cellarlabels.com
- Thread starter wolflarsen
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Personally, I think it would be great if some of the pipe tobacco blenders would offer a second sticker, or label not showing the FDA warning and including it along with the tins. The FDA warning label would still be on the tin containing the product so it shouldn't be an issue, I think. Then we could simply cover up the offending label with the new one. I would gladly pay an extra couple of dollars per tin which would probably more than pay for the extra cost. Then the retailers could also sell said labels as well... a package of three to 6 labels for instance, for your bulk jars. Put an FDA warning on the package itself just to appease the FDA if it's required. I'd buy them. I'm sure others would too. And it's another way for the tobacco company and the retailer to increase revenue.
"Personally, I think it would be great if some of the pipe tobacco blenders would offer a second sticker, or label not showing the FDA warning and including it along with the tins."
This is a great idea. I suggested this to the merchandising people at P&C back when the label changes were first being contemplated.
And to be clear, nobody has any interest in going after individuals for copying labels for their own use. On the contrary, we're really happy that folks think enough of our blends to cellar them.
This is a great idea. I suggested this to the merchandising people at P&C back when the label changes were first being contemplated.
And to be clear, nobody has any interest in going after individuals for copying labels for their own use. On the contrary, we're really happy that folks think enough of our blends to cellar them.
Anthony's suggestion is brilliant. A tiny increase in costs for the manufacturer with a good chance of a decent return. Personally I'd love to have a "pure" label to affix to my jars. Don't need them of course but, I'd buy a pack of three or five. I suspect many hoarding/cellar types would love 'em.
Another legal question:
Hum... This has me wondering. All my cellar jars have labels on them. I shoot a picture of the tin when I get it with my camera. Then I import that into a photo program where I turn it into a circle and resize to perfectly match my jar from 1/2 pint to 1/2 gallon size.
Since I took a picture of my property does the picture belong to me?
Hum... This has me wondering. All my cellar jars have labels on them. I shoot a picture of the tin when I get it with my camera. Then I import that into a photo program where I turn it into a circle and resize to perfectly match my jar from 1/2 pint to 1/2 gallon size.
Since I took a picture of my property does the picture belong to me?
If the "extra labels" could be printed without the effing warning print or graphics, I am all in. But the effing 'crats might get on that as defeating the purpose of their mandated labelling requirements. So, I don't expect we'll see that. Damn.
Sparty: I think you're on decent ground there. Not a lawyer, not a student of fair use. Just don't post the result on FB!
Sparty: I think you're on decent ground there. Not a lawyer, not a student of fair use. Just don't post the result on FB!
It's not defeating the purpose at all. The tins are sold with the FDA label as required. We buy the tins, we see the label, we see the FDA warning. We don't have to continue to see the FDA label once the product is within our home. The package the labels come in could have the FDA label if so required. But... a sticker is not in any way a "tobacco product." It's tin art, nothing more. Is the FDA going to force art museums to stick a warning label on any painting showing a pipe, cigar, or cigarette? Not likely.
I concur. And you're giving them ideas too! Weren't we discussing a few weeks ago how art (a statue) has already been 'edited' to remove tobacco references (a pipe)?
Then again, with plain packaging on the horizon, labels and tin art seem to be a moot point now.
I do something similar. Since I'm new to pipe tobacco, I erase the bottom half of the image where the warning is, and replace it with the style (English, Va/Per, etc), the manufacturer's description of the blend, and a list of the blend's components. Makes it a lot easier for me to select what I want each day.
Can't speak to the legality of capturing an image, but for me, what I do in the privacy of my own cellar is my business! (That might be the Texan coming out in me though.)
The only reason "Big Brother" has so much power over us, is because so many Americans have gotten so used to being told by "Big Brother" how we should live our lives, that we seem to have forgotten how to be Americans. "Oh Big Brother might not like that! We probably shouldn't even consider it!" 8O
If you take a photograph of work that is protected by copyright or trademark, then yes, you do own the photo. But you still do not own the protected work, nor do you have the right to use that photo of protected work in a manner that violates the rights holder’s claim. Personal use is commonly exempted.
If an end user photographs or copies a label for their own personal use, they're well within their rights as long as they don't distribute it.
As far as a second label goes, Mac Baren just did that. We have a promo going in which they include a retro Mixture Scottish label with the purchase of one of the new tins. They were printed in limited quantities and I believe that their intention was for them to be treated as a keepsake, not to relabel existing tins.
The cost of labels involves a number of factors - the amount of labels ordered, the use of foil or other special processes, the stock they're printed on, and more. All of the Hearth & Home Marquee labels include embossing of certain elements, which increases the cost.
For me, the bigger issue isn't necessarily what they did as much as the fact that they never asked permission. Some trademark/copyright holders might have been okay with the concept, but they never asked if it was okay. Your next door neighbor might let you borrow his lawnmower, but he probably would be pretty upset if you took it without asking.
Russ
As far as a second label goes, Mac Baren just did that. We have a promo going in which they include a retro Mixture Scottish label with the purchase of one of the new tins. They were printed in limited quantities and I believe that their intention was for them to be treated as a keepsake, not to relabel existing tins.
The cost of labels involves a number of factors - the amount of labels ordered, the use of foil or other special processes, the stock they're printed on, and more. All of the Hearth & Home Marquee labels include embossing of certain elements, which increases the cost.
For me, the bigger issue isn't necessarily what they did as much as the fact that they never asked permission. Some trademark/copyright holders might have been okay with the concept, but they never asked if it was okay. Your next door neighbor might let you borrow his lawnmower, but he probably would be pretty upset if you took it without asking.
Russ
Never mind, I found it. It was on this selfsame site, I thought I had seen them for sale on some online pipe shop or something.
- Status