| |
Celeb News: 5H Trademark hasn't included Camila since May 2016
Member Since: 6/28/2009
Posts: 5,816
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dominiqtrix
This also explains why 5H barely had any publicity deals in 2016, which is really odd considering it's the year they finally had their huge hit with WFH.
In 2014, 2015 they were barely known but already had a lot going on with their image, from commercials with Clean & Clear, to clothing lines with Wet Seal, they were the new faces of Candies, had 5H Barbie dolls, a clothing line sold at Kohls, etc. Surely whatever deal they had with Syco (who owned their brand at that point) made each and all of them get their equal coins for those.
Then this year when they're having a huge hit they were reduced to promoting irrelevant products on social media, like Sugar Factory and gummy bears for your hair. Worth noting Camila didn't promote any of those. Why? Bc they couldn't make huge deals anymore, they couldn't just go on tv or make a clothing line with 4 members while they publicly presented themselves as a 5 piece group. They had to be lowkey about it.
It's clear to me she was legally not a part of 5H's brand anymore since before May 2016. And I say legally bc you don't just go ahead with reclaiming ownership of a trademark in the name of 4 people if you have a 5th member that has the right to profit from the brand as much as the others. It was already pretty much decided by then that 5H belonged to Dinah, Lauren, Normani & Ally only, so clearly they knew MONTHS ago she was leaving bc why else would this separation already exist back then?
The way they worded those statements were really meant to vilify her. ATRL is a whole different world and they already decided they'll hate Camila no matter what, but I think for adults with common sense the pettiness of those statements didn't make them look that great. It lacked a modicum of decency. She fulfilled her contract with a manufactured group after 4 and a half years, she handled it professionally until their last commitment. Trying to get everyone to hate her was really low.
|
Oh wow the most logical post in this thread 
Poor Camilla, bullied and vilified by the four snakes. Bad Things will happen to them.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2012
Posts: 17,268
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Crabs
But even via billboard Epic been preparing her solo debut since whole last year?
I mean i'm really sorry but the way they worded their statment is really not professional IMO. They just manipulated fans to fights against each other.
Its 5H manager who shooted fired in the first place, camila replied what she said was consistent with billboard and now with this paper its all clear they've been knowing this since very long time.
Still, they feel the need to crucufy her in the statement and ignites a drama between fans.
|
The girls' contracts had them simultaneously signed as part of the group and as individual artists. Camila could have released that album while still in the group, or Epic could have held onto it until she left. Again, the fact that Camila was personally determined to leave the group and Epic was backing that doesn't mean her exit was already a done deal back in May. She could have changed her mind between May and November, which is what the other girls tried to get her to do.
Again, I'm not going to argue over what you think the wording of the statement shows because that's ultimately a matter of opinion, and I'm not going to tell you your opinion is wrong. If that's how it came across to you personally, I'm not in a position to tell you that it didn't. I personally didn't read it as a vilification attempt, and I think that calling it so is just a convenient way of dodging what it actually says because it exposes Camila as not being a cute innocent victim - but again, that's my opinion. I won't try to convince you of it. However, what I WILL do is call out people who are making incorrect statements of fact, such as claiming the girls are lying.
As a side note: I hope you guys realize that if they WERE lying, Camila would have an extremely strong argument to win a defamation lawsuit. There's no way in hell they would lie in those statements and risk that massive legal and publicity mess. So even if you don't believe they wouldn't lie from a moral standpoint, it's obvious they didn't lie from a business standpoint.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 4,932
|
Quote:
Originally posted by talitaldc
"We have been informed" comes off as present tense, they could've easily worded it in other ways that made it clear it wasn't an overnight thing.
|
"We have been informed" is not present tense. And how would you have worded it? "We were informed", "we had been informed", "a month ago we were informed.." all sound very clunky as the opening sentence of a statement about a member leaving a group. At the very most it was an ambiguously worded sentence (although I don't even find it ambiguous at all) but to say that they were deliberately trying to mislead people is a baseless reach. If it so obviously implies that she only told them the same night, then why did Camila feel the need to add in a "just" when she tried to make them seem like liars? 
