Pipes Magazine » General Pipe Smoking Discussion

Search Forums  
   
Tags:  No tags yet. 
[closed]

cellarlabels.com

(183 posts)
  • Started 5 months ago by wolflarsen
  • Latest reply from jvnshr
  1. wolflarsen

    wolflarsen

    Member
    Joined: Jul 2018
    Posts: 226

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    cellarlabels.com

    Do any of you use these?
    As someone who really enjoys tin art I look forward to seeing these on jars in my stash. They will certainly be quite an improvement over my sharpie chicken scratch on blue masking tape.
    Here's a few examples.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  2. redglow

    redglow

    Senior Member
    Joined: Jan 2019
    Posts: 1,132

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I’ll have to look into them. Definitely need some better labeling.

    And I do love the artwork on the tins.

    Wish they had some Nightcap

    Posted 5 months ago #
  3. woodsroad

    woodsroad

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 8,497

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Can you say “Infringement”?

    Posted 5 months ago #
  4. ashdigger

    ashdigger

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jul 2016
    Posts: 5,241

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Infringement leads to impingement which results cease and desist-ment

    Ubi Ignis Est?
    Posted 5 months ago #
  5. woodsroad

    woodsroad

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 8,497

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    And that can sting-ment

    Posted 5 months ago #
  6. olkofri

    Olkofri

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Sep 2017
    Posts: 2,114

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    This reminds me, wasn't someone printing and selling alternative labels to cover the warnings? They used the same design and size but replaced the 'smoking kills' BS with quotes about pipes from Bach and Tolkien and the like. I saw them somewhere, but can't find them now, and a google search turns up nothing (which probably isn't surprising).

    Not the sweet, new grass with flowers is this harvesting of mine;
    Not the upland clover bloom...
    Posted 5 months ago #
  7. d4k23

    d4k23

    Member
    Joined: Mar 2018
    Posts: 292

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    It's free!!! So is it really stealing?

    Posted 5 months ago #
  8. woodsroad

    woodsroad

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 8,497

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I didn’t say “stealing”, did I?

    Posted 5 months ago #
  9. davet

    davet

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2015
    Posts: 3,807

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Posted 5 months ago #
  10. metalheadycigarguy

    metalheadycigarguy

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Apr 2012
    Posts: 2,667

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    That's a cool idea. I just recently bought some Avery generic 2" round labels for my mason jars, and spent a couple hours re-labeling all my mason jars. This would have been much easier.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  11. trudger

    trudger

    Member
    Joined: Jan 2019
    Posts: 151

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    At first it was just some labels I copied online. Then I met some Canadians who wanted me to [/s]mule[s] bring some tins to over the border into Windsor. I just got caught up in the community spirit I guess.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  12. woodsroad

    woodsroad

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 8,497

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Posted 5 months ago #
  13. wolflarsen

    wolflarsen

    Member
    Joined: Jul 2018
    Posts: 226

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Can you say “Infringement”?

    Some things that don't matter just don't f*@king matter.
    These are free. Nobody is making any money off of anyone else's copyright. It's simply a way for those who have already bought the product to continue enjoying the tin art while using it in a jar rather than in a tin. I suppose it could technically be considered infringement but it would also be extremely lame to have this shut down when it's not doing any harm to anyone. If I owned rights to any of these images I would feel honored and happy that people appreciate them enough to find a way to continue enjoying them after the original packaging has served it's purpose.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  14. woodsroad

    woodsroad

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 8,497

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Come back and tell me that when you actually own something.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  15. ashdigger

    ashdigger

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jul 2016
    Posts: 5,241

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    The website is set up to take "donations". So, is that still free?

    Posted 5 months ago #
  16. trudger

    trudger

    Member
    Joined: Jan 2019
    Posts: 151

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I also use the blue celler tape and Sharpie©️ marker. I was going to bring my tins to the library and use the color copier but the site is much easier. I “borrow/use” other peoples art/creativity daily and make money doing it. Serious grey areas exist. In our litigation prone society it is cheaper to take down a website than fight the lawsuit threat.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  17. wolflarsen

    wolflarsen

    Member
    Joined: Jul 2018
    Posts: 226

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I hear ya Woods, I'm not in your shoes on this one, and apologize for getting defensive about it. However, now I gotta ask, and with all due respect, what's the big deal? How can you possibly be negatively affected by people putting these stickers on jars after they've already bought the product? What am I missing here?

    BTW - The Bengal Slices tin art is among my favorites. If you put it on a t-shirt I'll be first to buy one.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  18. woodsroad

    woodsroad

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 8,497

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I’ll give you the short answer:
    When you own a trademark, you must protect it. If you allow others to use/misuse/appropriate it, no matter how minor the infringement, you are setting precedent. With each unchallenged use, it becomes more difficult to legally protect the trademark when a serious infraction occurs.

    Common Sense Anwer:
    It isn’t yours. Leave it alone.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  19. anthonyrosenthal74

    anthonyrosenthal74

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2013
    Posts: 7,489

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    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!!! Although offended he was making money off my end (giggles), I must say though, I applaud his entrepreneurship.

