Yes, I read that, but it's not enough information.
I doubt that small restaurant owners would have paid to have a font created. It's more likely that they were shown several samples and went, 'Hey, honey, that looks like my signature! Let's choose that one.'. And now they are truthfully stating that they chose their logo because it resembled her signature. :)
Who designed the logo, sign, menus, etc.? If it was a design firm, who offered this font as a sample? Did the Hollands' ask for 'something like Harrods' or just something nice?
Personally, when working on designs for small businesses, I usually find several appropriate samples and offer them to the client. If the Hollands' picked this font from a sample, that lends more credibility to their story.
Regardless of whether or not the Hollands' were purposely trying to imitate Harrods, I still stand behind my previous comment. Even if they're right, they still look like assholes.
Hollands Cafe: Your Luxury Destination For Beauty, Fragrance, & Meatloaf
The fonts are very similar, but a roadside cafe is a very different thing than a 'luxury destination for beauty and fragrance'. If Harrods were smart, and they really believed that this would confuse people, they would offer to pay for the changes in lieu of paying attorneys.
I didn't compare architects to producers. I simply responded to the person who compared their salaries, and then to someone to compared the rights received. You might detail your point, instead. :)
Re: Re: Re: Re: But you just said that it's okay for you to give away the Beatles' music, because you're not charging for it. So why can't I do that with your copyrighted material?
I'm an artist. So that makes it okay for me to give away your music, in hopes that you'll come collect your fee yourself and then give me some money, right?
An architect doesn't sell his designs as many times as a producer sells his movie. It follows that increased volume results in a reduced price, and has nothing to do with rights.
Not at all. :) What you're assuming is that the human is alert, has all of the correct information for the entire store, and cares.
When I started working as a teenager, I worked in the jewelry department, then in the home department, of a J.C. Penney's. The sales were what they told us the sales were, based on departments. It was easy for someone to tell someone else the wrong percentage, or for someone to mix up the departments, resulting in alot of price mishaps. I never would have known if my information was wrong, because all of our instructions were vocal, and we had alot of one-day sales.
In addition, at the beginning of every shift, I had to go find ten random items and look them up in the system (an old DOS-based thing) and write down the item number, description, original price and sale price on a form. This was so someone could correct all of the pricing errors in the computer, that I wouldn't have known about. I would have happily scanned the item and sold it at the price it rang up, or, if the customer could prove that the item was in a sale category or looked like it was in a sale category, for the sale price.
This store, as every Penney's did, employed at least one person whose sole responsibility was fixing all of the incorrect prices out there, in one small department store. I did notice that the jewelry department had a much smaller amount of pricing errors, but they also had a fraction of the inventory, and a more competent manager. :P
Further, not only have I been responsible for whole groups of people who made repeated pricing errors, and seen software glitches that created pricing errors, but I see pricing errors happen all the time, in a large variety of stores, especially with sale items.
Indeed, pricing errors are so common that most stores offer you the opportunity to look at the prices as they ring up your items, so you can alert the clerk when the price is wrong and they haven't noticed. :) I have three kids and shop alot of sales, so I'd say catching a price error is weekly for me, even if it's something as little as a sale item that rang up full price.
I cannot believe that human beings are anything close to infallible.
Re: But you just said that it's okay for you to give away the Beatles' music, because you're not charging for it. So why can't I do that with your copyrighted material?
So what you're saying is that it's okay to ignore the law, as you're doing, and give away other people's copyrighted materiel, as long as we don't give away yours?
Re: Re: Re: cleare : re Beatles Revolution// So I could purchase your download, and then give it away to everyone for free, and that's okay?
But you just said that it's okay for you to give away the Beatles' music, because you're not charging for it. So why can't I do that with your copyrighted material?
That is definitely true, but in both cases, information is key. In this case, the system believed that the price was correct. In a case with human beings, all it takes is for the humans beings to believe that the price is correct.
On the post: Would A Moron In A Hurry Be Confused Between A Huge Luxury Retailer And A Small Roadside Cafe?
Re: Re: Design Firm Or Hollands?
I doubt that small restaurant owners would have paid to have a font created. It's more likely that they were shown several samples and went, 'Hey, honey, that looks like my signature! Let's choose that one.'. And now they are truthfully stating that they chose their logo because it resembled her signature. :)
On the post: Would A Moron In A Hurry Be Confused Between A Huge Luxury Retailer And A Small Roadside Cafe?
Design Firm Or Hollands?