Quote:
|
the clarification came a whooping 24 hours after the initial statement, after the hype had died down and the general public's first impression was set.
|
And? There was actually a significantly bigger gap between 5H's initial statement and Camila's reply than there was between Camila's reply and 5H's second statement, so it's not like they were deliberately waiting a long time?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/1/2011
Posts: 3,526
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Crabs
But even via billboard Epic been preparing her solo debut since whole last year?
I mean i'm really sorry but the way they worded their statment is really not professional IMO. They just manipulated fans to fights against each other.
Its 5H manager who shooted fired in the first place, camila replied what she said was consistent with billboard and now with this paper its all clear they've been knowing this since very long time.
Still, they feel the need to crucufy her in the statement and ignites a drama between fans.
|
Since this picture.
The fans attacked camila on twitter because she wasn't on there, but no one of this 4 angels said nothing to help her.
Atrl user's said that they didn't posted the picture that was their management.
But for me that action was to manipulated fans to fights agains each other.
And it was a cruel intention to the audience hate her for first time.
Since then I expected the worst, the first statement even impressed me.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/2/2010
Posts: 17,951
|
This is the equivalent to Farrah Franklin leaving DC. Why the drama and essays?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 79
|
Quote:
Originally posted by 7/27
"We have been informed" is past participle, not present tense. And how would you have worded it? "We were informed", "we had been informed", "a month ago we were informed.." all sound very clunky as the opening sentence of a statement about a member leaving a group.
|
All of those were 100x times better and would've avoided all of the speculation behind the timing of her departure.
Quote:
Originally posted by 7/27
At the very most it was an ambiguously worded sentence (although I don't even find it ambiguous at all) but to say that they were deliberately trying to mislead people is a baseless reach. f it so obviously implies that she only told them the same night, then why did Camila feel the need to add in a "just" when she tried to make them seem like liars? |
You're saying my assumption that they worded it that way to make her look bad on purpose is a "baseless reach" because people can interpret it however they want and then you turn around and say Camila added the "just" to make them seem like liars, with about the same amount of proof I have for saying the same about them. Stay consistent at least.
Quote:
Originally posted by 7/27
And? There was actually a significantly bigger gap between 5H's initial statement and Camila's reply than there was between Camila's reply and 5H's second statement, so it's not like they were deliberately waiting a long time?
|
The last sentence makes no sense, you're gonna tell me it was completely coincidential that both statements were posted at midnight? When it would take longer for her to come up with a statement since she'd have to wait until the entire the next day and the people waking up would see 5H's statements first? Midnight isn't exactly the most active time of the day for social media but morning is. They deliberately set it up that way, you can't certainly think it was a coincidence.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/30/2011
Posts: 15,778
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dominiqtrix
This also explains why 5H barely had any publicity deals in 2016, which is really odd considering it's the year they finally had their huge hit with WFH.
In 2014, 2015 they were barely known but already had a lot going on with their image, from commercials with Clean & Clear, to clothing lines with Wet Seal, they were the new faces of Candies, had 5H Barbie dolls, a clothing line sold at Kohls, etc. Surely whatever deal they had with Syco (who owned their brand at that point) made each and all of them get their equal coins for those.
Then this year when they're having a huge hit they were reduced to promoting irrelevant products on social media, like Sugar Factory and gummy bears for your hair. Worth noting Camila didn't promote any of those. Why? Bc they couldn't make huge deals anymore, they couldn't just go on tv or make a clothing line with 4 members while they publicly presented themselves as a 5 piece group. They had to be lowkey about it.
It's clear to me she was legally not a part of 5H's brand anymore since before May 2016. And I say legally bc you don't just go ahead with reclaiming ownership of a trademark in the name of 4 people if you have a 5th member that has the right to profit from the brand as much as the others. It was already pretty much decided by then that 5H belonged to Dinah, Lauren, Normani & Ally only, so clearly they knew MONTHS ago she was leaving bc why else would this separation already exist back then?
