Over the weekend, a store calling itself "Dumb Starbucks" opened in Los Angeles. It bills itself as a 'parody art project' and was not charging for the coffee it served. Large lines formed outside, as people wanted to see the exhibit, take selfies of themselves and get some free coffee.
-- Look at this video clip on Dumb Starbucks in this USA Today story:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/02/10/dumb-starbucks-parody-free-coffee/5357597/
-- Then look at Starbuck's official response in the store;
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-dumb-starbucks-corporation-20140210,0,6899826.story#axzz2t257r5qi
Starbucks has challenged Dumb Starbucks, saying it uses their trademark. And DS does. Look at their logo and the original Starbucks logo.
Here's your question. Look at the slide on copyright.
A. Can Starbucks sue a parody? if they could, what would this do to things like Saturday Night Live which have impersonators of politicians. Parody is protected by the 1st Amendment; it's considered free and protected speech.
B. Can Starbucks sue under the standard that Dumb Starbucks "causes confusion" with the original Starbucks? If Starbucks argued this in court, what would they be saying about their customers?
Do you think naming the place Dumb Starbucks was accidental? Why or why not?
C. What would you do if you were advising Starbucks?
-- Look at this video clip on Dumb Starbucks in this USA Today story:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/02/10/dumb-starbucks-parody-free-coffee/5357597/
-- Then look at Starbuck's official response in the store;
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-dumb-starbucks-corporation-20140210,0,6899826.story#axzz2t257r5qi
Starbucks has challenged Dumb Starbucks, saying it uses their trademark. And DS does. Look at their logo and the original Starbucks logo.
Here's your question. Look at the slide on copyright.
A. Can Starbucks sue a parody? if they could, what would this do to things like Saturday Night Live which have impersonators of politicians. Parody is protected by the 1st Amendment; it's considered free and protected speech.
B. Can Starbucks sue under the standard that Dumb Starbucks "causes confusion" with the original Starbucks? If Starbucks argued this in court, what would they be saying about their customers?
Do you think naming the place Dumb Starbucks was accidental? Why or why not?
C. What would you do if you were advising Starbucks?