Oh Peterson's, What Have You Done??

[jpmcwjr]

The Peterson of Dublin is an irish [b]cigar pipe[/b] company famous for their craftsmanship.

This directly from the site link in the OP. Lots of mirth in the sentence. Bolding and Italics are mine. Plus, "The Peterson"?

 

[jazz]

This made me wince. Looks more like something for measuring the rectal temperature of cattle.

 

[woodsroad]

There has been a lot of speculation as to the validity of the page, so I emailed Peterson's, and today received a response:
---------

From: Tom Palmer

Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 3:39 AM

To: -------

Cc: Conor Palmer

Subject: Vape pipe.
Dear Dan,
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
I can assure you that it is most definitely not a Peterson pipe and we are taking steps through our

lawyers to have this removed.
Thank you for supporting Peterson.
Kind regards,
Tom Palmer.
Tom Palmer

Managing Director

Kapp & Peterson Ltd.

Pearse Street, Sallynoggin

Co. Dublin, Ireland.

Company Registration No. 32027

Tel 353 1 2851011 Fax 353 1 2856593
------------

 

[Cliff_K]

As an ex smoker I vape for the extra vitamin-n I need throughout the day. Despite that I'm glad this isn't really happening. I agree with Anthony, I like to keep my vaping separate from my pipes. I get my mods and juice from ppl that know vapes and my pipes and tobacco from ppl that know pipes and tobacco.

 

[disinformatique]

unbunch your panties, gentlemen. it's a personal design concept by that designer. He did not commit any crime, infact Peterson should be flattered he conceptualized something for FREE.

 

[warren]

Judging from the initial reaction on this thread Peterson was absolutely correct to respond n the manner they did. Some take theft of property seriously others are prepared to accept criminal behavior as long as it doesn't involve their property. I hate situational ethics. But, I repeat myself.
The responses here are extremely telling, individually, and fascinating reading.

 

[jpmcwjr]

I checked the site again, (link is in o.p.) couldn't see any logo of any kind. Finally, scrolling to the end, I found this:

I got a mail from the peterson of dublin, they had some troubles through this concept design, people asking them about this pipe design. please do not contact them for information. This is an individual concept.

I apologise to peterson of dublin for my mistakes in using the logo without permissions.
Background and Photos for my product do not belong to me.

I do not own the rights.

 

[woodsroad]

I do not own the rights.

As someone who makes his living off of intangible property, and as someone who understands the role that the Bill of Rights has played in the exceptionalism and prosperity of the USA, allow me to opine that rights matter.

 

[mawnansmiff]

"Better Peterson than Samsung..."
You can bet your last dollar that if that hideous 'creation' were ever to manufactured it would be made in China!
Regards,
Jay.

 

[Cliff_K]

If I remember, there is something of a companion thread to this one were cosmic explains how this was a student project in conceptual design that was posted to a site dedicated for that. I can't seem to find the thread right now but when I do I'll put a link here. The comments in the other thread are interesting and changed a lot of what I think about what was done.

 

[warren]

This thread demonstrates the damage the student did to Peterson with the publication of his project. Over the years I have had to remind former customers of the fact that they only purchased "one time" rights to a photo of mine. Luckily, I've never experienced the bottomless pit of a law suit. I've sold photos, all rights, one-time use, multiple use with annual fees, all sorts of arrangements and work hard to protect my work. I've been employed by companies and the contract always assigns ownership to whatever I produce.
Like woodsroad, I take the theft of my property very seriously. Those of you who do not own a "commercial reputation" have no idea of what it is like to see something you produced, used in a manner which does me no financial benefit. Working for free to enrich another is not my idea of good business sense. I want my time, expenses, etc to be covered and a wee bit of profit so I can purchase a pouch or two as desired.

 

[Cliff_K]

Those are good points warren. I think the kid did a fantastic job on his project but should have procured the permissions needed to use the Peterson name and logo.

 

[pipesmokingtom]

I still can't determine if what the guy did was illegal or just annoying.

 

[wyfbane]

I read Toms post and had this image of Irish hitmen gunning the poor kid down on the streets of Seoul.

 

[woodsroad]

I think the kid did a fantastic job on his project but should have procured the permissions needed to use the Peterson name and logo.

The quality of his work is not at issue. What is at issue is the fact that he derived value from leeching the hard work of others. That's theft, whether or not there was direct financial gain on his part. And it's lazy. His work should be able to stand on it's own merits without co-opting Peterson's decades of diligent design work and brand development.
I can promise you, that if he's a student, and he's in a school that is even passably competent, he has had a class that went over the topic of intellectual property rights.

I still can't determine if what the guy did was illegal or just annoying.

It's illegal, a violation of Peterson's copyrights and perhaps their trademarks. Courts take intellectual rights law seriously. Whether or not Peterson's decides to pursue the issue, what he did (especially seeing how he is an aspiring designer and will someday soon have to deal with these same issues himself) was morally wrong.

 

[sasquatch]

The argument that this fool "designed something for free" is nonsense - he stole and used a corporate name and logo without permission.
On a more personal note, think about this scenario. I'm going to market something offensive (to some I guess) - let's say it's a giant black dildo. And I'm going to put up a website and call it the Pleaser. More specifically, I'm going to call it "Joe Smith's Pleaser" and you can insert your very own name in there for Joe Smith. So there's a product and a website with something you are not affiliated with at all, it bears your name (or your company name). How happy are you about this?
None. And you'd be on the phone to a lawyer in a second, just as Peterson was - and successfully so too because the pics have been altered.

 

[tuold]

The guy's lucky he didn't design a Mickey Mouse pipe or he'd find himself buried under a football field somewhere.

 

[jpmcwjr]

To be charitable, it could have been sheer ignorance, not a money grab trading on an established name. No excuse, but somewhat better. And the folks redid the photos, removed the logo, and admitted their mistake. Still, looks like crap, or as someone said, a rectal thermometer for cattle....

 

[warren]

I don't think any of us has accused the kid of intentional wrongdoing. The matter was settled with a notice of wrong doing. It doesn't appear damages are being sought. For the record, many crimes do not require "intent" only the act is required. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Disney always starts with a notice of perceived wrong doing. If that is ignored and the infringement is continuing well, then the offender gets all the might and power of the company legal beagles. And, rightfully so!
It is interesting to note how little regard some have for the property of others. To those of us who make a living with out heads and our designs this lad's behavior was serious. Composers face this everyday. The owners of copyrights have to deal with the pirating of their property. Many people think nothing of pirating songs, books, etc and depriving the owners of any moneys. Again, situational ethics is deplorable. It's all right to steal from some but, by God, not me.
edit: It is gratifying to see the student, at least, now recognizes his behavior was criminal.