cellarlabels.com

[woodsroad]

Buying a copy of a work does not give you the rights to that work. Otherwise, we'd all be able to lay claim to the Mona Lisa, Picasso's Guernica, Gone With The Wind or whatever else we might have a copy of. Buying a tin of tobacco allows you to possess the tin art, enjoy it, nail it to a wall, or your car, but it doesn't give you the right to further distribute the tin art. Same as buying a book. You can read it, you can share the book with a friend, you can re-sell that book, you can nail it to your car, but you can't reproduce it because you don't own the rights to that work.
Without the protections of copyright and trademark, all intellectual property would be essentially worthless, since anyone would be able to copy and distribute it free of charge. That wouldn't leave much incentive to create movies, software, novels or tobacco tin art. Trademarks are even more reliant on those protections, since something as simple as a logo could be the embodiment of an entire enterprise. The Bengal Slices trademark isn't valued simply by the many hours of work that went into creating the tin art, it derives it's value from all the time and money that went into developing the brand (and the product) as a whole.

 

[brian64]

@Woods: I mostly agree...but some areas of the whole issue are, well, a bit fuzzy. For example, you mentioned that one does not have the right to "further distribute". Couldn't sharing a book with a friend (as you indicated is ok) be considered redistributing?

 

[haparnold]

Excellent post, Woodsroad. In fact, one of the "sexy" theories in the economic growth literature is that there's a really strong correlation between countries enforcing intellectual property rights (specifically patents) and economic growth. This is because, just as you said, if there's no way to enforce the rights of innovators and entrepreneurs, there's a lot less incentive to create anything, be it tin art or a nuclear-powered microwave oven.

 

[condorlover1]

Does anyone realize how much of that stuff Jim Inks had to smoke to get the flavor profile correct not to mention several other brave souls who consented to try the stuff out! This stuff went through Phase III tobacco trials before it ever saw the inside of a can and lets not even dwell on the endless hours of toil put in by Russ O so if I am little bit miffed about people printing our labels after writing out endless checks from my own personal bank account to get the whole show off the ground along with Dan's endless promoting the brands for little or no thanks you might see our collective point here. If anyone cares to look at our quarterly numbers as published on OTC Markets they will see we are not making a fortune out of this endeavor and hence why the stock trades around 15 cents a share.

 

[wolflarsen]

I, for one, am very thankful for all of the effort that you guys put into recreating Bengal Slices. It's a unique and exceptionally delicious blend that I really really enjoy. You all deserve to be very proud of a job well done. :clap:

 

[condorlover1]

Thank you. Its nice to be appreciated! All I am saying is I don't like getting f*cked unless its by Mrs. Condorlover whilst wearing something provocative in the bedroom! :rofl:

 

[woodsroad]

Brian, redistribution entails copying, at least in the language of rights licensing!

 

[brian64]

I sorta knew that was the answer...and I guess it makes sense. But then I suppose that every time someone records an album on a cassette (or digitally) that is technically a violation. Especially if they give it to a friend...but even just for personal use it's still copying.

 

[ashdigger]

All of this is true, but some cases aren't worth chasing. Lending a book, isn't worth chasing. Closing down an Internet Book Lending site is.
In my non legal opinion.
What if it's just a "tribute", like a sticker, or a lighter?

 

[jpmcwjr]

Another can of worms! I can't imagine how the tribute lighters are legal, but I see no fight from DuPont.

 

[jpmcwjr]

I sorta knew that was the answer...and I guess it makes sense. But then I suppose that every time someone records an album on a cassette (or digitally) that is technically a violation. Especially if they give it to a friend...but even just for personal use it's still copying.

Copying for personal use is OK, but giving a copy to a friend is not. At least that's what I recall when I followed the Napster closely some years ago. And I ain't no legal advisor.

