Planet Money T-Shirt Plans Include Recognizing That Copying Works For Fashion

from the good-for-them dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about how the NPR podcast Planet Money was planning to go into the t-shirt business to better understand the whole process of creating a small clothing retail operation, top to bottom. The idea was to create high quality t-shirts that people would actually want (and pay a premium for), rather than the typical cheapo t-shirts. I had been wondering what happened to that plan, because the Planet Money team hadn't mentioned it in a while, but they're finally back to discussing it, and the latest podcast, amazingly, hits on another topic we talk about frequently: how copying helps the fashion industry.

Unfortunately, the Planet Money folks refer to it as "stealing," even as they talk to a bunch of folks who explain how copying is what really helps the industry thrive. They discuss the awful new fashion copyright bill, and how it's likely to have seriously bad consequences for the industry and for consumers, noting even, that many economists recognize that intellectual property is not a good solution in many markets. If a market can thrive and be competitive without intellectual property, adding such monopolies to the mix can be a disaster, leading to greater employment for lawyers, but harm to everyone else. They describe how having something like a fashion copyright will make it so that the industry needs to "clear" pretty much everything they do with the lawyers first. That means things will be a lot more expensive, and anything that can't be "cleared" may never get made.

It may not be "new" to folks around here, who have known all this for years, but it's nice to see these ideas spreading.

Filed Under: copying, fashion, planet money, t-shirts

NY Times Becomes A Trademark Bully Over A Logo For A Newspaper That Hasn't Existed In 40+ Years

from the all-the-bullying-that's-fit-to-print dept

What is it with the NY Times lately? The newspaper used to have actually been one of the more "reasonable" ones when it came to intellectual property issues. However, in just the last few weeks we've had stories about how it tried to takedown an RSS feed reader for using the NY Times' own RSS feed, as well as a story where the NY Times' chief IP lawyer hides behind copyright law to explain the NYT's refusal to post useful source documents.

However, this latest one may the most bizarre of all. From 1924 to 1966 there was a daily newspaper published in NY called the NY Herald Tribune. It shut down in 1966, with a brief attempt at revival under a different name. In 1967, the NY Times and the Washington Post bought the European Edition of the paper, which was known as the International Herald Tribune, which had a separate website until recently when the NY Times (who bought out The Washington Post's half of the paper a few years back) decided to merge the IHT website into the NYT's own.

Either way, even with the operation of the IHT, the New York Herald Tribune has not actually been a newspaper since 1966. However, apparently many people have fond memories of the masthead of the paper, in part because of how it was portrayed on the t-shirt of actress Jean Seberg in the 1960 French film Breathless. Popular clothing shop Neighborhoodies recently decided to recreate the t-shirt on their own (photo from Consumerist): That's when the NY Times got upset. It first threatened to sue over the use of the logo, but Neighborhoodies didn't fold. They, properly, realized that trademarks only cover use in commerce and for products that the mark actually covers. Seeing that the New York Herald Tribune has not operated since 1966 (and the NY Times only owned the brand after that), it's difficult to see how the NYTimes has a legitimate trademark request.

And here's where things get even more ridiculous. After Neighborhoodies made this position clear to the NY Times, the NY Times tried to route around the company and sent a takedown to the ISP who hosts Neighborhoodies' website. That ISP apparently didn't want to stand up for its customer, so Neighborhoodies quickly switched ISPs. Either way this seems like an entirely bogus trademark claim, topped off with an obnoxious attempt to route around the company once that company made it clear that it wasn't going to just fold over when the NY Times sent a nastygram.

Filed Under: ny herald tribune, t-shirts, takedowns, trademark
Companies: neighborhoodies, ny times

Official Twilight T-Shirt Contest Won't Let You Use Anything From Twilight

from the good-luck dept

David writes in to alert us to the rather hilarious situation where Cafe Press is running an official Twilight t-shirt design contest, where you can try to design a t-shirt for the upcoming release of the latest installment (didn't the last one come out like 3 weeks ago?) in the series, called Eclipse. You're supposed to design a t-shirt related to the movie, and you can win a $500 gift card.

That, of course, is not very interesting. Where it gets amusing is when you look at the restrictions in the fine print (I've bolded my favorites):

• No use of the official Twilight movie logo e.g.
• All images must be tagged with "twilight movie"
• No use of images or depictions of the actors in the movie
• No use of profanity, vulgar or hate language
• No use of explicit sexual language or graphics
• No use of copyrighted material from the movie or its promotional materials (e.g. no use of images of the movie, movie posters or from the movie website)
• No political party associations (e.g. republican, democrat, or candidates)
• No blood
• No fangs
• No stakes thru the heart
• No coffins
• No bats
• No use of Twilight book cover images
• No pictures of apples
• No journals (you cannot create Twilight journal products)
• No calendars (you cannot create Twilight calendar products)
• No Cards (you cannot create Twilight postcards, greeting cards and note cards)
• No Undergarments (you cannot create Twilight thongs or boxer shorts)

So, yes, go ahead and make an official Twilight movie shirt (but certainly not any other Cafe Press product), but don't use anything from the actual movies or books or anything normally associated with vampires. Also, um, can someone explain to me the prohibition on apples?

