Neil Armstrong wants hair back

[Chewbacca]

So a recap of some facts... The hair was sold to the guy with the biggest collection of famous people hair according to the guiness book of world records and Armstrong wants the hair back or the money donated, and legal fees recouped. Right?

well...
Perhaps Mr. Armstrong thinks a principle or two is involved. I know I would be upset if someone sold my hair without telling me.


Besides- How "signficant" could some dead person's hair ever be?- how in the hell does some one become inspired to collect hair from famous people in the first place??? Perhaps Armstrong thinks the hair collector is some sort of freak and would have wanted no part of it?

What evidence is there suggest Mr. Armstrong was profiteering himself? Does he need the money or something?


And I never knew that shops can sell hair without explicit permission. I'm gladder than ever I havent had a hair cut in 13 years.

[Cerek]

Why should shops need express permission to sell discarded hair? Has anyone here ever given ANY consideration at all to what the barber or stylist does with your hair after it has been cut off? Did you stop them as they were sweeping it up and say "Exactly what are you planning to do with my hair?"

I seriously doubt it. And I seriously doubt Neil Armstrong ever gave it a second thought either, until he learned the barber had sold this last batch he cut off.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Cerek: Why should shops need express permission to sell discarded hair? Has anyone here ever given ANY consideration at all to what the barber or stylist does with your hair after it has been cut off? Did you stop them as they were sweeping it up and say "Exactly what are you planning to do with my hair?" I seriously doubt it. And I seriously doubt Neil Armstrong ever gave it a second thought either, until he learned the barber had sold this last batch he cut off.

But that's completely irrelevant to this case; I don't think anyone would particularly care if one's hair gets collected to make a wig out of it or not, and I doubt Armstrong would have minded if it really happened the way you're describing here. But it's not selling someone's hair in itself that's the issue here, it's selling someone's hair and making a lot of extra money over it because you're taking advantage of that person's status as a celebrity.
As far as I'm concerned, Chewie's points still stand. But then again, you didn't really seem to address them, except for his final remark that was more of a rhetorical question than a point anyway.

[ 06-13-2005, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Cerek]

I didn't "address" Chewie's other points because I felt my previous comments made it fairly clear I disagreed with them. However, since you insist.....

Originally posted by Chewbacca: So a recap of some facts... The hair was sold to the guy with the biggest collection of famous people hair according to the guiness book of world records and Armstrong wants the hair back or the money donated, and legal fees recouped. Right? well... Perhaps Mr. Armstrong thinks a principle or two is involved. I know I would be upset if someone sold my hair without telling me.

As I mentioned before, if you have ever had your hair cut, then there is a good chance your hair was sold without you being told. And as I asked in my previous post, who among us has ever given ANY thought to what happens to the cut hair before now? If Neil Armstrong had not expressed concern with how his hair was "disposed of" after previous cuts, I honostly don't see that he has any reason to get upset now.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Besides- How "signficant" could some dead person's hair ever be?- how in the hell does some one become inspired to collect hair from famous people in the first place??? Perhaps Armstrong thinks the hair collector is some sort of freak and would have wanted no part of it?

How did this guy become inspired to collect celebrity hair? Who knows. Maybe he figured locks of hair from celebrities would be easier and cheaper to collect instead of other memoribilia. How "significant" could a dead person's hair ever be? Well it obviously has significance to the guy who is collecting it, but probably not to many other people. Which actually supports the point I've been making. To rephrase the question, "How significant is discarded hair to the person that had the haircut?" The answer in almost every case is "Not very much". So if the hair wasn't significant to the "owner", then I find it a bit hypocritical and petty that it suddenly becomes very significant when the owner learns that the discarded hair was sold for a tidy sum of money. Bottom line is that Neil Armstrong apparantly gave no thought to what happened to his discarded hair until he learned the barber had sold it for $3,000.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: What evidence is there suggest Mr. Armstrong was profiteering himself? Does he need the money or something?

Don't really know what you mean about the suggestion that Armstrong was profiteering himself. I did suggest that Armstrong seemed to be upset that the barber had gotten the money. And it wasn't an outrageous amount. It didn't make the barber rich or pay for a vacation, it just gave him some extra money to pay on some of his bills. Neil is demanding the money be contributed to charity and the barber be forced to pay for his legal fees. That is just petty of Armstrong IMHO. If he wants his charity to have $3,000, I would imagine he could afford to donate it himself. And there wouldn't BE any legal fees if Armstrong wasn't acting like a spoiled child (HE got something and it should have been MINE). I don't know Neil's financial situation, but I'm sure he could earn $3,000 for any speaking engagement he chose to make. However, this was a one-shot deal for the barber.

