If Andy Warhol Painted His Campbell's Soup Paintings Today, How Fast Would The Cease & Desist Arrive?
from the how-the-times-have-changed dept
proxy318 points us to a recent post at mthruf.com, which shows the letter the Campbell Soup Company sent Andy Warhol concerning his famous paintings of their soup cans in 1964:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: andy warhol, campbell's soup, trademark
Companies: campbell soup company
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yeah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. MacFarland...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I daresay that with a bit of research you could find several similar situations, in the past several years, where the outcome has been very nearly the opposite thereof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then feel free to offer such examples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cease & Desist Examples
Willton claimed:
You’re kidding, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another example
Perhaps another write up can show you the perceived wrong in corporate policy nowadays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You honestly think that if someone put up a website offering to sell large, hand silk-screened prints of pictures of iPods that Apple would just offer to send a few to the artist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Could you please site one example?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because "some here" aren't as stupid as you'd like for them to be.
I daresay blah blah blah...
Yeah, IP supporters generally "daresay" all kinds of crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I thought that this blog was all about highlighting companies making good decisions. Some making bad ones, sure, but still. Don't just say "that would never happen today". Just because it's not as likely to happen doesn't mean it would never happen.
And no I can't recall any particular examples, though I'm sure Mike could. Yes I'm too lazy to look them up and I admit it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re #3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re #3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re #3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CEO's everywhere should really look at that letter and think of this kind of action as a viable way of conducting business.
Cooperation can succeed over competition, in the end! (That's a hopeful thought, but one can dream).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a good thing then that Mike didn't actually say this although you imply that he did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just a general thought. But like I said, yes, currently I agree how most companies/lawyers would just send a C&D.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And then I'll just provide the url to the Pirate Party
:D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dilution is the problem
A brand name that falls into generic status is what they call dilution, such as Thermos, Kleenex, escalator, or a verb like "I'll go Xerox it." Seems like a zombie living death if your stuff is popular enough for the public to use it. Again, mixing up the different creatures, trademark, patent, likeness and that of COPYRIGHT.
DILUTION then must follow Cheney's one percent solution. That is, even the tiny chance that something might happen deserves a maximal response. A skeptical judge, if such a thing exists, would say you haven't proved an action caused any financial harm.
Our corporate control is what is out of whack. Too many lawyers who lack common sense, and not enough judges to discipline them. This could be debated to the conservatives in terms of barretry, or nuisance lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dilution is the problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dilution is the problem
It seems to me that the lawyers have plenty of common sense. Enough, anyway, that they're getting rich in many cases. The idiots are the ones that keep hiring them to get bled dry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dilution is the problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dilution is the problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so fast....
http://gothamist.com/2008/10/21/pop_burger_under_fire_from_campbell.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not so fast....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not so fast....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fans
I think when you show a company that you really love their product and even send them feedback, they may give a thank you, and even a small gift. I once contacted Hungryman about their tv dinners by email and commented on one that I really liked, but could no longer find.
I got a reply by actual mail, thanking me for my comments, and inside the envelope were 2 coupons, each for a free tv dinner.
Businesses like feedback from their customers and fans. Try it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not everyone
Consider the Internet Lending organisation Zopa: ( https://uk.zopa.com/ZopaWeb/public/about-zopa/big-idea.html )
" Zopa was the world's first lending and borrowing marketplace. By demonstrating that Social Lending works on a large scale, Zopa has changed the financial sector for good.
In Zopa's wake, copycats - such as Prosper in the US, Smava in Germany and Boober in the Netherlands - have sprung up across the world.
Social Lending is a financial category of genuine and increasing importance. "
Nice to see that at least someone still recognises the true meaning of imitation - as a form of flattery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Campbell's Soup
http://www.sportsgrid.com/media/chilis-issues-response-to-steve-carells-outback-steakhouse -decision/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adversarial politics
There's a general feeling, especially among those who have been in Washington for decades, that people are not cooperating as much anymore. People are drawing up sides and refuse to concede anything.
I've intentionally tried to be something of a moderate in the Techdirt discussions because I don't think the hard line "IP protection has got to go" is going to get anyone very far. Sure, it unites the Techdirt community into an "US versus THEM" mentality, but I don't see enough people coming together in support of a hard line to actually get much done.
So I think if we want to encourage cooperation, we should demonstrate it ourselves as well. A kinder, gentler tone is a good thing among company presidents, copyright holders, bloggers, politicians, etc.
Maybe there was more civility in the past (unless, of course, you were subject to various forms of discrimination, which has gotten better over time).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Adversarial politics
Agreed. The anti-IP extremists remind me of some other extremists from history. For example, in the U.S. consider the case of the anti-slavery extremists. The pro-slavery people wanted slavery for the whole U.S., while the anti-slavery extremists wanted it abolished. They were so extreme that they even became widely known as "abolitionists". The moderates, however, saw that a moderate position, a compromise, if you will, that prohibited slavery in part of the country (the North) while allowing it another (the South), was a reasonable solution. This was called the Missouri Compromise. But the anti-slavery extremists just wouldn't leave well enough alone and that eventually led to a big fight called The U.S. Civil War.
