cellarlabels.com
- Thread starter wolflarsen
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
John-
If you save the letter as a PDF you should be able to add it to your album on Imgur, and then embed it.Saved as a jpg you can use the site's album:
If you save the letter as a PDF you should be able to add it to your album on Imgur, and then embed it.Saved as a jpg you can use the site's album:
Personally I get super miffed every time I see (typically) a pick-up with a sticker of Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes fame) pissing on a Chevy/Ford/etc. logo. Bill Watterson famously turned down any and all opportunities to merchandise Calvin and Hobbes, hence there are no Hobbes stuffed tigers, etc. So someone has probably made a decent amount of money selling these stickers in all their variations and each and every one of them is completely illegal.
Of course, I support SToP in protecting their property... But, did any of you ask before stealing those avatars? (except all of you who used your real pictures) Did you know that even paintings in museums are protected by the museums that own them? Try walking into a museum and taking a picture of a painting? I had this discussion a few years ago with the museum guards, ha ha!! But, they said that it would be exhausting to run down every infraction. Some laws are broken at such regularity that it would bankrupt them to try to start running everyone down.
It is disheartening when I see that someone has stolen one of the pictures I took of my own art work, and they are using it to promote their own services... and the damn Chinese... They have no issues with copying my work, the images and the actual jewelry. It's hard to get ahead, with so many people dragging you back down. :
:
It is disheartening when I see that someone has stolen one of the pictures I took of my own art work, and they are using it to promote their own services... and the damn Chinese... They have no issues with copying my work, the images and the actual jewelry. It's hard to get ahead, with so many people dragging you back down. :
:
I didn't even think of yours as stolen, Ash. I didn't know it was a part of a company. But, about 3/4ths of the avatar on this site are from someone else's intellectual property.
The "rights" to my two avatars are owned by other photographers, working photographers. I have permission. With one look at the files each quickly decided the shot, particularly the subject, made sales improbable.
There is a big difference between an avatar on a relatively unknown site, where the rights holder can genuinely claim no knowledge of the use, and distribution of a product, free or not, within the very community in which the rights holder sells their product. If a rights holder has clear knowledge of the misuse of their mark, they must pursue it or lose the mark. The IP world doesn't account for intention behind the use of a mark. This is really clear cut for SToP.
Actually Crash, the law reads "any use." Even in education, a teacher can only use an image once in a lecture, and never ever in a handout. When I lecture about art in the schools, I will use images that I have written consent.
Google Disney. They enforce ANY and ALL uses of their images. They have shut down a daycare for having a picture of one of their characters on the wall.
Of course it is easy to get away with stealing images for various personal uses, but that doesn't make it legal.
Google Disney. They enforce ANY and ALL uses of their images. They have shut down a daycare for having a picture of one of their characters on the wall.
Of course it is easy to get away with stealing images for various personal uses, but that doesn't make it legal.
And while we're at it, let's not forget that the "Happy Birthday" song is owned by Warner Chappell Music Company. All responsible, ethical, and moral adults must not forget to ask permission and cut them a check each time you sing the song at a kids' birthday party. :crazy:
I think that there is a difference between legal and ethical. For the most part, I rarely concern myself with whether something is legal. Screw them, let them catch me, is my usual thought. I will sing songs that I have never paid for, use anyone's images for a laugh, or in camaraderie, just because it's not legal, doesn't really matter.
As for ethical, now I would be more hesitant to play someone's song for money in a bar, but of course people do it all the time. And, if I was making money with an image that would be more of a problem for me.
I would think that a tobacco company would be more hesitant about enforcing their rights, if it might lead to total exclusion from a site that "could" become more popular. What if the cellarlabels site said, "sure," and they excluded all of SToP's labels, while carrying everyone else's labels? That would work against SToP's intentions. Ha ha, but of course, I think the websites main idea is so stupid that I cannot see it catching on.
For one, I just google the tin art of anything that I am putting into a jar in my cellar, and print it out. It's not much easier to use one that someone else has made... plus, I prefer to use the older versions of labels when I can find them, or make up one of my own. It's my jar, so I'll do what I want.
Just putting a label on the tin, because you don't want to see that FDA warning is rather stupid, and I don't think the majority of pipesmokers give enough of a shit to take the extra effort. I am jealous of someone that has so little going on in their tooty-fruity world that, that the black type on a white field on a label pisses you off that much. I wish I had that sort of luxury.
As for ethical, now I would be more hesitant to play someone's song for money in a bar, but of course people do it all the time. And, if I was making money with an image that would be more of a problem for me.
