'Dumb Starbucks' mystery: Who's behind the faux coffee front in Los Feliz?
scpr.org
scpr.org
In the first season he got a gas station to offer gas at a steep discount, but only after rebate- but you had to drop the form off in person at the top of a mountain:
http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/zhbu8g/nathan-for-y...
It increased business because people came for the low price, but only a handful of people actually decided to try to redeem the rebate. Those that did try to redeem it had to camp out overnight and solve riddles:
http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/q9ibj6/nathan-for-y...
On another episode Nathan tried to help a Haunted House to create buzz by getting someone to sue them for being too scary:
http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/nf0ws2/nathan-for-y...
He did this by making a couple think they'd contracted a disease and were being rushed to the hospital:
http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/wvuntb/nathan-for-y...
You're not going to buy the equipment, you're going to lease it. Paper cups are pretty cheap, and you're hiring people off Craigslist. Coffee's cheap too. And it looks like they're in an area that would be pretty cheap.
Cable shows like this are incredibly cheap, and that's why networks love them. A few hundred grand isn't chump change, but if they get a whole episode out of it, they're still making money.
Total in my dumb estimate around $15k; maybe more depending on how elaborate the mockery is, or less if they tried to keep costs down. Anyway, in TV production terms, not much.
Even when you approach from a meta-comedy standpoint - something that his supporters claim is his main focus, he is just juvenile and idiotic. I think he's honestly just an idiot who has gotten lucky enough to be in comedy during the time in history that marijuana is very, very mainstream.
So since you think he's juvenile and idiotic, that means that he shouldn't get any work?
>I think he's honestly just an idiot who has gotten lucky enough to be in comedy during the time in history that marijuana is very, very mainstream.
I think he's hilarious and I don't smoke anything. If he truly isn't funny, how does he keep getting involved in different projects? Obviously some people must find him amusing.
Something, something, emperor's new clothes.
I don't think their reading of fair use is correct here. They talk about the copyright doctrine, but the trademark doctrine is entirely separate.
Unlike the copyright doctrine, under the trademark doctrine, the commercial aspect of this works against them: "In general, however, the courts appear to be more sympathetic to the extent that parodies are less commercial, and less sympathetic to the extent that parodies involve commercial use of the mark"[2]
(disclaimer: ianal)
[1] http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/ [2] http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
E.g.: http://i.imgur.com/AtIbWVe.jpg
Aren't those legal parodies of protected trademarks?
"The court ordered mediation in the case, and on April 1, 2010, the parties reached a closed settlement agreement."
If a company employee admitted to a fact that was damaging to the company's case, then that could be a real problem. The spokesperson's judgment of the "obvious[ness]" is just an opinion, though, rather than a factual admission. The courts aren't likely to take that opinion as gospel. In other words, that statement won't short-circuit the court's normal process of evaluating the evidence and determining whether infringement has occurred.
Given that, who would win? I don't know. I'm just saying that the spokesperson's statement doesn't automatically scuttle whatever case Starbucks might have.
Also worth nothing: Another possible claim would be trademark dilution, which, unlike infringement, doesn't require likely consumer confusion.
But does require that the misuse be in a different class, IIRC.
And not so much trademark as trade dress. Knew the lawyer who argued the case for Taco Cabana in front of SCOTUS.
It's not a requirement. Rather, the statute states that it can be in a different class. But dilution and tarnishment can occur in the same class. From 15 USC § 1125 (c) (1):
"regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.?
> And not so much trademark as trade dress.
Yes, both trademark and trade dress could come into play here. Trademarks come in because the name "Starbucks" and the logo were used (and possibly in relation to other marks, depending on the facts). Trade dress usually refers to more nebulous attributes that software people would call "look and feel." It's relevant to this case because the overall design aesthetics of Dumb Starbucks mimics that of Starbucks.
A bit more tangential to the topic, there are an awful lot of details missing from that Stanford link about Weird Al's work.
He can write completely different lyrics and publish them all he wants without getting permission or paying royalties. If he chooses to record his own lyrics (which he holds the copyright on) to the same tune as the lyric he parodies, then he becomes responsible for paying royalties on the musical composition only. Once a song has been recorded and published, U.S. law compels licensing to anyone else to also record and publish their version of that song at specified royalty rates to the original lyricist and the original composer (compulsory licensing.)