    Arrrrr, shiver me timbers! International Talk Like a Pirate Day is September the 19th!!!
    Brothers Of The Black Frigate
    Posted 5 months ago #
  20. wolflarsen

    wolflarsen

    Member
    Joined: Jul 2018
    Posts: 226

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Thanks Woods for the enlightening response. It's a shame that it has to be this way but I do understand where you're coming from.

    BTW Ash, did you pay royalties to Spitfire Wheels for using their logo as your avatar?

    Posted 5 months ago #
  21. ashdigger

    ashdigger

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jul 2016
    Posts: 5,241

    offline

    Login to Send PM

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

    Posted 5 months ago #
  22. warren

    warren

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Sep 2013
    Posts: 7,547

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    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.

    A man without a shillelagh is a man without an expedient.
    Posted 5 months ago #
  23. danielplainview

    dave g

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Mar 2014
    Posts: 2,940

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Make aromatics great again.
    Posted 5 months ago #
  24. jpmcwjr

    jpmcwjr

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2015
    Posts: 13,351

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Back to the labels, then.

    Very poor resolution images. What's up with that?

    I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
    Posted 5 months ago #
  25. jvnshr

    jvnshr

    Mod
    Joined: Sep 2015
    Posts: 4,011

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    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?

    Javan
    Posted 5 months ago #
  26. anthonyrosenthal74

    anthonyrosenthal74

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2013
    Posts: 7,489

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I sit on an office chair and make money. Does that count?
    Sure. At the cost of hemorrhoids

    Posted 5 months ago #
  27. raevans

    raevans

    Member
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 273

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    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.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  28. admin

    Kevin Godbee

    Smoking a Pipe Right Now
    Joined: Nov 2008
    Posts: 8,029

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    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.

    Check Out Our - Pipes Podcast
    Posted 5 months ago #
  29. mikethompson

    mikethompson

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 3,774

    online

    Login to Send PM

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

    They just pay you to sit?

    Posted 5 months ago #
  30. pipehunter

    pipehunter

    Member
    Joined: Dec 2016
    Posts: 214

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    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.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  31. jvnshr

    jvnshr

    Mod
    Joined: Sep 2015
    Posts: 4,011

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    They just pay you to sit?

    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.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  32. blackadderlxx

    blackadderlxx

    Senior Member
    Joined: Jun 2018
    Posts: 370

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    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!!! Although offended he was making money off my end (giggles), I must say though, I applaud his entrepreneurship.

    So you're famous!

    Posted 5 months ago #
  33. jpmcwjr

    jpmcwjr

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2015
    Posts: 13,351

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Why the crap resolution??

    Posted 5 months ago #
  34. warren

    warren

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Sep 2013
    Posts: 7,547

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    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.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  35. pipehunter

    pipehunter

    Member
    Joined: Dec 2016
    Posts: 214

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    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.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  36. davet

    davet

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2015
    Posts: 3,807

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    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 I'm not connected to any of these so I can see the humour, if I was an owner... not so much.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  37. pipehunter

    pipehunter

    Member
    Joined: Dec 2016
    Posts: 214

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    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.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  38. pipehunter

    pipehunter

    Member
    Joined: Dec 2016
    Posts: 214

    offline

    Login to Send PM


    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.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  39. 3rdguy

    3rdguy

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Aug 2017
    Posts: 1,343

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Who else here is famous besides Anthony?

    Posted 5 months ago #
  40. davet

    davet

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2015
    Posts: 3,807

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Seems like a pretty borderline case to me.

    Seems like a pretty borderline case if it was me

    I fixed it for you

    Posted 5 months ago #
  41. pipehunter

    pipehunter

    Member
    Joined: Dec 2016
    Posts: 214

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    ^Fair enough. As it turns out, both statements are true.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  42. anthonyrosenthal74

    anthonyrosenthal74

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2013
    Posts: 7,489

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    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.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  43. woodsroad

    woodsroad

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 8,497

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    "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.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  44. warren

    warren

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Sep 2013
    Posts: 7,547

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    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.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  45. davet

    davet

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2015
    Posts: 3,807

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    we're really happy that folks think enough of our blends to cellar them.

    Good on you

    Posted 5 months ago #
  46. spartacus

    spartacus

    Senior Member
    Joined: Nov 2018
    Posts: 517

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    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?

    Posted 5 months ago #
  47. jpmcwjr

    jpmcwjr

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2015
    Posts: 13,351

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    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!

    Posted 5 months ago #
  48. anthonyrosenthal74

    anthonyrosenthal74

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2013
    Posts: 7,489

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    But the effing 'crats might get on that as defeating the purpose of their mandated labelling requirements.
    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.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  49. ashdigger

    ashdigger

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jul 2016
    Posts: 5,241

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Anthony, I think you are underestimating how crazy regulators can be.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  50. olkofri

    Olkofri

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Sep 2017
    Posts: 2,114

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Anthony, I think you are underestimating how crazy regulators can be.

    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.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  51. jpmcwjr

    jpmcwjr

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2015
    Posts: 13,351

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    We don't have to continue to see the FDA label once the product is within our home.