I would think that a tobacco company would be more hesitant about enforcing their rights, if it might lead to total exclusion from a site that "could" become more popular. What if the cellarlabels site said, "sure," and they excluded all of SToP's labels, while carrying everyone else's labels? That would work against SToP's intentions. Ha ha, but of course, I think the websites main idea is so stupid that I cannot see it catching on.
For one, I just google the tin art of anything that I am putting into a jar in my cellar, and print it out. It's not much easier to use one that someone else has made... plus, I prefer to use the older versions of labels when I can find them, or make up one of my own. It's my jar, so I'll do what I want.
Just putting a label on the tin, because you don't want to see that FDA warning is rather stupid, and I don't think the majority of pipesmokers give enough of a shit to take the extra effort. I am jealous of someone that has so little going on in their tooty-fruity world that, that the black type on a white field on a label pisses you off that much. I wish I had that sort of luxury.
Cosmic- I also think the idea is so stupid that it won't catch on. The number of people actually tending a "cellar" of bulk tobacco has got to be minuscule. Further, the number of people who would actually print off these labels is even smaller.
Perspective is always important. You can be technically right, but still miss the giant neon sign directing you the the point of it all.
Some people here expressed an interest in it... which, you know, a pipes forum on the internet is always going to have some freaks attracted to it (settle down). An interest in branding their cellar? Fuck me. If people wanted to print off my brand so they could be exposed to even more of my advertising, for free, I'd consider that a huge win. I wish some asshole in the marketing department would come up with that one for me. You're all fired, you chumps! Sorry, that's a rant for another department later on.
If they started trying to sell those labels, well, then we'd maybe have to have a conversation about that. Until then, I'd ignore it (preserving my right to be righteous later and knock them over the head -not that there is anything wrong with that) and laugh that someone is doing my marketing work for me.
But, in a "black and white" world, this concept won't do.
I think that maybe some of it also comes from the tobacco industry getting kicked like it's a rabid dog. Now some of them have the opportunity to do the kicking, however small. Maybe it feels good. Maybe it's just a knee-jerk reaction.
And maybe I am completely wrong and will have completely different views on this in 2 weeks. Don't lynch me too. I'm just riffin'
I understand all of the arguments put forth for why this idea must end. I just think they are completely divorced from logical perspective which, after consideration, might reveal that this is actually a positive reaction to your brand.
Questions:
1. Is this hurting my brand?
2. Is this helping my brand?
3. Is someone stealing my money or making money off of my creation?
It's not particularly complicated. Unless there is something hidden here (we could speculate, but I prefer not to), then the answers are more than likely 1. No 2. Yes 3. No
That could change. Until it did... I simply cannot wrap my head around the idea of why someone would want to kill off an idea that is doing their marketing and advertising for free - outside of the "black and white" context that seems to be put forward as the main reason, of course.
Really interesting stuff.
Also... I'm not picking on anyone, so no hate mail please. It's just a simple disagreement on what is actually happening here. At the core, I see it as helping brands. Brands that could probably even use some help. Others see it as theft and all bad.
I only post the counter-thought so that maybe, people might stand back and look at the root issues here and consider if this is doing some good or doing some bad for the brands involved. So far, I still can't see the bad. But, that's just me. I'd love some free advertising.
Perspective is always important. You can be technically right, but still miss the giant neon sign directing you the the point of it all.
Some people here expressed an interest in it... which, you know, a pipes forum on the internet is always going to have some freaks attracted to it (settle down). An interest in branding their cellar? Fuck me. If people wanted to print off my brand so they could be exposed to even more of my advertising, for free, I'd consider that a huge win. I wish some asshole in the marketing department would come up with that one for me. You're all fired, you chumps! Sorry, that's a rant for another department later on.
If they started trying to sell those labels, well, then we'd maybe have to have a conversation about that. Until then, I'd ignore it (preserving my right to be righteous later and knock them over the head -not that there is anything wrong with that) and laugh that someone is doing my marketing work for me.
But, in a "black and white" world, this concept won't do.
I think that maybe some of it also comes from the tobacco industry getting kicked like it's a rabid dog. Now some of them have the opportunity to do the kicking, however small. Maybe it feels good. Maybe it's just a knee-jerk reaction.
And maybe I am completely wrong and will have completely different views on this in 2 weeks. Don't lynch me too. I'm just riffin'
I understand all of the arguments put forth for why this idea must end. I just think they are completely divorced from logical perspective which, after consideration, might reveal that this is actually a positive reaction to your brand.
Questions:
1. Is this hurting my brand?
2. Is this helping my brand?
3. Is someone stealing my money or making money off of my creation?
It's not particularly complicated. Unless there is something hidden here (we could speculate, but I prefer not to), then the answers are more than likely 1. No 2. Yes 3. No
That could change. Until it did... I simply cannot wrap my head around the idea of why someone would want to kill off an idea that is doing their marketing and advertising for free - outside of the "black and white" context that seems to be put forward as the main reason, of course.