The way they worded those statements were really meant to vilify her. ATRL is a whole different world and they already decided they'll hate Camila no matter what, but I think for adults with common sense the pettiness of those statements didn't make them look that great. It lacked a modicum of decency. She fulfilled her contract with a manufactured group after 4 and a half years, she handled it professionally until their last commitment. Trying to get everyone to hate her was really low.
|
This 100%. End thread
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 8,093
|
camila is fifth harmony
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/10/2009
Posts: 10,662
|
Quote:
Originally posted by HASHTAGPOW
camila is fifth harmony
|
Basically. And time will prove it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/13/2012
Posts: 3,393
|
Quote:
Originally posted by hOAng
Oh wow the most logical post in this thread
Poor Camilla, bullied and vilified by the four snakes. Bad Things will happen to them.
|
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally posted by 7/27
"We have been informed" is past participle, not present tense. And how would you have worded it? "We were informed", "we had been informed", "a month ago we were informed.." all sound very clunky as the opening sentence of a statement about a member leaving a group. At the very most it was an ambiguously worded sentence (although I don't even find it ambiguous at all) but to say that they were deliberately trying to mislead people is a baseless reach. If it so obviously implies that she only told them the same night, then why did Camila feel the need to add in a "just" when she tried to make them seem like liars? |
Honestly, I have no bias but they should have said "We had been informed" - Its the same amount of words as "We have been informed". HAD would've stressed the past tense more than the other. I seen many people that weren't even fans thinking she had just let them know that night. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 4,932
|
Quote:
Originally posted by talitaldc
All of those were 100x times better and would've avoided all of the speculation behind the timing of her departure.
|
They all sound super awkward and/or are grammatically incorrect though. 
Quote:
|
You're saying my assumption that they worded it that way to make her look bad on purpose is a "baseless reach" because people can interpret it however they want and then you turn around and say Camila added the "just" to make them seem like liars, with about the same amount of proof I have for saying the same about them. Stay consistent at least.
|
Why else would she add in the word "just" then?
Quote:
|
The last sentence makes no sense, you're gonna tell me it was completely coincidential that both statements were posted at midnight?
|
They weren't both posted at midnight, the second one was posted at 11:25 pm
Quote:
|
When it would take longer for her to come up with a statement since she'd have to wait until the entire the next day and the people waking up would see 5H's statements first? Midnight isn't exactly the most active time of the day for social media but morning is. They deliberately set it up that way, you can't certainly think it was a coincidence.
|
If this is true, then why did they post BOTH statements at midnight? If they only wanted the first one to be seen by the public, wouldn't they post the first one in the morning, then the second one at midnight? I can't tell if you're genuinely a Camila fan or just trolling. Even for Camilizers this is... just, another level of delusional.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/16/2012
Posts: 22
|
Quote:
|
The comment you claim I "spent my time in this thread" making was a comment I made ONCE. Almost all of my posts in this thread were not about the specifics of which lawyer represented whom, but how Camila not being on the trademark in May didn't mean she couldn't still later decide to be part of the group
|
In two different post you said this: "4H's lawyer made sure the four girls were added. Camila's lawyer didn't." "Dina LaPolt was always just the lawyer for the other 4 girls. It wasn't her responsibility to make sure that Camila was part of this registration." You've been wrongly spreading false information about how Dina only represented the other 4 girls as if it was individually and it wasn't her responsibility to represent Camila, but she represents the group Fifth Harmony (and 3 girls have individual lawyers, not just Camila) and that's the point you seem to be missing. If Camila was still in the group yes, it was her job to include her.