Filed Under: permission culture, rules, t-shirts, twilight

Planet Money Crew Merges T-Shirts And Journalism

from the hey,-that-sounds-familiar! dept

Just a day after we announced our combined plans to save journalism and sell some t-shirts, the always excellent Planet Money team at NPR did an entire show about their own plans to get into the t-shirt business. Planet Money, we've noted in the past, has really taken the concept of experiential journalism to new levels, by not just reporting on certain subjects, but getting really involved in the topics to better understand them. This is great.

And, their latest plan is to get into the t-shirt business to better understand what it's like to manage such a business. Of course, we've noted in the past that there's actually a ton of money to be made in the t-shirt business, even as some of our critics have mocked our business model ideas as being limited to just selling "looooooots of t-shirts" and little else. In response, of course, we sold a ton of t-shirts with that as the slogan (I'm wearing mine now).

The Planet Money podcast about t-shirts highlights a few interesting points that again fit in with plenty of the things we talk about here. For example, they spend time talking to a "trends" expert, who notes that the big thing in selling high end luxury t-shirts, is to include a "story" with the shirt. It's the story that gets people willing to buy the shirt. She mentions how some of the shirts have huge tags that include a detailed story about where the shirt was made. This kicks off a discussion among the Planet Money crew about how their whole business is telling stories, and they should be able to tell a good story with their shirt. This actually reminds me of the Significant Objects project that we've written about a few times, where a group of fiction writers sold random trinkets on eBay... but did so with a fictional story about the object. That fictional story (given away for free) made the little trinkets much more valuable, and they were sold for much higher than nominal prices.

It was yet another example of an infinite good (the story) being used to make a scarce good (the trinket) much more valuable. It's neat to see the same thing happening in t-shirts as well, as it sort of ties a bunch of these different ideas together.

Oh, and one last thing. In the podcast, they discuss how high end t-shirts, with high quality cotton, can sell for over $200, and talk about how their own t-shirt, which they insist will be a hell of a lot nicer than your typical cheap NPR t-shirt, will probably be sold for about $50. Given all of this, I should note that our own t-shirts are also high quality American Apparel shirts that are crazy soft and comfy... and are offered at the bargain price of just $25... including a one-year subscription to the Techdirt crystal ball feature. It's a bargain. So, if you're interested in t-shirts and journalism, you can pick up our high-quality "paywall" t-shirt to make sure people have to pay you to keep talking: Or just sign up for our brainstorming event on saving journalism, where you'll get the t-shirt as well... and maybe we'll even figure out a way to discuss t-shirts and journalism.

Filed Under: business models, journalism, planet money, t-shirts

Honda Sued For Trademark Infringement For Suggesting It Wants To Save The Earth

from the okay,-don't-save-the-earth dept

Be careful suggesting that you want to "save the earth." Automaker Honda just did that in an ad with a guy wearing a "save the earth" t-shirt, and for doing so, it got slapped with a trademark infringement lawsuit from the Save the Earth Foundation, which apparently has a trademark on that phrase (and has had it since 1972). The foundation claims that the ad was implying endorsement by the foundation. I wonder if morons in a hurry have any interest in saving the earth.

Filed Under: advertising, cars, save the earth, t-shirts, trademark
Companies: honda, save the earth foundation

Whaddya Know... Popular Mechanics Connects With Young Fans With T-Shirts And A Contest

from the plenty-of-tshirts dept

Hearst Magazines, which is the division of the Hearst Corporation behind Popular Mechanics, has teamed up with Old Navy to print t-shirts with old Popular Mechanics illustrations aimed at kids. The classic artwork is supposed to revive interest in the new editions of Popular Mechanics as well as generate some enthusiasm for mechanical gadgets related to transportation (think 1950s rocket cars and electric motorcycle concepts). Along with the shirts, the magazine is also sponsoring a 'Kids Can Do Great Things Design Contest' for children (up to 12) to submit their own artwork. The winner of the contest will get a $500 shopping spree at Old Navy and have the design printed in the magazine -- and if it looks good on a shirt, they'll sell shirts, too.

Not too long ago, we mentioned Rolling Stone magazine trying out a similar merchandise program (though with a few more legal complications), so this isn't exactly a novel concept (and we never said it was). But it's interesting that more publications are experimenting with efforts to connect with fans -- and especially younger fans to keep the fan pipeline filled. And one of the key components for this Popular Mechanics example is that it fits with the magazine's audience and also highlights a common theme from the magazine. This is the beginning of creating a brand for the magazine that features why readers should be interested in paying attention to it. Namely, if you're looking for articles and concept artwork related to futuristic transportation solutions, Popular Mechanics is where to go.