Who designed the logo, sign, menus, etc.? If it was a design firm, who offered this font as a sample? Did the Hollands' ask for 'something like Harrods' or just something nice?
Personally, when working on designs for small businesses, I usually find several appropriate samples and offer them to the client. If the Hollands' picked this font from a sample, that lends more credibility to their story.
Regardless of whether or not the Hollands' were purposely trying to imitate Harrods, I still stand behind my previous comment. Even if they're right, they still look like assholes.
On the post: Would A Moron In A Hurry Be Confused Between A Huge Luxury Retailer And A Small Roadside Cafe?
Hollands Cafe: Your Luxury Destination For Beauty, Fragrance, & Meatloaf
On the post: Smart: Graduating As Valedictorian Of An Ivy League School; Not Smart: Plagiarizing Part Of Your Speech From A Famous Comedian
Re: Re: What?
On the post: Judge Tells Newspapers They Can't Report On News About College Trip Since It Might Impact College Funding
I'd like to read the report as well.
On the post: Patents Now Getting In The Way Of Important Brain Research
Re:
On the post: Amanda Palmer And OK Go Get Together To Celebrate Being Dropped From Their Record Labels
Re: Advances
On the post: The Story Behind The Hackers Behind The Largest Credit Card Number Heist
Re: Re: Deal!
On the post: Supreme Court Justices Discuss Twitter
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: James Murdoch Lectures On Copyright, But Still Seems Confused
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When Architects Sue
On the post: Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring
Re: Re: Re: Re: But you just said that it's okay for you to give away the Beatles' music, because you're not charging for it. So why can't I do that with your copyrighted material?
On the post: James Murdoch Lectures On Copyright, But Still Seems Confused
Re: Re: Re: Re: When Architects Sue
On the post: Student Sues School For Privacy Invasion After School Found Nude Photos On Her Phone
Re:
A school is not a proper substitute for either of those things, as much as they think they are or should be.
On the post: Student Sues School For Privacy Invasion After School Found Nude Photos On Her Phone
Re: Re:
On the post: James Murdoch Lectures On Copyright, But Still Seems Confused
Re: Re: When Architects Sue
On the post: Zappos Admits Pricing Mistake Cost It $1.6 Million; But Is Upfront About Taking The Hit Itself
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1.6 million? Really?
When I started working as a teenager, I worked in the jewelry department, then in the home department, of a J.C. Penney's. The sales were what they told us the sales were, based on departments. It was easy for someone to tell someone else the wrong percentage, or for someone to mix up the departments, resulting in alot of price mishaps. I never would have known if my information was wrong, because all of our instructions were vocal, and we had alot of one-day sales.
In addition, at the beginning of every shift, I had to go find ten random items and look them up in the system (an old DOS-based thing) and write down the item number, description, original price and sale price on a form. This was so someone could correct all of the pricing errors in the computer, that I wouldn't have known about. I would have happily scanned the item and sold it at the price it rang up, or, if the customer could prove that the item was in a sale category or looked like it was in a sale category, for the sale price.
This store, as every Penney's did, employed at least one person whose sole responsibility was fixing all of the incorrect prices out there, in one small department store. I did notice that the jewelry department had a much smaller amount of pricing errors, but they also had a fraction of the inventory, and a more competent manager. :P
Further, not only have I been responsible for whole groups of people who made repeated pricing errors, and seen software glitches that created pricing errors, but I see pricing errors happen all the time, in a large variety of stores, especially with sale items.
Indeed, pricing errors are so common that most stores offer you the opportunity to look at the prices as they ring up your items, so you can alert the clerk when the price is wrong and they haven't noticed. :) I have three kids and shop alot of sales, so I'd say catching a price error is weekly for me, even if it's something as little as a sale item that rang up full price.
I cannot believe that human beings are anything close to infallible.
On the post: Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring
Re: But you just said that it's okay for you to give away the Beatles' music, because you're not charging for it. So why can't I do that with your copyrighted material?
On the post: James Murdoch Lectures On Copyright, But Still Seems Confused
Re: Re: Re: When Architects Sue
So this isn't a case of 'Prove it.', it's a case of 'Really? Tell me more.'.
On the post: Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring
Re: Re: Re: cleare : re Beatles Revolution// So I could purchase your download, and then give it away to everyone for free, and that's okay?
On the post: Zappos Admits Pricing Mistake Cost It $1.6 Million; But Is Upfront About Taking The Hit Itself
Re: Re: Re: Re: 1.6 million? Really?
Next >>