Philip Morris Sends Cease & Desist To Artist For Using Marlboro Box In His Art

Free Speech

from the have-you-met-ms.-streisand? dept

Fri, Oct 26th 2012 10:38am — Mike Masnick

Every time you think that lawyers may have finally caught on to the fact that sending out ridiculous cease and desist letters to silence things they don't like will backfire on them, you hear of yet another case of it happening. This time it's tobacco giant Philip Morris, who sent a cease & desist letter to artist Brad Troemel for some artwork he had up on his Etsy page. He had two different pieces for sale on Etsy, each involving a Marlboro box. One of them is still up. It's the "dean & deluca low calorie snack inside Marlboro box w/ Cerebral Palsy Tissue/Organ Kidney Cancer Green Ribbon Glittery Sticker (Ethical) 1/2" (catchy name):

According to the genius lawyers at Philip Morris, consumers seeing this are going to be confused into believing that Philip Morris is actually endorsing the product. Because, apparently, Philip Morris believes its consumers are complete morons who can't understand art-as-social-commentary.

This reminds me of Louis Vuitton's similar trademark bullying to shut down art exhibits critical of its products. Trademark bullying to stifle criticism isn't new, but it's pretty ridiculous. The end result, of course, is that Troemel's work -- and the commentary on the original products -- will now get that much more attention due to PM's crazy attempt to make it go away.

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: art, brad troemel, marlboro, streisand effect, trademark
Companies: philip morris

18 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Mike C. (profile), 26 Oct 2012 @ 8:45am

But Philip Morris might be right...
If you think about it though, Philip Morris might be right - their customers might just be idiots. After all, despite decards of research showing that smoking leads to increased health problems, they continue to attract new customers. Only a complete moron would do that....

:-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 26 Oct 2012 @ 10:45am

Re: But Philip Morris might be right...
It is every humans right to destroy themselves with whatever substance at whatever rate they see fit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 26 Oct 2012 @ 10:50am

Re: But Philip Morris might be right...
"Only a complete moron would do that"

Most people start smoking as teenagers, so yes, you're probably right.

What happened with that painting of a soup can? Wasn't there a lawsuit involved, and didn't they get bitch slapped back?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 26 Oct 2012 @ 10:51am

Re: Re: But Philip Morris might be right...
Apparently not.

Our government stops us from using lots of substances that kill us at lots of different rates.

This one just has better lobbyists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 26 Oct 2012 @ 11:33am

One notion is that ANY publicity is good.
So they may just be doing a "Reverse Streisand" on ya, Mike. Ya never know.

I've noticed product placement here and there across teh internets, I suppose mostly on the Cheezburger sites: I don't claim to know, or even cast aspersions, but has struck me that would be good for subtle free advertising. -- If I've thought of it, so has everyone with a direct interest. Just saying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew F (profile), 26 Oct 2012 @ 11:56am

Re: Re: But Philip Morris might be right...
I don't think Campbell soup actually sued. The paintings didn't really portray Campbell in a negative light, so they were pretty chill about it.

Also, soup companies can CwF too: http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/2010/08/campbell-soups-response-to-andy-warhols-appropriation/
http://madisonian.net/2012/08/30/warhol-and-campbells-soup/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zos (profile), 26 Oct 2012 @ 12:11pm

Re: One notion is that ANY publicity is good.
any advertising subliminal enough that my bullshit filter doesn't catch it, is good enough marketing that it gets a tip of the hat in respect, rather than the wagging finger of fail. I don't mind marketers attempting to manipulate the interwebz and hack consumers. i even like a good pitch... but i sure as fuck hate being talked down to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 12:43pm

The government needs to ding Phillip Morris for illegal advertising by means of idiotic lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wolfy, 26 Oct 2012 @ 12:54pm

Andy.

Warhol.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 2:16pm

If only Campbell's had done this back in the early 60's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 2:30pm

Re:
The question you should be asking yourself is: Does Phillip Morris actually lose anything by letting their copyright get abused? The way I see it, their product is almost completely impossible to make a commercial for from their side. They might as well let viral marketing take over and let the use slide.
Is there anyway they can be made responsible for not protecting their IPR?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anonymous dutch coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 3:27pm

respect
genius marketing campaign from mr. morris using "brad troemel" (yeah right) to promote his product. respect!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 3:28pm

Philip Morris, after all, has SUCH a good reputation to protect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 26 Oct 2012 @ 6:35pm

When I was a kid my father made me an L&M costume for halloween. (L&M was the brand he and Mom smoked at the time.)

He should not only be sued for violating their trademark, but he should be thrown in jail for child abuse. Even though smoking wasn't seen as a big deal at the time, HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2012 @ 8:48am

Cigarettes SUCK
Those who suck on them are most likely grievously addicted to them.

Tobacco/cigarette companies *** S U C K ***.

Laws that protect the deception by tobacco/cigarette companies over the truth about the ingredients and carcinogenic chemicals purposely sprayed on tobacco that kills my friends and family *** S U C K ***.

Lawyers that attempt to protect tobacco/cigarette companies from looking like they *** S U C K ***, *** S U C K ***.

Anything tobacco/cigarette companies do to protect their [death by manufacturing] products makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and only makes it crystal clear that in making their living, producing these death sticks, they are not the least bit concerned with the health of the world. Oh, but guard that mark.

That *** S U C K S ***.

Its time to quit smoking if you haven't already. Don't give them any more of your money.

Don't *** S U C K ***.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2012 @ 2:00pm

Re: Re: But Philip Morris might be right...
Yeah, but not near me. Have you *smelled* these people?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 27 Oct 2012 @ 8:16pm

Fair use and transformitive arts
I think that today, Andy Warhol would not be able to practice his art. Would the world be better off? I doubt it, even though I am not a fan of his. It is time we vette our politicians / government representatives for their views on copyright/patent laws, and only support those who are minimalist in their views on the subject - that the current trends in those regards are quickly eroding an entire cultural legacy and providing no benefit to the public, who they (our representatives) are sworn to represent...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mc, 28 Oct 2012 @ 2:17pm

They have a point...
Sorry, but I think PM has a point. Many many times Tobacco companies have been attacked by anti-tobacco organizations that they don't do enough to combat advertising to minors. For example, I personally know one time that a tobacco company got negative press because there were hundres of youtube videos featuring some of its trademarks, and they criticized that the company didn't do anything to stop this "indirect" advertising that minors can have access to.

So, apart from the discussion of whether it is ok to use IP in this specific case, there might be other reasons to stop these kind of use. One of them being indirect advertisement to minors, even if not done directly by PM. If PM doesn't do anything to combat this use, they can get bad press from anti-tobacco organizations that they are not doing enough to combat advertising to minors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]