If this t-shirt trend continues, though, we'll have to be on the lookout for newspapers printing t-shirts, too. I'm pretty sure there would be a market for WSJ-style hedcut artwork on t-shirts -- and some copyright issues for it as well.

Filed Under: business models, magazines, popular mechanics, t-shirts
Companies: hearst, popular mechanics

Can Rolling Stone Sell T-Shirts Of Its Covers? It's Not That Simple, Apparently...

from the ah,-intellectual-property dept

Well, here's an interesting lawsuit. Apparently, Rolling Stone magazine decided it wanted to try selling t-shirts of some of its covers. Considering the market for t-shirts, that might not be a bad idea (especially when compared to the market for magazines these days). Obviously, the magazine and its publisher Wenner Media own the copyright on their own covers, so there shouldn't be any problem, right? Not so fast. Since the covers usually include musicians, and those musicians have vast merchandising businesses themselves, some of the companies who handle the merchandising for some top artists have sued, claiming that they have exclusive licensing deals to sell products with those musicians. Rolling Stone is arguing both that it has a First Amendment right to do this, and a fair use defense to any intellectual property claim. I'm reminded of a recent case involving magazine covers, where the use of those magazine covers in a book (by someone else) was deemed fair use, though the details are obviously quite different. Still, it probably won't surprise many people that I tend to think Rolling Stone should prevail here. The key aspect of what they're selling is that the designs are Rolling Stone covers -- not specifically which band is on the cover.

Filed Under: copyright, magazine covers, rolling stone, t-shirts

On Second Thought, SoundScan Claims Mos Def T-Shirt Doesn't Count As An Album Sale

from the that's-pretty-silly dept

On Friday, we thought that Mos Def's experiment with selling an album via a t-shirt (whereby if you bought the t-shirt, you got to download the album) was a pretty cool idea. What seemed even cooler was the claim that Nielsen Soundscan would count each t-shirt sale as an album sale. However, Soundscan has come out claiming this simply is not true:

"Nielsen Soundscan knows nothing about this and without knowing more, we have no intention of counting units triggered by the sale of a t-shirt."

The company offering up the t-shirts tried to explain, saying:

Instead of directly reporting retail sales through his company, Invisible DJ, Wineberg plans to relay the information back to the label. The label, in turn, can then submit the sale to Soundscan.

Hmm. That's not quite the same thing as saying Soundscan will count the t-shirt sales? And, it may be even worse, as Soundscan said it may count those sales submitted by the label, but only after "a discussion and negotiation." In other words, there's no real deal here at all, and nothing to suggest that the t-shirts will be counted as album sales.

Of course, that's ridiculous. In this era when the "music" is getting people to buy other stuff, the specific number of "album" sales is meaningless. We've seen artists who embrace these unique models making a lot more money from them, but they don't appear as top sellers because Soundscan only wants to count one (increasingly smaller) part of the ecosystem? That sort of thinking reinforces the misguided focus on the "album."

Filed Under: business models, mos def, soundscan, t-shirts
Companies: nielsen

Mos Def Tries T-Shirt As An Album Business Model

from the cool dept

While some folks like to mock the business model examples we talk about by saying that the future is just in selling looooooooooooooooooottss of t-shirts, the truth is that while the models involve a bunch of different things, we shouldn't mock the idea of using t-shirts as part of some models. It appears that Mos Def recognizes that. As a bunch of you have sent in, his latest album is being sold via t-shirt. That is, you can buy a t-shirt that will include the album artwork on the front, track listing on the back... and a code for a digital download. And even more impressive, he's convinced Soundscan to count sales of the t-shirt as album sales. Another cool experiment.

Filed Under: business models, mos def, music, t-shirts

Another Bogus Copyright Takedown: Can't Protest A Viacom Movie With T-Shirts

from the where's-the-infringement? dept

Boing Boing points us to the news that someone who was trying to protest the fact that a new Viacom animated movie was hiring Caucasian actors to play Asian or Inuit characters found that the t-shirts she was selling via Zazzle were taken down due to a claim that they violated Viacom's intellectual property. It's difficult to see what the violation of intellectual property here is. The shirts don't use any imagery from the movie itself. The t-shirts were designed by the woman herself. The only thing they have is a mention of the name of the movie -- but that shouldn't be enough to force the content offline. On top of that, plenty of the shirts don't seem to name the movie at all, but do name one of the characters. Again, it's quite difficult to see how this is an intellectual property violation, in any way. The explanation that Zazzle gave isn't entirely clear -- as it might not be a case of Viacom complaining directly, but Zazzle taking the matter into its own hands (which is equally troubling). Whether it's Viacom or Zazzle, this appears to be an overly aggressive attempt to stop perfectly reasonable public speech by hiding behind intellectual property claims. Update: Someone from Viacom stopped by in the comments to let us know that it has no problem with the shirts. Zazzle just took the shirts down on their own, and Viacom has asked them to put the shirts back up. Nice to see Viacom respond in this manner.

Filed Under: copyright, movies, protests, t-shirts, takedowns
Companies: viacom, zazzle