Hacker News Reader

Comment by perihelions | Hacker News Reader

This is just plainly illegal under trademark law, isn't it?

By the time the lawyers draft the cease and desist and the 7 day response period ends, the novelty will be over. Also this might fall under parody law if viewed through the right lens.

Does parody/fair use apply to trademarks? Genuine question, I don't know myself

They're parodying NFTs not Olive Garden. Same scenario as Penny Arcade parodying video games with the unrelated Strawberry Shortcake property.

Didn't someone get away with a fake Starbucks because they were parodying parody law not Starbucks?

“ Starbucks did not pursue legal action, although it did note to the press that it was "evaluating" the possibility while reinforcing that the "Starbucks" name is a protected trademark. Upon the episode's broadcast, it was acclaimed by television critics.”

The store only lasted a few days. Who knows what would’ve happened otherwise.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_Starbucks

I imagine Olive Garden similarly wouldn't mind this website, but who knows. Maybe they'll take it down because they take it seriously and want in on the profits?

They are selling NFTs. They are making money, albeit not a lot, on the back of the goodwill of the Olive Garden brand. I think this is distinct from true parody say paying to watch a comedian who makes a joke about Olive Garden, or a free site that makes a joke about them.

If I paint a picture of an Olive Garden restaurant and sell it, is that infringement?

That seems more or less identical to the conceit here.

If you sell it on paintingsofolivegarden.com then maybe. The domain name implies association.

IANAL;IANYL

Seems like the kind of project that either doesn't care, or welcomes the resulting cease-and-desist letters, DMCA filings, etc. Maybe they could argue fair use through parody, though it may look more like satire to the right person, which has no fair use protection.

The laws of the metaverse transcends the laws of the meatverse.

I wouldn't think so—what are the chances of someone confusing this website with the real Olive Garden?

If this website were illegal, what would that mean for NintendoLife.com and 9to5google.com?

After radioshack.com I think the chances went up substantially.

I would imagine this is a net positive for Olive Garden. I'm craving breadsticks just because I saw this. Sadly, I live in Australia, so no Olive Garden.

They may be infringing on the trademark, but if the owner is going to benefit, they won't pursue charges.

This isn't any different from the bulk of NFTs that are simply selling other peoples property (or at least urls pointing to said data).

This one is just pointing out the absurdity of the entire NFT concept.

"the bulk of NFTs". Are you implying a majority of NFTs do this? If so, I don't think that's correct. At least it very much doesn't jive with my experience or the creators I know.

Yes it's definitely happening, and that obviously sucks, but I don't think it's as large scale of an issue as most people seem to think it is.

What're you gonna do, file a lawsuit to hardfork the Blockchain?

famed Canadian business consultant Nathan Fielder has shown us how we can protect ourselves when critiquing big corporations by using an important tool: parody law.

an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4KrdjAPohc

I was happy to see someone else bring up Nathan. I didn’t even realize how you described him the first read through. Ah yes the business consultant who got okay grades at an okay Canadian college.

Nathan Fielder does indeed have a status as a parody artist of course. A family member is working for his new show. Says it seems way crazier than Nathan For You.

> A family member is working for his new show. Says it seems way crazier than Nathan For You.

exciting! glad he’s working on new stuff!

What is the critique of Olive Garden here?

i can't tell if you're willfully misinterpreting or not.

to answer your question: this whole NFT thing is a scam pushed by the propertied class/corporations.

The question was, "What is the critique of Olive Garden here?"

What you wrote is not an answer to that question. This question was supposed to make you doubt that a use of Olive Garden's copyright (which requires a critique of Olive Garden to be fair use) might not legally fall under fair use.

yep

'course, someone has to figure out who did it, first

Parody :)

I don't think you're allowed to claim parody when you're making money from trading off the trademark.

People on YouTube do all the time. So do stand up comedians, books, blogs, reviewers, etc.

I mean I'm not a lawyer and still enjoy this crap no matter what the legality is. And honestly the "is it legal" fight is for the courtroom, not here.

You can sell a parody.

I think you can sell content that includes parody, but a product that is nothing but trading on someone else's business is likely to not stand up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com