cellarlabels.com

[ashdigger]

Nope, I stole it, but I'm aware I stole.

 

[warren]

Situational ethics suck.
Ah, Anthony, if you'd only know your arse could be used to make a buck, safely with no human contact at all. :rofl:

 

[danielplainview]

 

[jpmcwjr]

Back to the labels, then.
Very poor resolution images. What's up with that?

 

[jvnshr]

Ah, Anthony, if you'd only know your arse could be used to make a buck, safely with no human contact at all.

I sit on an office chair and make money. Does that count?

 

[anthonyrosenthal74]

I sit on an office chair and make money. Does that count?

Sure. At the cost of hemorrhoids :rofl:

 

[raevans]

Some things that don't matter just don't f*@king matter

It doesn't matter until some enterprising scumbag decides to take a bunch of smokers pride and relabel it as SG Full VA Flake and starts selling it. Then it's going to matter quite a bit. From a business stand point, a company is not going to care about someone just making their cellar look nice, however they are going to be concerned with any potential quality and image issue that may adversely effect their business.

 

[admin]

I'm leaving this here for now.
However, I suspect that the copyright and trademark owners would likely not appreciate their works being appropriated.
Making money off of it or not doesn't matter.

 

[mikethompson]

I sit on an office chair and make money. Does that count?

They just pay you to sit? :wink:

 

[pipehunter]

Seems like a pretty borderline case to me.
Presumably, the people using these are the tobacco company's customers. It would probably be easier to deny any knowledge of this (seemingly, to me) harmless enterprise than issue cease and desist letter. They could also just provide a print-ready graphic on their website, which people could print out and affix to their jars. Hardly worth the effort financially, but it would also cost very little and might generate a touch of goodwill.
If I read one of the above posts correctly, someone worried about this aiding counterfeiting in some way. I don't really think that's an issue. There are plenty of other easy ways to get the label graphics, probably at considerably higher resolution.

 

[jvnshr]

They just pay you to sit? :wink:

Well, I could sit on a couch at home and work from there, but they won't pay for that. I guess sitting on an office chair is the most important part of the reason why I am getting paid.

 

[blackadderlxx]

I once mooned someone taking photos of Downtown Fort Worth, Texas. I thought it would be funny, my friends thought it was funny. And then about a month later, I saw someone wearing a Tshirt that said "Ass Texas Ass I Wanna Be," with a picture of what was unmistakably my derriere on the front. I know it was my very pale lower cheeks because of the Marvin The Martian tattoo with his fingers held up in a peace sign on the left side, and a perfect copy of the same tattoo on the right giving the middle finger.... anyway, enough about my Warner Brothers tattoos.... So I asked the guy, "Hey man, where did you get that shirt?" And it turns out the photographer I mooned was selling them to tourists on a corner near the stock yards for thirty bucks a piece!!! Making money off my butt! My lefty and righty! My Marvin The Martian tattooed gluteus maximus!!! 8O Although offended he was making money off my end (giggles), I must say though, I applaud his entrepreneurship.

So you're famous! :rofl:

 

[jpmcwjr]

Why the crap resolution??

 

[warren]

Seems like a pretty borderline case to me.

There's no "borderline" or "gray area" in this case. It's black or white, right or wrong. If you don't have ownership/permission to use, of the product ... it's simply wrong. All the fumbling with "free" and how the images are used "privately" by others ... just so many words, situational ethics! No different than watching "free" pirated movies or downloading music without paying the owners.

 

[pipehunter]

Actually, my reference to "borderline" was whether it was a case to be defended against, ignored, or supported by the owner of the property. It was not a claim regarding who owned the property and who did or did not have permission to use it. I thought I made that clear in the subsequent text but, after rereading it, I can see how you might have misunderstood.

 

[davet]

my reference to "borderline" was whether it was a case to be defended against, ignored, or supported by the owner of the property

Wouldn't that be up to the owners to decide? To print and use these is wrong but many might do this privately for their own use with the justification that it won't hurt anyone. To actually do this, set up a web site and then post on a site that pretty much guarantees one of the owners see it is.... funny :rofl: I'm not connected to any of these so I can see the humour, if I was an owner... not so much.

 

[pipehunter]

Warren, I gather from the posts I've read that you are a photographer (among many other things, I'm sure...not trying to define you). I am an author. So I'm sure both of us have strong feelings about intellectual property, permission and piracy.
That said, if it were possible to translate the cellar-labels issue into my own sphere, it would look something like this. Somebody wants to copy a page from my book to put on their wall. Well, when they bought my book it was to read, not to reproduce it. But I don't really care. It's fine. Then someone finds out that people like to put quotes from my work on the wall. They offer a website where these quotes are reproduced and people can download and print them for free (and donate, should they so choose). To me, this is a borderline situation. I don't really care. It's not as if fans still don't buy the books (or pipe smokers, in the actual case, still don't buy the tobacco). The site lacks permission and may be doing something technically illegal. I don't necessarily share your black-or-white conviction that it is "wrong" although I happy to admit it is probably illegal.
My point was to say, it's not clear what I would do about it. No one is exploiting my work for commercial profit or damaging me (that I can see). In fact, it is people who like my work who are getting some benefit that doesn't cost me anything. From the tobacco companies' perspective, I imagine it would be similar. The only thing that would concern me would be whether ignoring it set some sort of precedent about not enforcing my rights.

 

[pipehunter]

Wouldn't that be up to the owners to decide?

Exactly. They or their attorneys can address the situation in any way they see fit. That was my point.

 

[3rdguy]

Who else here is famous besides Anthony?

 

[davet]

Seems like a pretty borderline case to me.

Seems like a pretty borderline case if it was me
I fixed it for you :mrgreen: