages and decided they didn’t care enough to stop Kimmel. I don’t know how accurate it is, but one of the key accusations of the lawsuit is that Kimmel purchased the personal use license.
I remember hearing they didn’t. That they got the White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt besides I will buy this personal one that was like 2k not the commercial one that was like 70k There are two tiers of cameo, one that is what everyone used and a far more expensive one that allows you to use the videos commercially. The average price for Cameo for Business, which allows the video to be used for commercial purposes, is $1,700. For non-business bookings, the average price is $70. I would hope they didn’t cheap out. That may be far more expensive to everyday people like us, but they may as well be the same number for a company like ABC He reportedly has a salary of $15m/year, so that’s also true of Kimmel personally. I feel like he would have no problem spending $1700 on a good joke. He definitely wouldn’t – but whether or not the researcher/writer who actually purchased the videos did so correctly is another story. Definitely feels like something that may slip through the cracks, coming from someone who works in the same industry. Are there really no lawyers that go over this stuff before airing? I assume if they went through with this, it wasn’t just some researchers/writers and then Kimmel ran with it. There definitely should be. But it usually depends on someone actually approaching them and asking for the legality of something. The lawyers themselves could have okay’d it at inception and then been un-approached again before it was actually done, or maybe they looked into it and said “as long as you buy the rights!” and then that never got implemented by the researcher.
Good question. It depends on the White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt besides I will buy this terms of their agreement. It’s possible he just licensed them from George (as in a sync license) and that George still retains IP rights. It’s not so much an issue of who owns the copyright as much as it’s a question of was this content was commissioned/aired/attributed properly. Given what we know about George and what Kimmel does as his day job, I find it hard to believe George has a legit case here, but idk. I am not a lawyer. I don’t think that matters to him at this point, he’s already a laughing stock and has no prospect of a respectable career. The point is to get money, not to preserve his reputation. Seriously, at this point he’s nothing but a punchline anyway. May as well lean into it and laugh about the stupid shit he got paid to say. It’s probably his best money making prospect going forward.
As if any action Kimmel takes, especially ones from planned pranks like this one, aren’t checked by the White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt besides I will buy this legal team in advance. Disney just spent the better part of the last two years slapping around the state of Florida and this dude thinks he has a shot? I mean he is someone who has been to the moon, the bottom of the sea, has won a Heisman, a world series, an NHL MVP, and the tour de france. Disney might not have a chance. Disney got kind of fucked in Florida. One of their most important lawsuits just got thrown out. The mouse might not be as powerful as everyone things. Kimmel needs to make the lawsuit part of an ongoing bit. Have someone wacky playing the attorneys, re enacting courtroom scenes Would help explain why he does it. If it’s money you didn’t earn, you feel less attached to it. Probably thinks he can just steal more of it. As silly as it sounds, I wonder if he has a case, as Cameo doesn’t allow the videos to be used for commercial purposes, unless it is a Business Cameo, which they then need to identify the business. Subject to your payment in full, the Talent User hereby grants to you the following limited rights to use the CAMEO Video (other than a Business CAMEO Video) solely for your own personal, non-commercial, and non-promotional purposes, subject to these Terms: a non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid, worldwide, sublicensable, revocable license to use, reproduce, distribute, and publicly display that CAMEO Video, in any and all media (for example, on social media platforms), whether now known or hereafter invented or devised.
Do you consider making a bit for his network television show to be Jimmy Kimmel’s “non-commercial, non-promotional” purpose? Yeah, I agree. The terms are pretty clear on that. “You may not sell, resell, commercialize, or encumber your rights in any Cameo Offering, including creating a non-fungible token (“NFT”) from any Cameo Offering except as agreed by Cameo in advance in writing. You may sublicense your rights in a CAMEO Video only to the White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt besides I will buy this extent necessary for you to use the CAMEO Video as permitted under these Terms (for example, sharing it (if it is not a Business CAMEO Video) with friends on a social media platform or sending it to a Recipient for personal, non-commercial, and non-promotional purposes as set forth above).”
If Kimmel’s team did this to Emma Watson or Keanu Reeves, people wouldn’t be aggressively trying to side with Kimmel on their actions here. And if Tucker Carlson did this for his show, using a bunch of fake entities to conduct the White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt besides I will buy this transactions as well, would people not recognize it as deceptive and violating non-commercial use terms? I doubt that they run every segment by a lawyer, especially if its produced by Kimmels production team. Producers should be getting regular training on this stuff. Lord have mercy, what a complete moron. He’s reading them out exactly as they’re types regardless of the content. The clones dog one hahaha Jesus. Not entirely. Kevin Conroy did a bunch where he opens up with the Batman thing, says happy birthday or whatever the event is, and then just spits hot fire about life. I’ve also seen random ones of like reality game show contestants just spitballing after the initial greeting. You would think that the people writing this long article about a video would include the video they are writing about. I have no idea why journalist so that. It feels like Cameo should be the one suing. Not because Santos is a good guy, but to protect other celebrity clients from other TV shows doing the same thing. While Jimmy Kimmel would have a solid Fair Use argument, his team entered into a licensing agreement with Cameo and Santos in bad faith to produce original content that was explicitly for non-commercial use (i.e., never meant to air). Kimmel’s producers possibly could have purchased a commercial use license with the right to air the Cameo content, but almost certainly didn’t, because that would have flagged to Santos that his words would be broadcast for everyone to see.