If Neil objects to the sale of his hair no a matter of principal, then he could have handled it a LOT better than filing a lawsuit and demanding that this working-class barber pay his legal fees in addition to the money recieved for his hair. He could have gone to the barber privately and expressed his objections and could have asked the barber man-to-man to pay the money to charity. But he didn't choose to handle it that way.

[Chewbacca]

Well, like I said, I haven't been to a haircut place in over a decade, so I have no basis of expirience to speculate upon. Do they post signs?

I would naturally assume they would throw the cut hair out as trash. Of course I personally would object to anyone taking my hair with or without my knowledge. This has more to do with personal beliefs than practical concerns.

Anyway, I think Armstrong is doing nothing wrong and is well within his rights to sue. Most celebrities sell part of :"Themselves" as a choice and under contract. I've seen it first hand- paying out cash to sports, tv, music, and movie personalities for personal mementos and autographs. It's a perk for being famous.

To take that perk, or any other, with out permission is equivalent to stealing. I think it is correct that Ohio has a law designed to punish profiteering off of unwitting celebrities.

[John D Harris]

He (Neil baby) didn't want his hair or he WOULD NOT have got it cut off, you only cut off hair you don't want anymore. He in essence discarded his hair, threw it away, and no longer should have any rights to it(the cut hair)

[Cerek]

Originally posted by John D Harris: He (Neil baby) didn't want his hair or he WOULD NOT have got it cut off, you only cut off hair you don't want anymore. He in essence discarded his hair, threw it away, and no longer should have any rights to it(the cut hair)

Thank you, John D. You just summed up in two sentences what I've been trying to say in all of my previous posts. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by mad=dog: I fear I repeat myself but, ... I simply don't understand why Armstrong chose to tackle the problem in this fashion. He had two options, he could go out saying "That is my hair! It belongs to me and I do not want you selling it. Cease immidiately or face legal consequences." or he could simply say "That is not my hair." The last is preferable as I see it. The barber has no way of authenticating the hair without Mr. Armstrong. By destroying the credibility he would prevent any sale.

not sure if it has been mentioned yet as I'm coming to this topic for the first time and responding as I see the posts, but Mr. Armstrong attempted to get the hair bought back, but the buyer wouldn't sell. As Timber mentioned Neil was upset about his hair being sold without his permission, if the barber knew someone was interested in his hair he should have simply asked him, Neil has every right to want his garbage to be discarded, Pritchke mentioned celebrities having extra rights, well they do have a few perks, but they also forfeit alot of their rights (ask the National Enquirer how they can get away with outright lies about celebs), but Mr Armstrong isn't capitalizing on many of the perks, and simply wants to be left alone. I certainly wouldn't want someone selling my DNA (which the gov't has on file due to my military service) without my permission, I wouldn't want to see my trash in someone's collection of stuff, unless they came to me (in which case I wouldn't care as it's not an invasion of privacy).

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: Well, usually I'd agree. But isn't the difference here that this is common practice in barber's shops? He went in there knowing that hair is collected and sold for wigs anyway so surely gives his tacit consent? The fact that his hair was sold as belonging to him personally doesn't strike me as being fundamentally different to what happens to any other customer, simply less anonymous.

Anonymity is exactly the difference though, if his hair had been sold anonymously for wigs he wouldn't have had a problem, but it went to a guy that specifically looks for celebrity hair samples, I don't know if the article mentioned the collector much but he has gone quite out of his way to get a very large collection, including Napoleon and IIRC Marilyn Monroe (the article I read through was on another forum that was discussing this topic).

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Cerek: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: He (Neil baby) didn't want his hair or he WOULD NOT have got it cut off, you only cut off hair you don't want anymore. He in essence discarded his hair, threw it away, and no longer should have any rights to it(the cut hair)

Thank you, John D. You just summed up in two sentences what I've been trying to say in all of my previous posts. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Why do I have the feeling that people just pat themselves on the back for making a 'true' statement about something that wasn't even under discussion? It has been pointed out on numerous occasions that collecting discarded hair itself isn't the issue here - it's the fact that it was sold for a much larger sum of money because a privacy law was being violated by marketing it specifically as being Neil Armstrong's hair. You're free to state that Armstrong is being petty about it, but there's a reason for these laws, and I happen to think that they are more than fair.
1. Collecting and selling discarded hair anonymously = fair, legal, decent source of income.
2. Marketing and selling hair by cashing in on a person's status of a celebrity without permission = violating the law.
So why does the debate keep falling back on 1, when we should be debating 2?

That said, I'm kind of creeped out that I finally agree with Morgeruat on something.

[ 06-18-2005, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]