 

[unadoptedlamp]

I don't entirely understand what the hubbub is about. I went to the site out of curiosity (I wouldn't use labels like this anyway) and saw that nothing is for sale.
It looks like a "fan" site for tobacco to me.
Personally, if my brand were represented, and people were excited about it enough to print off a label of my logo/branding/marketing to adhere to a mason jar that would otherwise not have that branding, I'd be impressed. And perhaps even glad that my logo/branding/marketing was being distributed when it would otherwise not be.
I can completely understand if someone started printing labels and tried to sell other tobacco as counterfeit tobacco, etc. or if they printed labels to sell for profit. But at least at this point, that doesn't seem to be happening. Seems very unlikely too. The work you'd need to put into pulling off a proper counterfeit of tobacco... doubtful it's worth it. Not even for an $90 bag of Penzance.
Anyway, I see some brand holders have piped in here to express their displeasure. I guess I just don't see the point in cracking down on "fans". Yes, the "need to protect my property rights at any cost, no matter how small the infringement etc. so I can really have at it when something big happens" argument... but seriously, it's pipe tobacco. Not MGM studios or the estate of J.D. Salinger.
So few people even care, it's hardly worth mentioning.
So, if people are making money, sure, I get it. BAD! Really, stop it.
But enthusiasts who are spreading your brand to a point where other people could see it? It's odd to me. How many pictures of "cellars" have I seen where the mason jars are all hand labelled? Imagine seeing your branding instead. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.
They should have asked. No doubt. Maybe they were naive and didn't think to. Maybe they thought they were being helpful? But since they're not making money off this, I don't see what the harm is. People want to spread your brand around so their cellar looks nice. I'd be glad someone was doing this for my brand.
But... let's lynch the fuckers! The dirty thieving bastards.

 

[warren]

If we are to take the argument from the sublime to the inane, you can of course hang the tin in your shed as long as you are not profiting from doing so. A piece of tin on your wall is a long way from copying and distributing. That is what we are discussing here. We are discussing "copyright", copy being the operative word in this discussion. The right to copy is simply owned by the holder of the copyright.
Display in a museum is another thing entirely. There are heirs holding the rights to John Wayne's name, his visage and nearly all things "Duke." The Mona Lisa? I doubt there is a living heir of the artist who can lay such claim. If the tin art is not protected by a copyright, get the tin affixed to your ass and charge people to see it. No one is harmed as the art isn't protected. If the art is protected, take the time to secure permission. Or there may be painful consequences when the bailiff removes the artwork.
I protect my work. Many amateurs do also. If you secure one of my images in a shop you have not purchased the right to copy. If you copy it and send a file to your sister to enjoy, you've taken moneys from me and are a thief. Will I or my agents hunt you down? Probably not. But, if you post it here for others to see and, possibly use? If I get wind of such, expect a letter.

 

[warren]

They should have asked. No doubt. Maybe they were naive and didn't think to. Maybe they thought they were being helpful? But since they're not making money off this, I don't see what the harm is. People want to spread your brand around so their cellar looks nice. I'd be glad someone was doing this for my brand.

How very altruistic of you. But, we aren't discussing your feelings or attitudes. The simple fact is, "copyright ownership" is real and there is a victim. Now, will the victim pursue the matter? That's his decision as the owner of the label and the rights to use.
I really do hate situational ethics! Some here would be very successful running for office or selling snake oil from the rear of a brightly painted wagon.

 

[unadoptedlamp]

Well warren, despite you wanting to find comfort in a world that is either "black or white," it is not so, nor ever has been. Thankfully.
I completely understand your argument. In this case, what I am saying is, I don't understand the perspective - for the reasons I posted. There is a significant difference there, and that is where the world becomes grey.
There is no need to get on my tits about this. I have no affiliation nor stake in the matter. I'm just pointing out that perhaps this is not a bad thing, in this case. Obviously, that doesn't fit into the 1 of 2 categories you have, however, I bring it up as a possibility. But, that's for the owners of these brands to decide. Not me.
Good luck to all those involved.

 

[woodsroad]

I'm just pointing out that perhaps this is not a bad thing, in this case.

Perhaps it isn’t bad for you.

