Option 1: “Clip-art Internet Comics poll favorably with the 26-39 male Obama-supporting Facebook user demographic, with tight crossover into the Ironic Hipster segment of… hey, are you even listening?”

Option 2: Stoned marketing intern realizes he has a presentation at the home office in two hours

For example, use in a webcomic and use in an (for profit?) ad campaign would require different permissions, wouldn’t it?…

Not sure how copywrong law works in the US anyway, but I’m reasonably sure how consumer culture works – if enough word gets around it will probably do more harm than good for Jamba Juices bottom line.

1) print out a stack of Get Your War On comics and label each with a price, $1 each seems fair.
2) walk down to Jimba Juice.
3) mill about first and slyly place the comics in their retail area.
4) place an order for my whole department.
3) stall so they start the order, but when time to pay I say “oops, I left my wallet in the car!”
4) walk out.

That said, this is one shitty ad.

Also, I’m not sure how to boycott a product I’ve never seen, tried or probably would try, but I’ll give it a whirl.

Took two minutes to peruse the website. It sucks.

Jamba Juice: Next time, rip off something creative and funny.

It IS, however, pretty crappy that the guy/girl who did this couldn’t at least have found some DIFFERENT public domain clip art to use. At least then it would have been a little less obvious.

This does make me feel pretty “bleh” about Jamba Juice (but I felt that way about them before – a company that acts like it’s all into the environment but serves its products in styrene cups is not really all that into the environment, they’re into making MONEY).

However, I’m not going to boycott Jamba Juice because of this ad. I’m going to boycott it because it tastes like shit.

That’s…interesting.

@32: I’m going to try that Beef Chalupa smoothie, they call it the Carne Suavita, now.

Yes, the drawings are public domain. But the whole reason why they’re interesting is GYWO. This company wouldn’t have used them if it weren’t for GYWO. The entire thing is a complete, if legal, rip-off.

Imagine if Coke did this with Dinosaur Comics! Would it be fine for T-Rex to shill Diet Coke?

dderidex: that’s a bit like saying “waddya mean, ‘I’m ripping off Michelangelo?’ You think he was the first person to invent painting things?”

The fact that other people have also used clip-art is completely irrelevant to the fact this this is ripping-off GYWO, and trying to appeal to the GYWO crowd, in the most un-ironic way.

I’d love to know what the “mehs” do for day jobs. Not creative work for income I’d bet.

Against copyright law? Who gives a crap. This kid should be fired.

How come?

“The drawings are interesting because of GYWO?” Really? So Dover collected them all and published them hoping some webcomic would make them interesting? That’s a pretty poor business decision on their part, although fortunately GYWO was up to the task.

Anybody ask Dover what their thoughts on the matter are? Or Tom Tierney, for that matter?

I agree with you, except for the “poor quality product” part. You can go into Jamba Juice and order a smoothie or a juice that is made simply from fresh fruits and vegetables, with nothing else added. Compare this to a smoothie at Baskin Robbins if you want to see what a really unhealthy poor quality product looks like.

Also, they’ve added slow-cooked steel-cut oatmeal as a breakfast item. Just steel-cut oats, cooked. You can add raisins or brown sugar if you want. Compare this to any of the breakfast items from any other fast food.

Jamba Juice is a real oasis for a health-conscious traveling vegan.

The band Cake, though they pre-dated GYWO with the clip art aesthetic covering all of their work, has never had a problem with others doing the same. If you ‘shopped their graphics, I’d wager they would, however.

Its really pretty simple: Translated into music, if someone used all pub. domain samples in making a composition, it would still be uniquely theirs to copyright. If corporate hacks used this piece to schlock their wares, they would be stealing.

“The drawings are interesting because of GYWO?” Really?

Of course. You know that perfectly well. Before GYWO they were generic clip art. Now they’re generic clip art from GYWO. That’s why the ad used them.

If I paint a painting that includes a big Campbell’s tomato soup can, it’s interesting (or a rip off) because of Warhol’s painting. I don’t say “what’s Warhol got to do with this? Isn’t Capbell’s tomato soup interesting enough on its own?“

I’m surprised nobody’s brought up the differences between this kerfuffle and the Calvin & Hobbes vs. the kid peeing on the ford/chevy/etc thing. THAT is copyright infringement – Calvin was very much a visually new thing. Clip art ain’t new, but if you do something creative with it, that’s new. But it’s still public domain.

If the GYWO guy had drawn his own art that -LOOKED- like clipart, and then somebody used -THAT- for an ad campaign, well, then you can sue, or be upset, or whatever. But the ad guy was engaging in the manipulation of public domain works, just like the GYWO guy did.

Also Jamba Juice sucks.

MMmmmmmm, delicious! Two thumbs up!