Really interesting stuff.
Also... I'm not picking on anyone, so no hate mail please. It's just a simple disagreement on what is actually happening here. At the core, I see it as helping brands. Brands that could probably even use some help. Others see it as theft and all bad.
I only post the counter-thought so that maybe, people might stand back and look at the root issues here and consider if this is doing some good or doing some bad for the brands involved. So far, I still can't see the bad. But, that's just me. I'd love some free advertising.
I know. All too well. All I am saying is that SToP has no choice here. My point about Ash's avatar is that it is highly unlikely that anyone at Spitfire has any concept that this website exists, and thus could prove that they had absolutely no clue that their mark was being used. Once you become aware, you must act or lose those rights. Unadoptedlamp, unfortunately the protection afforded does not allow one to determine if it helps or hurts your brand, it is irrelevant in terms of protecting your property.
Crash- I think that legally, it is possible that you are right. I am not a copyright lawyer, so it's impossible for me to make an informed comment.
In practice, where life is actually lived, I think that this issue is so close to meaningless that it's almost not even worth talking about except for entertainment purposes.
Pipe tobacco labels are most probably about as near to the bottom of the pile of importance that you can get with copyright infringement.
Further, I still suggest that if anyone is a big enough fan of your brand that they want to print off your logo to do your marketing/branding for you -for free- that most forward thinking companies would actually support this. Particularly in this context!
Context, context, context. Mercy. Conteeeeeeeexxxxxxxxxxtttttttt *thud* That's me hitting the ground. I give in. I don't. Really. Care.
But I do wish that I had a total perspective vortex. Then I could see just how right I am
In practice, where life is actually lived, I think that this issue is so close to meaningless that it's almost not even worth talking about except for entertainment purposes.
Pipe tobacco labels are most probably about as near to the bottom of the pile of importance that you can get with copyright infringement.
Further, I still suggest that if anyone is a big enough fan of your brand that they want to print off your logo to do your marketing/branding for you -for free- that most forward thinking companies would actually support this. Particularly in this context!
Context, context, context. Mercy. Conteeeeeeeexxxxxxxxxxtttttttt *thud* That's me hitting the ground. I give in. I don't. Really. Care.
But I do wish that I had a total perspective vortex. Then I could see just how right I am
Which really speaks to SToP, who reached out trying to offer permission. So that the logical and legal could commingle.
I'm no copyright lawyer, but I understand the "fair use" doctrine to mean that the law isn't so "black and white". That's why there are courts and judges, to determine whether something is breaking the law.
unadoptedlamp's questions ("Is this hurting my brand? Is this helping my brand? Is someone stealing my money or making money off of my creation?") are precisely the questions that courts ask when determining if the use of copyrighted material, without the permission of the copyright holder, is "fair".
Quoting excerpts from a book, without the copyright holder's permission, is likely "fair use" for a book reviewer.
Quoting song lyrics, as part of a parody, without the copyright holder's permission, is likely "fair use".
A teacher making multiple copies of poems or prose, without the copyright holder's permission, is likely "fair use".
Whether the unauthorized use is for commercial purposes or nonprofit purposes absolutely IS relevant.
Whether the unauthorized use of the copyrighted work hurts or helps its value absolutely IS relevant.
Those are some of the things the court considers in making a ruling.
unadoptedlamp's questions ("Is this hurting my brand? Is this helping my brand? Is someone stealing my money or making money off of my creation?") are precisely the questions that courts ask when determining if the use of copyrighted material, without the permission of the copyright holder, is "fair".
Quoting excerpts from a book, without the copyright holder's permission, is likely "fair use" for a book reviewer.
Quoting song lyrics, as part of a parody, without the copyright holder's permission, is likely "fair use".
A teacher making multiple copies of poems or prose, without the copyright holder's permission, is likely "fair use".
Whether the unauthorized use is for commercial purposes or nonprofit purposes absolutely IS relevant.
Whether the unauthorized use of the copyrighted work hurts or helps its value absolutely IS relevant.
Those are some of the things the court considers in making a ruling.
I know this one as a fact, the answer is NO. As a debate coach, the district makes us go to copyright training every year. No money has to be made for it to be a violation. The laws are so that every poem used in class must come from a textbook in which each child is issued a copy. Displaying it on the board by a projector is also prohibited. A teacher or coach copying a poem and distributing it is grounds for dismissal.
No parody can be made without written permission. Excerpt of a few sentences can be used, but complete citation of the source must be given. This is why research papers are so important in school. To give citations, and restricting the amount, is a legal documentation. In a book review it is the same. The reviewer must completely cite the source.
- Status