Now, I'm not saying that slavery and IP are exactly the same thing (although some have made _some_ comparisons), just pointing out how extremists, like some of the ones here on Techdirt, sometimes don't seem to know how to compromise in the middle on reasonable solutions, (like the Missouri Compromise). Thanks for pointing that out, Suzanne. If the U.S. had more people like you pointing out how important it is to compromise, the U.S Civil War and the total elimination of slavery might could have been avoided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Adversarial politics
Are you prepared to go to war for your beliefs?
I don't want to see violence come about because if IP disagreements, but I have suggested civil disobedience as an option.
I knew people who went to Canada and to prison rather than to go to Vietnam. I also knew people who marched and protested and also sometimes handled police flowers to show that though they disagreed, they wanted to be friendly.
I'm familiar with people making significant sacrifices in the name of what they believe in. So, yes, if you believe copyright and patents are evil and need to be fought at all costs, there are non-violent options to highlight your cause.
I have a lot of respect for groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation which is proactive in trying to change the laws. There are respectful and effective ways to approach this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Adversarial politics
Oh no, I believe in compromise!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Adversarial politics
The war started, and it opened up the opportunity to end slavery, but it wasn't fought because of abolitionists.
I have suggested that a patent-free zone makes sense. Set up some areas and kick ass by showing how well it will work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Adversarial politics
If it were that people had more of a say in them, or that they were shorter in length, or a number of problems that could be solved instead of impeding on progress, I'm sure more people would feel that they were more valuable to have. As it stands, all evidence seems to point to the fact that these government mandates are more trouble than they're worth in regards to expression, privacy (DRM), and freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Adversarial politics
So I can relate to people being frustrated over so many IP-related lawsuits. I see abuses in the system, too.
But a lot of times the arguments against IP-protection are as unfriendly as the ones for them.
So the reason I started this thread is to say, "Yes, isn't it nice that the Campbell's CEO wrote a friendly letter. Let's all be more like that. It would be a good thing all the way around."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a strange "moderation" that you embrace.
Slavery is absolutely an abomination to the founding principles of the US. It's a contradiction in the heart of the Constitution. "No nation, so conceived and so dedicated" can long endure with such a contradiction.
The Rich of the "gentlemanly agricultural south" were simply trying to preserve their easy lives built on the most offensive of practices. To this end, they duped the poor whites into thinking that "states rights" which not incidentally continued slavery were worth fighting and dying for.
"The war started, and it opened up the opportunity to end slavery, but it wasn't fought because of abolitionists."
What was it fought for then, besides the economic reasons I note above?
The whole "states right" schtick is racists re-writing history of the long struggle of people with a conscience to end the affront of slavery to human dignity, and it cannot be simply swept aside with "the war started".
Lincoln preserved the Union *because* slavery had to be abolished, else the whole premise of the US was a lie. You can trot out the old "IF" quote, but his point is that he *couldn't*, and that abolishing slavery *is* worth fighting and dying for: "As he [Christ] died to make men holy, let us die to make them free". To that end, Lincoln's actions of instituting a draft were entirely justified -- though letting The Rich of the North buy their way out of it was not, just shows how The Rich are uniformly pusillanimous. And yes, I'm HAPPY that Sheridan destroyed much of the South, and *more* should have been done after the war to dispossess those whose fortunes came from the labors of slaves, starting with hanging all former slave owners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a strange "moderation" that you embrace.
Here are two quick references below.
And of course, I don't believe in slavery. But we were talking about causes of wars and whether compromise is good or not. The closest current situation I can think of is the fight for and against abortion. The pro-life folks truly believe they are protecting the rights of the unborn. The pro-choice folks are just as determined that they are protecting women's rights. One compromise is to reduce the need for abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies, although there is disagreement as to what is the best approach to do that.
Civil War - MOMENTUM FOR ABOLITIONISM
The Civil War: "On November 6, 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States -- an event that outraged southern states. The Republican party had run on an anti-slavery platform, and many southerners felt that there was no longer a place for them in the Union. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded. By Febrary 1, 1861, six more states -- Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas -- had split from the Union. The seceded states created the Confederate States of America and elected Jefferson Davis, a Mississippi Senator, as their provisional president.
In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's a strange "moderation" that you embrace.
Immediately following the attack, four more states -- Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee -- severed their ties with the Union. To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's a strange "moderation" that you embrace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a strange "moderation" that you embrace.
Someone else brought up slavery and talked about how the Civil War was fought over it as a way to debunk my approval of moderation and being nice.
All I was doing when I posted my thoughts on adversarial politics was AGREEING with this entire post. Yes, it's good to be nice. It gets more done than being nasty.
If you really want to get into why the Civil War was fought we can do it. But it's a major detour and I don't think what was posted was historically accurate.
Again, if you want to talk about people defending what they believe to the death, there are a lot of current causes we can point to as well. Religion. Abortion rights. People have always vehemently believed in causes and their right to be extreme about them.
