My favorite clip from my next Documentary!!!

Short Clip from the Documentary, The Beautiful Lies”.


Short Clip from my Documentary, The Beautiful Lies”. Release date around Sept or Nov 2014. The film is finally in the finishing stages. God bless you J!

Short Clip from the Film, “The Beautiful Lies” Release Date November 2014!

“The Beautiful Lies” is a documentary that shines a revealing light on the cosmetic and beauty industry. It showcases the passion of entrepreneurs in this business and brings transparency to product perception, health hazards, organic vs. natural ingredients, and cosmetic mislabeling. While it highlights the professionals who have achieved success through innovation, ambition, and perseverance, it also recognizes that this business is dominated by manufacturer greed and control and…

Jotovi Designs exposes “The Beautiful Lies.”


What Quality King Distributors Does is Perfectly Legal!


What quality King does is legal they sell beauty products to the consumer, although I will meet individuals in my industry who work and represent large manufacturers and they will say, “Quality King is one of the biggest diverters in the United States”. That comment I quote directly from Bill Peplow who in my first film, The Real Hair Truth describes how these company’s will “So-Call Divert” there professional products. Which in all reality what Quality King does is totally legal. If I buy a jar of your “Jam or Jelly” I can legally resale the product anywhere and for any price. But the major manufacturers in my so called professional industry will get upset because they are not getting there “EXTRA” bit of the resale. They will claim it is copyright infringement, or they will call it “Gray, black market, reproduced product. Why?  To keep the consumer from purchasing the product from the retail outlets i.e., Target, Costco, etc. They want you the consumer to buy it at , the salons, or beauty outlets.  Also in reality they are selling the product to these chain outlets and saying it is diverted from the beauty industry salons. Basically they cannot blame ‘Quality King for the sales because it is legal. So they will blame the so called professional beauty industry salons for the diverted product they sell to the chains. If Quality King can make a killing off of selling and reselling these professionals bottles of soap, well the manufacturers will also get into the deal and sell it on there own. Its all about money, money, money. They claim to have loyalty to you as a professional but that is a ploy to camouflage there endeavors and get you to believe they are for you. In the whole circle of it, they will blame you to cover there greed and lack of loyalty to you!. Follow the money everyone, that’s THE REAL HAIR TRUTH. Read the law below on first-sale doctrine this will enlighten you!  Also I would like to mention the interview with BILL PEPLOW was recorded with his permission and several phone calls were made to me from PEPLOW asking and informing me not to keep it in the first documentary, The Real Hair Truth. I was informed Paul Mitchell’s attorneys would be giving me legal problems. But in regard to honesty and truth we have placed it in my next film The Beautiful Lies!

thrtlog excellent

Quality King Distributors has grown from a small shop in Queens, New York to a large distributor of pharmaceuticals and health and beauty care products. The company re-imports exported U.S.-branded over-the-counter pharmaceuticals and personal care products and sells them at deep discounts. Clients include drugstore and supermarket chains, grocery distributors, wholesale clubs and mass-merchant discounters. Glenn Nussdorf and his wife started Quality King in 1961, and the Nussdorf family still owns the company.

  • Industry: Health Care Equipment & Svcs
  • Founded: 1961
  • Country: United States
  • CEO: Glenn Nussdorf
  • CFO: Michael Katz
  • Website:
  • Employees: 900 e
  • Fiscal Year End: Oct 31, 2013
  • Sales: $3.2 B e
  • Headquarters: Ronkonkoma, NY

The first-sale doctrine plays an important role in U.S. copyright and trademark law by limiting certain rights of a copyright or trademark owner. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, giving, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works (for example, enabling individuals to sell their legally purchased books or CDs to others). In trademark law, this same doctrine enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder put the products on the market. The doctrine is also referred to as the “right of first sale,” “first sale rule,” or “exhaustion rule.”

Copyright law grants a copyright owner an exclusive right “to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.” 17 U.S.C. 106(3). This is called “distribution right” and differs from the copyright owner’s “reproduction right” which involves making copies of the copyrighted works. Rather than the right to copy, the distribution right involves the right to transfer physical copies or phonorecords (i.e., recorded music) of the copyrighted work. For example, the distribution right could be infringed when a retailer acquires and sells to public unlawfully made audio or video tapes. Although the retailer may not have copied the work in any way and may not have known that the tapes were made unlawfully, he nevertheless infringes the distribution right by the sale. The distribution right allows the copyright owner to seek redress from any member in the chain of distribution.

The first-sale doctrine creates a basic exception to the copyright holder’s distribution right. Once the work is lawfully sold or even transferred gratuitously, the copyright owner’s interest in the material object in which the copyrighted work is embodied is exhausted. The owner of the material object can then dispose of it as he sees fit. Thus, one who buys a copy of a book is entitled to resell it, rent it, give it away, or destroy it. However, the owner of the copy of the book will not be able to make new copies of the book because the first-sale doctrine does not limit copyright owner’s reproduction right. The rationale of the doctrine is to prevent the copyright owner from restraining the free alienability of goods. Without the doctrine, a possessor of a copy of a copyrighted work would have to negotiate with the copyright owner every time he wished to dispose of his copy. After the initial transfer of ownership of a legal copy of a copyrighted work, the first-sale doctrine exhausts copyright holder’s right to control how ownership of that copy can be disposed of. For this reason, this doctrine is also referred to as “exhaustion rule.”