 

[unadoptedlamp]

When I say "you" or "your", I mean it from the general perspective of a copyright holder in cases like these. Not any one of "you" in this forum.
I just don't get it? How is crushing this idea going to further your product or improve things for your company? If they do not exist, then things will be better or the same for you, correct?
Please explain how it is bad to have a place where people can print off what are essentially logos, for branding, so that they can market your product for free.
This is a wet dream for many marketers. Finding a fan base with this much loyalty and interest is rare. Smacking them in the face is just... strange business practice to me.
Nobody is making money off of this. I understand the need to protect copyright where you're going to make money from having something with your name on it or by having someone buy your photograph or trinket. That's not anywhere near the same concept.
In this case, when people are storing bulk mason jars, you don't have that option of further branding because at best, your bulk is stored with one sticker. And usually not even that. So... yes, you can point to copyright laws and jump up and down, but I think you're completely missing the point... and the opportunity.
In this case, people are using mason jars to store their tobacco. And they want some nice art from the brand that is in it so that they can look at that and say gee-whiz, I sure like smoking this "whatever"... staring directly at your branding the whole time.
Understand, without this "cellar art," there is no further branding. Every time that person looks at their cellar and sees YOUR BRAND, that is a hit for you. That is marketing. That is opportunity.
It's a mystery to me why people would not welcome that. But the world is a mysterious place.
It is not a mystery to me if someone sees their creation being sold for profit or used for some nefarious purpose and wants it to stop.
In this case, you're simply punishing your fans and wrecking a perfectly excellent opportunity to brand your product - as long as it remains free. Getting uptight about it -just because there is a law that says people can- doesn't make sense to me from the perspective of promoting your brand.
Which is the only thing this is really about. Promoting your brand.
I mean come on... people actually seem to want this. Kicking it in the teeth at first sight is really odd to me, but obviously, that's just my take and people disagree.
I'm open to my mind being changed. It's just that in this specific case, I can't see the downside and I haven't seen any decent arguments for what that downside is. And I wish someone could point that out without resorting to some unrelated or absurd situation that is highly unlikely to exist in the pipe tobacco world.
Pipe art in "cellars" folks... this is obscure stuff.

 

[warren]

Of course there is only right or wrong. No gray. Well, accept for those amoral people. There can be extenuating circumstances but, actions are either right or wrong. People, I'm not excluding myself, go through all sorts of gyrations trying to justify their various actions and decisions. There's no comfort in that of course when you are the person wronged. But, it is entertaining to watch and read. This is especially true when observing someone trying their best to justify actions/deeds which, while knowing it was wrong still did it, whether it's a defense attorney trying to protect his client or a six year old doing the song and dance.
But, I can't deny knowing right from wrong or criminal from licit behavior. This is why people work up all sorts of rationalizations for knowingly doing something wrong or criminal. It's what people do. We make choices and, usually after the act, immediately start to build our defense. Hell, when someone we love or respect screws up we are ready with an excuse for their behavior. Or, some go into complete denial.
Humans are very entertaining but, most do know right from wrong. Right and wrong is indeed black and white. Some prepare their excuses in advance, some trust the doctors/sociologists to provide justifications to judges and juries, or parents and friends to defend/justify their behavior. Most of us though, simply do the song and dance, providing entertainment for readers, neighbors, co-workers and viewers, while looking for a hole and hoping it'll all blow over. Or, hopefully a co-worker or pal will screw up worse and do it quickly.

 

[unadoptedlamp]

Warren- That was a good answer.
I disagree with what you say, but now I understand why you say it.
C'est la vie.

 

[warren]

I can't see the downside

How about when someone takes the free art work, affixes it to a lesser product and begins selling it? Would you draw the line there? Of course you would. So, why should the owner let it get to that point when it can be so easily stopped before real harm is done.
I also doubt that the provider is doing this without the hope of profiting from it. My totally uneducated guess is that the site owner may be selling "address lists" or profiting in some other more arcane, to me, manner.
Most manufacturers want to be in total control of how their product is marketed, hence copyright protection.