Quote:
|
Again, you and everybody else keep shouting "they LIED!!11!!!!1", but you all seem to go quiet when I and other people bring up the wording of the statement to prove they didn't. They did not say they exclusively found out in November. They said they were informed officially by her manager in November that she would be leaving in December. That doesn't contradict with them hearing Camila or her team telling them a few months before that Camila had general plans to leave down the road.
|
That doesn't make any sense!!! The wording of the statement was "In mid November we were informed via her manager that Camila was leaving the group". The whole point of this thread was to point out that since May, 5H as a brand, represented by Dina LaPolt, claimed ownership of their trademark, and in those documents Camila's name was never included. Why would they go as far as applying for a case that take months to complete if Camila could change her mind any minute? Most importantly, in what way do you think it makes sense for anyone to give up on their rights like Camila supposedly did when she spent months not allowed to profit from 5H's brand? Unless you think she's a saint it's obvious the decision of leaving 5H was legally made before this.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 79
|
Quote:
Originally posted by 7/27
They weren't both posted at midnight, the second one was posted at 11:25 pm
|
Yes, correct me by 35 minutes lol Point I made stands, it was posted late so it was the first thing people saw the next morning and so it'd take longer for her to answer
Quote:
Originally posted by 7/27
If this is true, then why did they post BOTH statements at midnight? If they only wanted the first one to be seen by the public, wouldn't they post the first one in the morning, then the second one at midnight? I can't tell if you're genuinely a Camila fan or just trolling. Even for Camilizers this is... just, another level of delusional.
|
Hype had already died down by then, which you can tell by the significantly less amount of RTs and likes. If they had wanted everyone to know they found out in November, they would've put that in the first statement. Period. No need for back and forth and it would've stopped Camila from having to clarify that she hadn't just told them, because even without the "just", people thought that and she had to make it clear.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/10/2009
Posts: 10,662
|
Quote:
Originally posted by 7/27
"We have been informed" is past participle, not present tense. And how would you have worded it? "We were informed", "we had been informed", "a month ago we were informed.." all sound very clunky as the opening sentence of a statement about a member leaving a group. At the very most it was an ambiguously worded sentence (although I don't even find it ambiguous at all) but to say that they were deliberately trying to mislead people is a baseless reach. If it so obviously implies that she only told them the same night, then why did Camila feel the need to add in a "just" when she tried to make them seem like liars?
And? There was actually a significantly bigger gap between 5H's initial statement and Camila's reply than there was between Camila's reply and 5H's second statement, so it's not like they were deliberately waiting a long time? |
Fail.
"We have been informed" is literally past, but implies a recent happening. Anyone who speaks English knows this. You would never say "we have been informed", with no further clarification, if referencing an event that occurred a year and a half ago 
How to word it? How about not mentioning that detail at all. It was petty and intended to make Camila look like a bitch. They could have easily said "after a YEAR of trying to work things out, we're sad to inform you Camila is leaving 5H". DONE. But that doesn't make her sound like a snake.
These girls knew exactly what they were doing it. Let's not keep going in circles
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/2/2014
Posts: 18,263
|
At least the remaining girls own the name now! We can get back to the big advertising deals now that Camila has officially left the group and there's nothing to hide anymore. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 4,932
|
Quote:
Originally posted by talitaldc
Yes, correct me by 35 minutes lol Point I made stands, it was posted late so it was the first thing people saw the next morning and so it'd take longer for her to answer
|
Both of them were posted late though, so your point is completely invalid
Quote:
|
Hype had already died down by then, which you can tell by the significantly less amount of RTs and likes.
|
Obviously hype would die down for a second statement as opposed to a first statement which initally announced the break up... it has nothing to do with the time it was posted, and was completely beyond their control.
Quote:
|
If they had wanted everyone to know they found out in November, they would've put that in the first statement. Period. No need for back and forth and it would've stopped Camila from having to clarify that she hadn't just told them, because even without the "just", people thought that and she had to make it clear.
|
The exact time that Camila's reps announced her departure isn't that relevant or interesting though? Not sure why you're blaming them for not including every last detail.
Quote:
Originally posted by inspiration4
Fail.