    What Tim said, and Big Brother might not agree.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  52. papawhisky

    papawhisky

    New Member
    Joined: Jan 2019
    Posts: 44

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    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?

    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.)

    Posted 5 months ago #
  53. anthonyrosenthal74

    anthonyrosenthal74

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2013
    Posts: 7,489

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    What Tim said, and Big Brother might not agree.
    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!"

    Posted 5 months ago #
  54. woodsroad

    woodsroad

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 8,497

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    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.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  55. blendtobac

    blendtobac

    Tobacco Blender Extraordinaire
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 1,216

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    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

    Posted 5 months ago #
  56. woodsroad

    woodsroad

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 8,497

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Well said, Russ.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  57. brian64

    brian64

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2011
    Posts: 5,194

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    So what I learned from this thread is, Warner Bros now owns Anthony's ass. And apparently they got it for free.

    “Bipartisan usually means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.” – George Carlin
    Posted 5 months ago #
  58. olkofri

    Olkofri

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Sep 2017
    Posts: 2,114

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    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.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  59. anthonyrosenthal74

    anthonyrosenthal74

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2013
    Posts: 7,489

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    So what I learned from this thread is, Warner Bros now owns Anthony's ass. And apparently they got it for free.
    Yeah, and I actually owe THEM money!!!

    Posted 5 months ago #
  60. brian64

    brian64

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2011
    Posts: 5,194

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Marvin had to deal with ownership squabbles too:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXB9823Qg9E

    Posted 5 months ago #
  61. 3rdguy

    3rdguy

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Aug 2017
    Posts: 1,343

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I do like the embossing on the Hearth & Home line.

    Would be great to see a tinned date on them

    Posted 5 months ago #
  62. recluse

    recluse

    Member
    Joined: Sep 2011
    Posts: 156

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    This is great. I'm going to start using these instead. Thank you for sharing this.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  63. condorlover1

    condorlover1

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Dec 2013
    Posts: 3,606

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    The infraction has been noted. Interestingly the owner of the website hides behind an anonymous service with a forwarding address in Canada. If he or she had approached us first and asked for permission we might have been more than happy to work with them. I would strongly recommend that the sites owner reaches out to us at SToP by Monday to discuss these matters.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  64. wolflarsen

    wolflarsen

    Member
    Joined: Jul 2018
    Posts: 226

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    What a mess this has become. I'm not sure now if I regret starting this thread or not. I naïvely thought that posting it would help some other tobacco enthusiasts on the forum dress up their cellars and certainly didn't mean to start some kind of international legal drama. I still have a hard time wrapping my mind around how these stickers constitute a legitimate threat to anything whatsoever but I have no affiliation with the web site or the companies that own the images so it's not my battle to fight. I hope the situation is quickly and easily resolved and think that the idea of making labels available for folks to use on their jars, tins, truck bumpers, tackleboxes, etc. is a great one. It would be fantastic to see some come available through legal means when this is all over and done with.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  65. condorlover1

    condorlover1

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Dec 2013
    Posts: 3,606

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I couldn't agree with you more Wolflarsen. Anyone who knows the Standard Tobacco team know us to be the most reasonable guys around. All we ask for is a 'heads up' and the opportunity for input from our partners at STG and then some form of licensing arrangement. Trade marks are not cheap and having someone produce them willy nilly dilutes the value of our property. Unless we hear from the miscreant by Monday it will become a legal issue and I suspect the purveyor of these images might have a truck load of issues with just about every manufacturer out there. Sometimes a polite letter to the owner would save a lot of headaches.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  66. jpmcwjr

    jpmcwjr

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2015
    Posts: 13,351

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    And, if SToP is involved, we can be sure of high quality artwork (images/photos) of their labels instead of the crap on that site. (Photo quality-wise crap is what I mean.)

    Posted 5 months ago #
  67. ashdigger

    ashdigger

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jul 2016
    Posts: 5,241

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    So, they'll be getting a SToP and Desist letter?

    Posted 5 months ago #
  68. jpmcwjr

    jpmcwjr

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2015
    Posts: 13,351

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Hah. Looks that way!

    Posted 5 months ago #
  69. condorlover1

    condorlover1

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Dec 2013
    Posts: 3,606

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Yes served on their ISP since they hide behind an anonymous service.

    Posted 5 months ago #
  70. warren

    warren

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Sep 2013
    Posts: 7,547

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Good hunting SToP guys!

    I still cannot accept the fuzzy logic/ethics (or, lack thereof) of those who see no harm in stealing (misappropriating is such a weak word) the property of others. No matter how it's used, profit or not, good intentions or not, the artwork is simply not theirs to use. Period!!! There is no argument that can be offered to make such behavior legitament.

    Posted 5 months ago #

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.

 

 

    Back To Top  | Back to Forum Home Page

   Members Online Now
   jfred, elasmo, alaskanpiper, jiminks, jojoc, chasingembers, craig61a, donjgiles, mindglue, jabomano, oldgeezersmoker, mikethompson, greeneyes