OT: I Love Guns & Coffee T-Shirts

[jbone]

imported post

Poosharker wrote:

The source, I got no issue with you. But wikipedia cannot be trusted, yes, some of the info is true...but there are morons who put dumb stuff on there.

No issue with me! nice to hear.

May I also make a suggestion, on a first reply the YELLING (capital letters) and the accusation I can't be trusted is a bit much in the drama department.Just a simpleexplanation of why wiki should be avioded would have make far more sense.

 

[OrangeIsTrouble]

imported post

Maybe you should lower your speaker volume then eh?

I have taken too many english/literature courses and now on a business communication course and would never even think about citing from wiki....oh the hell I would face from my instructor...

 

[END_THE_FED]

imported post

Poosharker wrote:

Maybe you should lower your speaker volume then eh?

I have taken too many english/literature courses and now on a business communication course and would never even think about citing from wiki....oh the hell I would face from my instructor...

yeah Wikipedia is pretty awful. Anything you see should be checked and rechecked.
Im not sure if this is still the case but I remember once looking at its page on the federal AWB and it had a picture of the original tech-9, the caption said it was a picture of the after ban version (AB-10 I think it was called). also the article was filled with many other errors.
It is not a very reliable source. The only thing that is usually accurate is the exact text of laws and those can easily be found elsewhere.

 

[crstrode]

imported post

These shirts are GREAT!

If Flanders007 has any left, I'm gonna get one

I hope he gets my PM before they sell out!

Carl

 

[amzbrady]

imported post

Poosharker wrote:

Maybe you should lower your speaker volume then eh?

I have taken too many english/literature courses and now on a business communication course and would never even think about citing from wiki....oh the hell I would face from my instructor...

Poosharker is not in Wikipedia...

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

Your shirts look great! I don't know how I missed this thread.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Son_of_Perdition wrote:

I like em but... how is this not copyright infringement :uhoh:

People are so cowed by the fictitious concept of "copyright" that they fail to see where even our illogical system is on the side of common sense!

Google "fair use".

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Son_of_Perdition wrote:

Starbucks WILL go after Logo infringement. Even if you are in the right.

No they won't, because they employ real lawyers, not internet-armchair IP-apologists.

Now, with all that said, although this is perfectly legal and within your rights, I would suggest it's not very nice.

Starbucks has chosen to respect us when they have the right to choose otherwise, and they have asked in return that we don't put them in the center of this issue.

Complying with that request would mean not selling these shirts, even though Starbucks won't be able to use the coercive power of the government to force that result.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Son_of_Perdition wrote:

I like em but... how is this not copyright infringement :uhoh:

People are so cowed by the fictitious concept of "copyright" that they fail to see where even our illogical system is on the side of common sense!

Google "fair use".

I am not sure that word means what you think it means.

This is not a case of fair use. There is no parody, commentary, or critisism involved. These shirtsseem to be moreof political activism in nature than anything under fair use.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

joeroket wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Son_of_Perdition wrote:

I like em but... how is this not copyright infringement :uhoh:

People are so cowed by the fictitious concept of "copyright" that they fail to see where even our illogical system is on the side of common sense!

Google "fair use".

I am not sure that word means what you think it means.

This is not a case of fair use. There is no parody, commentary, or critisism involved. These shirts seem to be more of political activism in nature than anything under fair use.

Well, my first consideration was trademark violation. But, I don't think Starbucks would have a claim here, since coffee isn't being sold, and any shirts Starbucks might sell are sold for their authentic logo, which has been significantly changed (it might be considered too close if it were used to compete with Starbucks' selling coffee, but I don't see how this shirt could compete with genuine Starbucks shirts).

So, that leaves a copyright claim for the artwork itself. One can certainly sell and profit from art which is "transformative" of a prior piece of art, in several different ways. I think the one which is relevant here is "comment".

Consider the relevant text of the DMCA:

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

OK, so the Brady Bunch first used their "? Guns & Coffee ?" logo in a clearly transformative fashion, to say something new with the art, in this case to make a specific and relevant political comment which the original art work clearly did not make. Furthermore, this "criticism" is directly aimed at Starbucks (what is represented by the original art), and not some other target, so although it makes a new statement with the art, it makes that statement in regard to the original subject matter of the original art.

So, this is clearly fair use. "Criticism".

Now, in the same legitimate venue (political criticism), this shirt challenges that statement by making an opposite one.

I believe that is a form of "comment" or "criticism".

As for it's political nature, you are of course fully aware without my informing you that "political commentary" and "political criticism" are indeed forms of "comment" and "criticism" which are implicitly and explicitly protected "fair use" under the DMCA.

So, yes, I think it means exactly what I think it means.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

That is a very interesting approach to it and I see where you are coming from but will have to agree to disagree as I still do not see it as political criticism as used on the t-shirt. I see it as political activism which is completely different.