Come on folks. I suggest that we be nicer to everyone and someone suggests that somehow it is comparable to advocating slavery? Really?? I'm shaking my head at the thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a strange "moderation" that you embrace.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater, acceptance speech as Republican candidate for President, 1964
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a strange "moderation" that you embrace.
There are horrendous things being done to women in some countries. But I'm not sure bombing those countries into the ground is the proper solution.
This is the sort of thing I'd advocate. It changes the world, but it does so in a positive way rather than resorting to negative tactics.
Two-wheel triumph : "In a place where women dutifully give birth in dingy huts, the men know of little outside their fields, and the world revolves around the local mosque; the sight of a 'modern' woman visitor astride her bike is a spectacle. The more so as Akhter zaps around with gadgets like a netbook, GSM mobile, blood pressure monitor and pregnancy kit, all deftly packed in her shoulder bag. 'It was a scandal when I started my rounds two years ago with just a mobile phone', says Akhter. Now it is more of a phenomenon. She is treated like a champion by people whose lives she's shaping with once 'scary machines'.
Akhter belongs to a motley band of 'InfoLadies,' who are piloting a revolutionary idea - giving millions of Bangladeshis, trapped in a cycle of poverty and natural disaster, access to information on their doorstep to improve their chances in life."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is "contribution to developing culture"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a writer puts in hours of imagination and writing into a work, and someone else comes along and claims that work, we call it "plagiarism" for a reason, and that's why copyrights exist.
If there is no protection WHATSOEVER for the work a person does, they don't have much incentive to create or develop, do they?
So in some cases patents and copyrights are there for a REASON, and to attempt to do away with them completely - sorry, you create a world where the incentive to create is lessened. Maybe some of you all want to go back to living in freaking caves, or living some hippie fairyland where everyone just shares and shares and shares (never going to happen, please stop trying for a non existent utopia) but I'll pass.
Meanwhile though there are OUTRAGEOUS cases of both copyright and patent abuse by attorneys, and the person above who said that judges need to start slapping some of the overzealous lawyers around is correct. I'm a member of the EFF for exactly those reasons. But to say that all patents or copyrights are somehow abusing your right to take another's work and claim it as your own - nonsense. Nonsense and whining and not having the smarts to create something yourself. Too bad. End of story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So once Mcdonald's developed fast food, we should not have allowed Burger King or Wendy's to exist?
Mostly that's considered competition, and it leads the original idea creator to innovate faster. Why is competition a bad thing?
If a writer puts in hours of imagination and writing into a work, and someone else comes along and claims that work, we call it "plagiarism" for a reason, and that's why copyrights exist.
Actually, no. That's entirely wrong. Copyright and plagiarism are two separate things. They may overlap at times, but copyright has nothing to do with pretending someone else's work is your own. Plagiarism, by itself, breaks no law. Copyright has nothing to do with making sure someone is properly credited for their work.
If there is no protection WHATSOEVER for the work a person does, they don't have much incentive to create or develop, do they?
There are tons of incentives, as we've detailed for years. When it comes to innovation, the incentive is selling products in the market place. When it comes to creative works, there are lots of business models that are available to you as you get more well known which don't require copyright.
There are lots of incentives that work entirely without patent or copyright law.
So in some cases patents and copyrights are there for a REASON, and to attempt to do away with them completely - sorry, you create a world where the incentive to create is lessened.
Unfortunately, the actual evidence suggests no such decrease in incentive to create.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Patents and copyrights don't necessarily do much for creating stories. Beowulf continues to have no copyright laws and it's a story that's been shared for ages.
If we get into the world of literature, imagine if Bram Stoker had a copyright on the vampire. Would it have been used for Twilight or would there be a similar monster within this world?
As has been proven, creativity is hampered by copyright laws if they are obsessive. We could have less protection on works whereby they go into the public domain. I doubt this takes away from someone's ability to create. Seeing as how I'll be finishing a book myself, I found it enriches my work if I can find what works for other authors in my field and what doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
he was delighted with the free soup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no doubt Marilyn Monroe would also have sued
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the righteous snotblo of "folded and boxed tissue paper products"
Depends ad slogan: "Don't knock the depends (or something might drop out)"
btw, my trademark application for the word "solicitor" was very recently approved, so you'll be reading more about trademark suits, soon. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and from the dept of circular circulars...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Realization of Reality !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
likely zeitgeist, if you believe in seussgeist
In news, bad news is good news. This was not bad news, so must qualify as weird news, which is still (niche) good news. and if it is weird news, that implies zeitgeist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now you don't even get a C&D, you get everyone telling you that you are going to get sued even before you start the project.
Did I miss the part in school where everyone became a liability inspector. I must have been out that day.
Now when you do anything everyone is already telling you that it's not legal, or you are gonna get sued. If you ask them for what, they don't know, but they know you are gonna get it.
God forbid you mention fair use and satire.
I am however in love with this letter and I am posting it on my modern contemporary art blog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]