We have been informed is literally past, but implies a recent happening. Anyone who speaks English knows this. You would never say "we have been informed", with no further clarification, if referencing an event that occurred a year and a half ago |
I was wrong in saying it's the past participle (my memory of Year 9 grammar is pretty foggy ), it's actually the present perfect. But the present perfect does not imply a recent happening:
Quote:
|
The present perfect in English is used chiefly for completed past actions or events when it is understood that it is the present result of the events that is focused upon, rather than the moment of completion. No particular past time frame is specified for the action/event.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_perfect
Oh and the event was not a "year and a half ago", it was around a month prior to the statement
Quote:
|
How to word it? How about not mentioning that detail at all. It was petty and intended to make Camila look like a bitch. They could have easily said "after a YEAR of trying to work things out, we're dad to inform you Camila is leaving 5H". DONE. But that doesn't make her sound like a snake
|
So it's their fault for speaking the truth that Camila's reps informed them? And not Camila's fault for, you know, making her reps inform them instead of telling them herself? If you don't want to be called out on doing something, then you shouldn't do it in the first place...
Quote:
Originally posted by freakum.
Honestly, I have no bias but they should have said "We had been informed" - Its the same amount of words as "We have been informed". HAD would've stressed the past tense more than the other. I seen many people that weren't even fans thinking she had just let them know that night. |
"We had been informed" literally doesn't even make grammatical sense though:
Quote:
|
The PAST PERFECT TENSE indicates that an action was completed (finished or "perfected") at some point in the past before something else happened.
|
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMM...st_perfect.htm
There is no "before something else happened" in this context.
The fact that the best alternative you could come up with is literally grammatically incorrect shows how unlikely it is that the wording was deliberately chosen to mislead, and more likely it was genuinely the best option they could think of.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/10/2009
Posts: 10,662
|
^^^^^
Sorry, that Wikipedia entry is not taking Into account how the the phrase is actually used. It most certainly implies a recent happening when no other clarification is given.
And yes it's their fault for being petty and not professional. And they did not find out from Camila's rep a month earlier that she was leaving. That's when it became final, after knowing she was leaving for a god damn year and a half. But you would never know that from their wording, which was thier intention.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 79
|
Quote:
Originally posted by 7/27
Both of them were posted late though, so your point is completely invalid |
Both being posted late is EXACTLY my point so how do 35 minutes difference make it invalid?
Quote:
Originally posted by 7/27
The exact time that Camila's reps announced her departure isn't that relevant or interesting though? Not sure why you're blaming them for not including every last detail.
|
Yes it IS relevant since what caused the most controversy was that "it literally just happened like that and she couldn't even tell them in the face" and that made her an ugly backstabbing bitch when it's simply not the truth. Yes it is relevant, yes it would've diminished the hate towards her. So stop acting dumb, you know what they were trying to do by saying that.
Funny that you mention "every last detail" since they added the therapy sessions, the non-existent group meetings set up by the label, the "oh so special world" that she walked away from and that she was NOTHING (yes, capitalized) without Fifth Harmony.
The thing is, I'd get it if they had completely skip the part saying when she had left, as it could've been irrelevant. But that's not what happened, they gave a false date, which implies it was sudden and a surprise, which again, it wasn't. So they lied in order to make her look bad. Why is that so hard to understand?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 14,234
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Saintlor
Normani is a talentless hag
|
oh gurl... 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 79
|
Quote:
Originally posted by 7/27
So it's their fault for speaking the truth that Camila's reps informed them? And not Camila's fault for, you know, making her reps inform them instead of telling them herself? If you don't want to be called out on doing something, then you shouldn't do it in the first place... |
What's so wrong about that claim is that isn't a decision that is supposed to be made by Camila and her team only and they just go on to "announce it" to them. They have to sit down with lawyers and both parts agree that they're gonna continue their separate ways and sign some kind of agreement. So "informed via representatives" is not only a lie but also not possible, because it implies they had no say/knowledge before hand which is also disproven by, you know, Camila not being a part of 5H's brand or represented by the group's lawyer months prior to the announcement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