It’s almost like how some beginner film students will ask if there’s a way to get a celebrity in their film by having them appear on a phone via Cameo. The app (and the White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt besides I will buy this rights from its license agreement) is not meant for that and such a use would be handled differently. The thing is that his show is almost certainly the biggest one on ABC. It’s hard to imagine their team of lawyers don’t heavily vet every episode. I’m sure they have an out that we’re not aware of. They’d have to be aware of it first. You’d need to have someone in the chain of responsibility to think of this before it air’d. You’re giving people too much credit. They aren’t blowing hundreds of thousands or more per episode to have a team of experts vet every minute detail of every show. Of course they have a legal department to look out for major liabilities, but you can’t feasibly catch everything.
If this wasn’t Santos I think most people would acknowledge that this doesn’t look favorable for Kimmel at all. They used Cameos in a non-personal manner to make content that creates revenue. I am going to sue Santos for just being a complete and utter moron. I am sure both of these lawsuits will have similar results ooooh…now I get it. I had seen this story under other headlines but I thought it was just generic vids that he posted on his account. From one POV that actually makes it funnier because I despise this POS but on the White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt besides I will buy this other hand , it IS a kinda dick move on Kimmel’s part. Curious to see how this plays out. If Santos actually had pricing on his page for commercial or broadcast use, this could get interesting. If it just never dawned in his brain that someone could request a video and then share it with the entire fooking world – omg even funnier, but if it happened to me I would be pissed. It looks like Santos might win. Cameo terms section 8.a sounds like Santos legally owns the videos that are licensed to the Recipient; and section 2.d says the license granted is revocable. Late Night might have a footing if they could argue Fair Use, but fair use sounds impractical on a 30 second video, unless Late Night is using less than a sentence of content.
If the White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt besides I will buy this victim was almost anyone but Santos, everyone would recognize that this case has legs and Kimmel’s commercial use was outside of Cameo’s license terms. Their teams also conducted the 14 transactions using fake names to further deceive their intent for commercial use and planned ridicule. I really hope Kimmel doesn’t settle out of court.This idiot just doesn’t know when to walk away. If he knowingly did the videos for Kimmel he’s going to lose. If Kimmel purchased/paid for the rights to any video, well Dumb Dumb Santos is going to lose. Plus his track record is not good as he has shown that he’s a liar. Consider arranging to hire an attorney who is knowledgeable about SLAPP law. In addition to getting the case dismissed, you may want to consider going on the offensive.
More about this White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt
Be the first to review “White Chicks hold my poodle ugly Christmas shirt”
You must be logged in to post a review.
- Length from the highest point of the collar to the bottom hem.
- Chest straight across, armpit to armpit, with the shirt laid flat.
- Sleeve from the center back of the collar to the cuff.
| Size | Length | Chest |
|---|---|---|
| S | 2871 | 1846 |
| M | 2974 | 2051 |
| L | 3076 | 2256 |
| XL | 3179 | 2461 |
| 2XL | 3281 | 2666 |
| 3XL | 3384 | 2871 |
| 4XL | 3486 | 3076 |
| 5XL | 3589 | 3281 |
| Size | Length | Chest |
|---|---|---|
| S | 2564 | 1641 |
| M | 2666 | 1743 |
| L | 26.567 | 1846 |
| XL | 2769 | 19.750 |
| 2XL | 27.971 | 21.655 |
| 3XL | 28.572 | 22.758 |
| Size | Length | Chest |
|---|---|---|
| S | 2871 | 1846 |
| M | 2974 | 2051 |
| L | 3076 | 2256 |
| XL | 3179 | 2461 |
| 2XL | 3281 | 2666 |
| 3XL | 3384 | 2871 |
| Size | Length | Chest | Sleeve |
|---|---|---|---|
| S | 2666 | 2051 | 33.585 |
| M | 2769 | 2256 | 34.588 |
| L | 2871 | 2461 | 35.590 |
| XL | 2974 | 2666 | 36.593 |
| 2XL | 3076 | 2871 | 37.595 |
| 3XL | 3179 | 3076 | 38.598 |
| 4XL | 3281 | 3281 | 38.598 |
| 5XL | 3486 | 3384 | 38.598 |
| Size | Length | Chest | Sleeve |
|---|---|---|---|
| S | 2769 | 2051 | 34.588 |
| M | 2871 | 2256 | 35.590 |
| L | 2974 | 2461 | 36.593 |
| XL | 3076 | 2666 | 37.595 |
| 2XL | 3179 | 2871 | 38.598 |
| 3XL | 3281 | 3076 | 3999 |
| 4XL | 3384 | 3281 | 39.5100 |
| 5XL | 3486 | 3486 | 40102 |
| Size | Length | Chest | Sleeve |
|---|---|---|---|
| S | 2871 | 1846 | 33.585 |
| M | 2974 | 2051 | 3589 |
| L | 3076 | 2358 | 36.593 |
| XL | 3179 | 2461 | 3897 |
| 2XL | 3281 | 2666 | 39.5100 |
| 3XL | 3384 | 2871 | 39.5100 |
| Size | Length | Chest |
|---|---|---|
| S | 2769 | 1846 |
| M | 2871 | 2051 |
| L | 2974 | 2256 |
| XL | 3076 | 2461 |
| 2XL | 3179 | 2666 |
| Size | Youth size | Length | Chest |
|---|---|---|---|
| S | 6-8 | 20.552 | 1641 |
| M | 10-12 | 2256 | 1743 |
| L | 14-16 | 23.560 | 1846 |
| XL | 18-20 | 2564 | 1948 |
| Size | Youth size | Length | Chest |
|---|---|---|---|
| S | 6-8 | 2153 | 1743 |
| M | 10-12 | 22.557 | 1846 |
| L | 14-16 | 2461 | 1948 |
| XL | 18-20 | 25.565 | 2051 |
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.