This certainly would not be the first time I am wrong if it is the case as you view it.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Indeed. I am no more a lawyer than you are, so my opinion is just that.

 

[McX]

imported post

if your into t-shirts, you need to head over to wisconsincarry, and get you one of our coveted before the rest of us order them out of stock.

 

[Bersa.380]

imported post

Lets turn this around for a second ..........

Lets say the Brady Bunch made t-shirts that looked like these but said: "I love my coffee without Guns"

What would you and the media be saying ?

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

The original 'Guns and Coffee' modified Starbucks logo was created by the Brady Campaign! The posted it on their website! Of course they didn't market it or try to sell anything. 5 years from now when you see someone wear this shirt you will go, 'damn, I should of bought one!'

 

[Son_of_Perdition]

imported post

Ok. I concede to the fact that the shirt can be lawful do to fair use, or satire, or political whatever. This however can open up the maker to litigation from the Corporate Lawyers that get paid for billable hours. The beauty of America, and the fact we have more Lawyers per capita is due to that if one party has a grievance with another party, justified or not, said party can file a claim against the other for presumed damages. The lawyers don’t care about you or the fact that you are in the right. What they care about is crushing people or parties that can’t afford to fight them. They care about giving their Billion dollar clients a big fatty bill for squelching you. And the Billion dollar corporate giant gets to enjoy the fact that little old you can’t embarrass them publicly with your “Legal” product. You do have recourse though. You can sell your house, cash out your 401k, and work your entire life to pay off a legal bill proving you’re in the RIGHT. So, take that Corporate giant. I'm JUSTIFIED! [/i]

I am not looking to fight you. Or make an enemy of you. I was just wondering if you were aware of the fire you are playing with.

Nothing but love, my OC brother.

 

[OrangeIsTrouble]

imported post

Now that you put it that way, I guess all of us lower income people should just STFU and not do anything, because we cannot afford to back it up, even if we are right.

The only situation where we could do something, is if one is a giant corporate also, with disposable money!

So to all you poor freakers out there, STFU and move along.

Edited to add: I, however, do not go to starbux, and will not go, regardless of stand on guns, because they have shut down locations here, and moved customer service jobs overseas. I can't even understand my fellow asians trying to speak english, forget about trying to understand them on the phone. Not that I might ever call CS, but the fact they gave those jobs to another country is....BEEF.

:banghead:

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

Poosharker wrote:

Now that you put it that way, I guess all of us lower income people should just STFU and not do anything, because we cannot afford to back it up, even if we are right.

The only situation where we could do something, is if one is a giant corporate also, with disposable money!

So to all you poor freakers out there, STFU and move along.

Edited to add: I, however, do not go to starbux, and will not go, regardless of stand on guns, because they have shut down locations here, and moved customer service jobs overseas. I can't even understand my fellow asians trying to speak english, forget about trying to understand them on the phone. Not that I might ever call CS, but the fact they gave those jobs to another country is....BEEF.

:banghead:

Poo...

Why do you call overseas to get coffee? Why do you call overseas to get 'BEEF?'

And the bikini baristas are better anyway......talk about OC!

 

[Son_of_Perdition]

imported post

So full of hate, you are?

I'm not telling anyone to STFU. However, I am saying that poking a stick at a company as big as Starbucks might give a person a big problem to deal with. Please read the link I added. People get in trouble for “Trademark dilution”. I copied a part of the article below.

http://seattletrademarklawyer.com/blog/2007/9/24/seattle-post-intelligencer-reports-on-starbucks-logo-parody.html

Given these authorities,Kerusso’s use of Starbucks’ mark appears mainly to get attention. It does not mock Starbucks or offer anycommenton the company the mark represents;it merely makes use of the company’s familar trademark. Therefore, it probably is infringing (and dilutive) use.

Acloser caseoccurred a few years ago when artist Kieron Dwyer sold T-shirts with a logo that replaced “Starbucks Coffee” with “Consumer Whore,” addeddollar signs, and gave themermaid a cell phone. That adaptation wouldseem to offerplenty of commentary about Starbucks. The Northern District of California, however,begged to differand imposed a preliminary injunction against Mr. Dwyer. The case later settled.

Starbucks should be onsolid ground to obtain similar relief against Kerusso.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Poosharker wrote:

Edited to add: I, however, do not go to starbux, and will not go, regardless of stand on guns, because they have shut down locations here, and moved customer service jobs overseas. I can't even understand my fellow asians trying to speak english, forget about trying to understand them on the phone. Not that I might ever call CS, but the fact they gave those jobs to another country is....BEEF.

:quirky

Oh noes, they hire Indians to do CS, so I boycott, ensuring their many more American employees are not supported by my patronage, thus placing their jobs at risk especially when they are already shutting down "many locations [there]".

Way to shoot off your nose to spite your face.

People thinking they know better than a legitimate market always creates hilarious incentives with strange side-effects.