The Cake Copyright Is A Lie; Safeway Just Doesn't Want To Be Mocked

from the time-to-take-your-business-elsewhere dept

A few folks have sent in this story on the blog of the wonderful (and super popular) site Cake Wrecks, which (as the name suggests) highlights hilariously bad cake designs, supposedly done by "professionals." Not surprisingly, the site is well known among those who wield cake decorating bags. However, some do not appreciate the wonders of such a site... especially when it features their own cakes. Cake Wrecks recently put up a blog post in which it reveals that at least one Safeway (a part of the giant supermarket chain) has apparently told its bakery that there is a "no photography" rule, officially set up to avoid having its cakes show up on the site -- though, they're using copyright as their excuse:

"My local [CENSORED*] bakery has this new policy - not strictly enforced, but kinda enforced - NO PHOTOS in the bakery department. None, nada. Per an ex-employee there, upper management is afraid that one of that store's specific cakes will be posted on 'that bad cake site.' Per what they tell you in the store, their cakes are 'all copyright protected.'"

Furthermore, the person who sent the email was told to stop photographing the following cake, because of "copyright protection!" You may notice that Safeway is clearly on the label -- but has been "censored" out of the note. Cake Wrecks amusingly refuses to name the chain in question, but does title its blog post "Ways to Play it Safe." It also features a whole bunch of photographs of ridiculously designed cakes from Safeway -- many with stickers prominently displaying where they came from. It's worth checking out the whole bunch, though I'll warn you that one of them might be considered not safe for work, depending on your work environment (though, it's also the type of cake that I imagine our own Dark Helmet would find hilarious).

Of course, there is a question of whether or not such cakes are actually covered by copyright. That actually probably depends on each individual cake -- since there has to be some sort of overall creative element added to the cake, and many "standard" cake designs probably don't qualify. Of course, even if the cake is covered by copyright, it seems silly to argue that copyright is a reasonable excuse to ban any and all photographs. There would be a ridiculously strong fair use claim in response. The photograph is transformative (it's not a cake, it's a photgraph). The nature of the work is to disseminate information to the public, which tends to weigh in favor of fair use. And the effect on the "market" for the copyrighted work is nil. Now, some may argue that it would impact the market for the cake, but that's because it's showing how ridiculous the cake is, not because it's a substitute. And, in the famous Campbell v. Acuff-Rose case, the Supreme Court made clear:

We do not, of course, suggest that a parody may not harm the market at all, but when a lethal parody, like a scathing theater review, kills demand for the original, it does not produce a harm cognizable under the Copyright Act.

I'd say Cake Wrecks fits into that description nicely. Either way, even if there was a legitimate copyright claim here, all it does is call that much more attention to the fact that apparently Safeway has pretty horrid quality control for many of its cake designers. Instead of coming up with ridiculous legal arguments to stop people from photographing their cakes, perhaps they should just find better cake designers.

Filed Under: cake, copyright, parody, shame
Companies: safeway

Organizations Try To Shame People Into Voting By Revealing How Often They & Their Neighbors Voted

from the that's-just-going-to-piss-people-off dept

It's election day. While your actual ballot is (supposed to be) secret, a lot of people don't know that whether or not you voted at all is public information. A few weeks back, On the Media covered some ways that campaigns try to get out the vote and looked at some research suggesting that letters to people with a "voter report card" showing when they've voted in the past was a somewhat effective way of shaming people into voting. An even more extreme example was given as well: a letter that specifically shows how often your neighbors have voted. In the piece, OTM producer Chris Neary noted that while such things were effective in the lab, people shouldn't be expecting such letters for real, because, while they may be effective in getting out the vote, they also freak people out on privacy grounds, and no campaign wants to risk freaking people out:

And, by the way Brooke, you’ll never get that last letter. Campaigns hate to send out anything that prompts virulent hate mail in return, and one of those researchers got some of that mail.

Except... Neary has now posted an apology blog post after some OTM listeners reached out to share exactly the kinds of mailers discussed. While campaigns might shy away from such tactics, apparently third party organizations read the exact same research and took it to heart -- as they're a lot less worried about hate mail:

First, listener Rachel Lieberman got a voter report card mailing from MoveOn.org. (She notes that the report card isn't accurate, she just voted at a different address. Here's hoping it doesn't lower her citizen GPA.)
And from listener Taylor Maxwell, exactly the sort of letter I went out of my way to claim she probably wouldn't get. It's from Americans for Limited Government. Names and addresses redacted, or else we'd be co-shaming.