Weird Al does seek permission. This is simply a gesture of good will on his part. He is in no way required to seek this permission. He writes unique lyrics to which he owns the copyright, records them to the original tune (owing compulsory rates to the original composer), and he's completely legal without ever having to have sought anyone's permission. And "fair use" never enters the equation because copyright law already compels such licensing.
Comparing Weird Al's Amish Paradise to Coolio's Gangsta's Paradise, I'd say Al is pretty close to that derivative line. If I were the judge, I'd probably rule for Al in this specific case. And this is the reason Al gets permission - let's avoid all this nastiness and just do what we love.
That makes the commercial infringement part less plausible.
Sure, the handout talks about selling stuff. The handout may not be what they use to defend themselves in court if it comes to that.
"My parodies have always fallen under what the courts call
“fair use,” and this one was no different, legally
allowing me to record and release it without permission.
But it has always been my personal policy to get the
consent of the original artist before including my
parodies on any album..."
But would that actually make a difference if/when this goes to court?
Their FAQ even conflates trademark and copyright.
> This is too expensive for a practical joke. It looks more like an legal trick funded my the entertainment industry delegitimize "fair use" in Intellectual Property legislation. They'll probably take this to court, deliberately lose the case, and then leverage this case as a precedent in future lawsuits concerning fair use of music, video, etc.
There are already Yelp reviews: http://www.yelp.com/biz/dumb-starbucks-los-angeles
The use of either word in their own right is curious as I don't see what here constitutes this to be particularlly "successful" or how Dumb Starbuck's assertion of "fair use" motivation equates to "trolling"
Saying something you don't even believe just to get a reaction is classic trolling. And it's "successful trolling" because they definitely got a reaction.
They don't even assert a fair-use motivation. Their motivation is marketing a business; they explicitly admit that the fair-use stuff is a fig leaf.
Although, I can't see the fair use law protecting them once they begin to charge, creating this amount of buzz as an initial marketing plan...and possibly changing the business name later, if that's the plan, ingenious. Great allocation of marketing capital.
So whoever did this definitely had to have capital, some legal help, graphic help, and a host of other services to throw it together.
Could they still use Apple logos, and trademark names? e.g Crapple Macbook, Crapple iPhone, etc. ?
"These guys are working for free, why wouldn't you?"
1. All publicity is good publicity.
2. All branding is identical, verbatim, (e.g. no
use of small, medium, large; instead branded sizing
parlance is used) forcing the customer to closely
inspect the imitation for flaws. This forces a level of
psychological engagement in the customer that would not
occur in regular, legitimate establishments.
3. Starbucks, for all it's popularity, rarely experiences
negative press. Thus, their brand can easily tolerate
examples of light trolling.
4. Dubious "news" coverage offers vectors for market
penetration into sectors that represent the Lowest
Common Denominator, without cheapening Starbucks'
brand. In other words, they can speak to an audience
that they'd rather not be associated with, without
having to directly engage them. They can inject their
brand's presence into the daily lives of people who
would not ordinarily pay attention to their usual modes
of advertising.
5. Without an entity to claim credit for this activity,
this parody only serves to provide increased exposure
to Starbucks. A well executed parody without an author
will provide no alternate context to the premise of the
joke. If there is any meaning or theme to the parody,
the audience can barely guess at what it should be, if
the intent of the performer cannot be discerned.
6. Hypothesis: The "Dumb" shop will only stay open for as
long as the minor local news publicity lasts. It's
there only to make people use the word "Starbucks" as
frequently as possible, in as many sound bites as
possible, trigger some water cooler conversation for
about a week (word of mouth buzz), and then die.Your conclusions are premature.
Those facts support a broad range of possible solutions and can equally used to support a joke, publicity stunt, or almost any other option thats been discussed here
A business dominating a given industry is unlikely to engage in an advertising campaign (however guerrilla/viral) which (A) demeans its brand by referring to itself as "Dumb" and acting in a downright bizarre manner, and (B) there is nigh unto zero potential market share which would both be affected/informed by such a stunt and unaware of the business in question.
The parody might benefit Starbucks, but nonetheless Starbucks will now have to combat the "Dumb" prefix and weird storyline.
Were this to happen on/around April 1, I'd give you benefit of the doubt (Starbucks does promote some funny/odd notions on April Fool's Day, but even those have a strong sense of "hey, that's a darned good idea anyway").