The doctrine was first recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. In the Bobbs-Merrill case, the publisher, Bobbs-Merrill, had inserted a notice in its books that any retail sale at a price under $1.00 would constitute an infringement of its copyright. The defendants, who owned Macy’s department store, disregarded the notice and sold the books at a lower price without Bobbs-Merrill’s consent. The Supreme Court held that the exclusive statutory right to “vend” applied only to the first sale of the copyrighted work.

Section 109(a) provides: “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.” The elements of the first sale doctrine can be summarized as follows: (1) the copy was lawfully made with the authorization of the copyright owner; (2) ownership of the copy was initially transferred under the copyright owner’s authority; (3) the defendant is a lawful owner of the copy in question; and (4) the defendant’s use implicates the distribution right only; not the reproduction or some other right given to the copyright owner.

Application to public display right

17 U.S.C. §109(c) creates a limited exception to a copyright owner’s public display right. Owner of a lawful copy of a copyrighted work can, without permission from the copyright owner, display that copy to viewers present at the place where the copy is located. For example, an owner of copy of a computer program (and only a computer program under §109(c)) cannot display the copy publicly on a website under this provision.[citation needed]

An amicus brief in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. argued that Section 109 was a key provision for US art museums:

Most U.S. art museums have permanent collections that were acquired through purchases, gifts, and bequests, and on which they draw for exhibitions to the public. Museums also present special exhibitions, largely made up of works not in their collections, through loans from private collectors, galleries, and other institutions. For all these activities museums depend on the protections afforded by Section 109. Section 109(c) provides that the owner of a particular copy “lawfully made under this title” is entitled to display that copy publicly without the copyright owner’s permission. Section 109(a) similarly allows museums to buy, borrow, loan, and sell such “lawfully made” artworks.[1]



Thank You Brazil!

realhairtruth.comWe are delighted to hear that Brazil has taken a huge leap towards ending cosmetics tests on animals by voting to pass legislation last week which will end the use of animals for most cosmetics tests, omitting those that are for “ingredients with unknown effects” – as well as the sale of newly animal-tested products. The move follows the announcement by the state of Sao Paolo in January that it was to end animal cosmetics tests and is the result of efforts by a number of groups in the region. We hope that the loopholes in the proposed law can be closed to ensure that the suffering of animals for cosmetics can end. Cosmetics companies need to stop putting “crap” in their products that needs to be tested. Save the humans as well as the animals. And that’s the Real Hair Truth!

No More Cocamide DEA


Colgate–Palmolive & Lush join two dozen cosmetics manufacturers and retailers to stop the use of the chemical cocamide DEA from shampoos and other personal care products. 

You can clean your hair with just about anything.   But if you want a rich creamy foam to make it an enjoyable experience, there is one ingredient that you really must have.  Any good formulator will tell you that for a decent shampoo you really need to have a fair slug of cocamide DEA in it.  Nothing quite matches the performance this surfactant gives.   Consequently it has been one of the major ingredients in mass market and specialist shampoos and washes for years.

It came under a cloud in the nineties following suggestions that some impurities in it could, under the right circumstances react with other chemicals to form nitrosamines, some of which are carcinogenic.  Given that nitrosamines are all over the place from plenty of other sources, worrying about them in cosmetics seemed a bit precious.  For example they are created by the lightning in thunderstorms.  They are also commonly found in  food such as cured meat and whole meal peanut butter.  But nonetheless the EU cosmetic regulations were duly amended to limit the impurities and to forbid the use of Cocamide DEA with the ingredients it might react with. So belt and braces there.

And that you would have thought was the end of it.  A highly theoretical risk was identified and responded to with a heavy handed and probably unnecessary regulation.

No such luck.  With an actual link, albeit a highly tenuous one, between a cosmetic ingredient and an actual carcinogen it was only a matter of time before scaremongers got hold of it.  Cocamide DEA has been added to the list of chemicals that should be avoided by all the usual organization’s, websites  and manufacturers of high margin green products who trade on this kind of thing.

The latest wheeze is to threaten companies using this completely safe and legal material with court action.  Given that a court hearing would be bad publicity for the companies involved whatever the outcome, you can see why they caved in.

It is a shame, especially as the groups behind this kind of campaign have negligible levels of public support.  They would have little chance of using consumer pressure to force mass market brands to switch to inferior ingredients directly.  This is presumably why they have switched to litigation.

Read More: A cosmetic scientist’s beauty science blog where he shares his news and views on beauty products and the science behind them