I would bet money that this is a stunt for the Comedy Central show "Nathan For You", which is coming back for a second season soon and does all kinds of weird business-y stunts like this.
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:
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:
It would be so awesome if this is from "Nathan For You" - that show is hilarious, especially if you appreciate dry humor and have ever watched a season of The Apprentice :)
Negative. They are probably blocked in countries where Comedy Central does not have distribution. For example, they work in Sweden, where there is comedy central.
I don't think so, it would take a TON of capital to pull off something like this and after watching a few episodes I don't think it's feasible for the shows budget. All their stunts seem to be somewhat inexpensive in comparison to opening a store.
I dunno, presumably all of the equipment is leased, they probably aren't paying the employees much more than minimum wage, I bet it's within the show's budget. (Especially if it ends up only being open for a day or two.) If the experiment is successful they should end up making money.
Really, if you think about it, if you only plan on having it open short-term, and you have the money of Viacom (parent co. of Comedy Central) behind you, then capital is not an issue.
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.
I think the most expensive thing there is the sign. That's probably over $5k. Month's rent, depending on how bit the place is, maybe $2-4k. Couple days payroll, maybe $1k. Equipment lease I don't know, but maybe a few grand. More if they bought stuff, less if they found a closing Starbucks. Everything else (custom printed cups) maybe another $2k.
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.
Honest question - how does that man keep getting work?
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.
I think he's got the same thing going for him that Andy Kaufman had. No one famous wants to look like they don't get it, or look dumb, so they play along.
Reading stuff like this makes me like him even more. Sorry. Probably a holdover from how much I liked Beavis & Butthead as a kid, people thought that was idiotic too.
Weird Al does not rely on fair use, he seeks permission from the rights holder[1].
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]
I think these people are also being disingenuous about their classification of their "business," stating plainly that they are attempting to skirt trademark law by being some kind of art installation. Either it's a parody with permission from Starbucks (which neither party to the agreement is required to inform the public about) or they're going to be in trouble.
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.
If the work can be defined as "derivative," then you are correct. So how do we define "derivative" when it comes to lyrics? Are all limericks derivatives of the original simply because they have the same pattern? I suspect the definition a judge would use would take into account how many words from the original lyrics appear in the exact places in the parody lyrics.
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.
Though Weird Al could rely on fair use. In his own words [0]:
"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..."
One that you might note in your argument is how the store so far has not sold anything - it has merely given away coffee as part of a supposed "grand opening".
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.
Eh, if the starbucks spokesperson is quoted as saying "Its obviously not a Starbucks," they ~obviously~ don't have a case with regards to trademark infringement, since ~obviously~ consumers aren't being misled or whatever.
You're speaking about the "likelihood of confusion" standard for trademark infringement, I presume.
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.
Or, maybe it's "obviously" not a Starbucks because the owners of Dumb Starbucks Coffee already contacted Starbucks and worked things out and keeping mum on the topic is part of the agreement until the punchline is delivered some time in the future. That said, if this were the case, you'd think the PR response would be even less information-- silence, or "we're looking into this" and leave it.
Also, reading "obvious" as "obvious to the general public" rather than "obvious to the person I'm speaking to right now: a journalist specifically asking for comment because they already believe it's not a Starbucks" and expecting that interpretation to hold up anywhere that matters is the kind of thing you only see in Internet lawyering.
> But does require that the misuse be in a different class, IIRC.
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.
Selling a t-shirt with a parody logo of a company isn't the same as a company presenting itself with a parody logo of an another company in the same space.
They broke the settlement agreement, that doesn't mean they lost the original court case. Them breaking the settlement agreement has nothing to do with creating case history for other intellectual property cases. Them breaking the agreement is a completely different issue than anything else going on in the article.
The commercial nature of the alleged infringement it doesn't necessarily determine the outcome. So you could have one case where the judge rules for the plaintiff because the use is commercial, and another where the judge rules for the defendant despite the fact that the use is commercial.
Price (inc. zero price) is not he test for whether actions are commercial. Usually the test includes a measure of whether the actions are damaging to the commercial nature of the offended party in a suit.
Is it any different if you are doing this in bad faith? The picture posted mentions "Is this a real business? Yes it is. But for legal reasons, Dumb Starbucks needs to be categorised as a parody artwork". So they are clearly aware they are trying to get around copyright and this is probably pretty good evidence that they themselves don't really consider it as a parody artwork.
But would that actually make a difference if/when this goes to court?
Intent is one of the factors for trademark infringement. So it might matter a little. You could argue that the statement shows the proprietors' intent is at least partly commercial. On the other hand, that much would be fairly easy to prove just by reviewing the company's financial records, operating agreement, etc. So I'm not sure the statement gets you anything that wasn't already a slam dunk.
I'm reminded of the movie Velvet Goldmine. It's intended to be biographical (very easy to figure out of whom) but because they couldn't secure the rights they just switched a few facts here and there, changed names and voila - successful truth-based movie without any rights secured.
> 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.
I live on this street. For the last 2 years it was a restaurant called Gastronomico. They started as a food truck, which still is operating and tweeting here: https://mobile.twitter.com/thegastrobus . The couple who owned it are chill hippy type people and I'm sure they know what's behind this.
This is 4 blocks from me. I went to check it out but there was a line of around 150 people out the door and I bailed since I wasn't willing to invest the 90 minutes in line.
I'd like to know who the backers of it are. If I was some big corporation that wanted to get rid of the parody exception, this is exactly what I'd do...
Given the article doesn't shed any light on who is behind this enterprise/stunt/whatever, I'm curious why they used the term "Successful Troll".
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"
Did you read the article? They say explicitly that they are using the Starbucks name and logo for "marketing purposes", and that they don't even think Starbucks is dumb.
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.
Fair use doesn't work preemptively. It's only good when presented as a defense in a court. Even then ere are a lot of caveats and precedent that exists, so simply calling it a parody probably won't work in a court.
I wonder will the "Its obviously not a Starbucks" comment hurt Starbucks' case against Dumb Starbucks. Usually, these things get brought to court as an attempt to trade off the "real" brand...
I guess it's a little bit difficult for them to cause monetary damages to Starbucks if they continue to provide FREE coffee.
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.
I recently worked with a restaurant that is brand new. The work and money that goes into a new restaurant is pretty crazy, especially custom cups, signage, etc.
So whoever did this definitely had to have capital, some legal help, graphic help, and a host of other services to throw it together.
One possibility is that local restaurants and cafes got together to bring in customers to the general area. Already saw a comment on yelp from a local cafe who has seen their business rise dramatically.
A very ambitious example of culture jamming, I'll say. I just hope it it's grassroots and not an astroturf. That'd be disappointing, although evan_'s explanation seems plausible.
...so, Starbucks paid some guerrilla marketing company millions of dollars to stage an absurd publicity stunt.
Supporting Facts:
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.
Starbucks is already waay more top of mind than this, does plenty of other advertising, and this project is way out of line from their carefully managed brand image of warm/comfort/happy/love
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").
Be carefull about what you are claiming as facts vs conculusions... most of those points are loosly related facts with fallacious or simplified conclusions.
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
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...