So, yes, this tactic appears to be in use across the political spectrum, and yes, it's likely mostly serving to creep people out... though it may also get them to go out and vote...

Filed Under: election, politics, shame, voting records

Being A Jackass On Twitter Shouldn't Be Illegal; Public Shame Should Be Enough

from the there's-no-fire-in-that-theater dept

We've been talking about the unfortunate set of cases in the UK lately, in which people acting like jackasses online are being held criminally liable for being a jerk online. There are, of course, significant problems with this. And if you thought it was just limited to Europe, where they tend to have a slightly less absolute view of the right to free expression than the US, well, don't be so sure. There's a lot of talk about whether or not legal action should be taken against one jackass who used Twitter (using the account @comfortablysmug -- which, perhaps, should have been a tipoff) to spread fake news about emergencies and damages, while most people were sharing legitimate news. The guy in question was eventually outed by Buzzfeed as hedge-fund analyst and political consultant Shashank Tripathi.

While some big name news organizations initially retweeted some of his claims -- such as the false news that the NY Stock Exchange had flooded -- others quickly corrected the reports, and, as some have noted, Twitter seemed to do a pretty good job of self-correcting the bogus claims that popped up. Of course, those who wish to argue that legal action needs to be taken compare the bogus tweets to the classic "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument, in which the speech can then put people in danger or incite violence. It seems unlikely that any charges would actually hold up in the long run, but that might not stop attempts to go after Tripathi under the law (this is the US, after all, where our second national pastime after shouting about politics is filing questionable lawsuits).

But it's unclear what good that would actually do, other than potentially leading to bad precedents for other forms of speech. It seems that existing social structures already take care of the bad speech here. Tripathi's identity was revealed by others, and his actions are now closely associated with his name. He now needs to live with the social consequences of his statements, and that seems like it should be more than enough. And, indeed, the response online has been to absolutely slam him for his actions.

Filed Under: free speech, shame, social media, social mores

Should Elevators Shame Us Into Taking The Stairs?

from the one-idea dept

johnjac points us to a blog post from Samuel Arbesman, about how he's always wished that elevators would shame people who only are going one or two floors into taking the stairs instead. He starts out by noting his anger at getting into an elevator to travel many floors, only to have someone else get in and press one flight up (I have to admit, I never realized this was a cause for anger). His suggestion is a form of public shame in the elevator:

But what if there were a way to eliminate this problem, or at least reduce it? One solution that I have often yearned for is the use of public shame. Imagine you get on at the first floor and press the button for the second floor. The elevator responds with a recorded message: "You have pressed the button for a floor that is only one flight away. Please press the button again to confirm that you cannot use the stairs."

If you're carrying a package, having trouble walking, or any other socially acceptable reason, no doubt the other passengers will think nothing of you pressing the button again to confirm your selection. However, if you are in fact an able-bodied human being, who is using the elevator out of nothing but sheer laziness, perhaps public shame will force you to reconsider your choice. And if you're the only one on the elevator, press away!

As I said, I was never aware that this was considered a "problem," but I can't see the shaming elevator being particularly effective. If anything I would imagine it would annoy more people as they now have to wait longer for the elevator to even begin its journey.

Filed Under: elevators, shame, stairs

Can You Guilt Someone Into Not Pirating Software?

from the probably-worth-a-shot dept

A bunch of folks have been submitting this story about USB Overdrive X's response to anyone who uses a pirated key to use their software. Basically, the company allows you to go ahead, but tells you (in a very human voice) that it knows it's a pirated code, and you should be ashamed of yourself: It's definitely a much better strategy than annoying plenty of users (even legit ones) or threatening to sue or anything. And, I have no doubt that it's probably even effective on the margins among a few folks who appreciate being treated at least somewhat as a human, rather than a criminal. But, the company is still going to face this issue long term, and it seems like a better solution is to figure out business models that don't view such sharing as piracy, but a way to further extend a business.

Filed Under: guilty, piracy, shame, software