What's wrong with Jamba Juice's Get Your War On plagiarism

Discuss

104 Responses to “What's wrong with Jamba Juice's Get Your War On plagiarism”

  1. hungryjoe says:

    @44 I normally feel the same way. When Blago appointed Burris to the Senate AFTER being indicted, I was like, “Full on!”

    This doesn’t have that kind of go-hard-or-go-home feel to it, though.

    Frankly, this doesn’t have much of a feel to it at all. If it is a misappropriation of Rees’ style, it’s not one that gets my blood up. Arkizzle made a convincing argument that it is a misappropriation, and Rees makes a point about trade dress on his website. I am persuaded. But I don’t feel the outrage. Maybe if I make another pot of coffee…

  2. takeshi says:

    Wow. So many people arguing “legal v. moral” here. I find it hypocritical that some artists can imitate or parody others’ work, but not others, including commercial artists. Would we be so indignant if this artist used Mickey Mouse as his/her inspiration? Highly doubtful.

    All this talk of what’s “right” or “moral” is nauseating. “Dick moves” is a phrase custom tailored for the intellectually ineffective. To quote McLuhan, “Art is anything you can get away with.” Rees may have cause to be upset, but so do the artists whose clip art he’s used. Personally, I find the entire copyright debate useless. All art should be protected, except in clear cases of plagiarism. This is so far from being ANY kind of plagiarism, it defies all logic how any sane human – a writer, no less – could call it that.

    If someone apes your style, it’s your right to complain, but be aware that others might not give the first shit. I’m not supporting Jamba Juice here, but it’s clear to me that what this particular commercial artist has done is no worse than what countless artists do every day. Also, it’s not surprising in the least.

  3. Rich Keller says:

    What? No love for Tom Tierney, the artist of the original clip art? Jamba Juice mentioned him in their apology. I think we all owe him an apology and a smoothie.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Want to chime in from a brand/marketer’s perspective. Jamba’s campaign is a bad move because it provoked exactly this kind of a response. This is why it’s bad business to re-mix other people’s work in commercial applications. Consumers don’t like it, and savvy consumers see it coming a mile away. Jamba’s a highly original and likable brand. They shouldn’t need to trade off of anybody else’s intellectual property. It’s just bad branding.

    From a legal standpoint, while Jamba has to take some heat for having approved the campaign, the liability rests on its ad agency (assuming Jamba has a standard indemnity clause in its contract). Agencies generally warrant that all work they do for their clients is *original*, and accept responsibility for defending against claims of copyright infringement (whether legitimate or not). The reason for this is that the agency is in the best position to know whether it created or ripped off an idea.

    Is it possible that nobody at Jamba had ever seen GYWO? Yes, it is. It is entirely possible that Jamba approved this campaign without ever knowing that there was even a *hint* of similarity with a existing web comic.

    Is it likely that Jamba’s agency independently developed this artistic approach? Hardly.

    Case in point: a couple of guys pitched the idea of a talking chihuahua to Taco Bell’s agency. Then the agency presented a talking chihuahua campaign to Taco Bell. The two guys sued Taco Bell and the agency. The blame (and the sizable financial settlement) was assigned entirely to the agency. They ripped off the idea and represented it to their client as their own work.

    That, in a nutshell, is the big issue here.

    (Unless, of course, in the creative presentation, the agency showed Jamba the GYWO comics and said “okay, we’re going to use this style…”, in which case everyone fails the class.)

  5. Anonymous says:

    Some poor bastard advertising drone drew up a lame derivative ad for a big corporate client.

    This is, as they say, not news.

    GYWO is not about the art. Anybody who thought it was about the art? Sorry, it’s not.

    I don’t begrudge any poor bastard advertising drone his paycheck. Everybody’s gotta eat, and there will be a new ad out tomorrow, and seriously NOBODY CARES ABOUT THIS.

  6. mfrankly says:

    And all this time I was thinking that GYWO was appropriated from Red Meat.

  7. davethegame says:

    I’m also disappointed in the commenters that are implying that typography, layout, and choices of juxtaposition aren’t worth anything and aren’t worth anything. (That Saul Bass was such a hack for just moving existing letters around).

    It’s not just the clip-art or the balloon style, it’s the use of the whole package.

  8. Brainspore says:

    takeshi #58:

    I find it hypocritical that some artists can imitate or parody others’ work, but not others, including commercial artists. Would we be so indignant if this artist used Mickey Mouse as his/her inspiration? Highly doubtful.

    We wouldn’t need to, Disney’s lawyers would have seen to it.

    A true “parody” would have made it more obvious in some way that the ad wasn’t actually endorsed by GYWO. Otherwise it doesn’t play as a joke, just a run of the mill endorsement.

  9. Benjamin says:

    @Cory

    I do understand that this is the difference of law v. plagiarism, and you’re not saying this is illegal. I should’ve been more clear. I’m saying that if Rees would’ve used his own copywritten work from the get-go, none of this would be happening because it’d be in the realm of copyright infringement. But since his stuff is free to grab for any artist, even commercial as Takeshi points out, I don’t feel for him. This whole campaign could’ve been whipped up by an intern, and the boss went ‘oh creative commons? neat!’ (Severe summation).
    And, again as Takeshi points out, what of the original artists who made those clip arts that are now used for very pointed web comics?

    @44
    Clearly you’re on the defense. I didn’t mean to put anyone there (in a negative way at least). I should say that I can see your/Cory’s points of view. I just think that the dangers of using copyfree material seem more than apparent to me, and GYWO is beyond fair game for any type of artist. You got me on the statement released by JJ, I hadn’t read that. I could take that literally, or take it as a ‘F the whole nod thing didn’t work, nope, wasn’t parodiying, take the high road quick!’
    For the record – never had a jamba juice in my life, and before this had never heard of Rees or GYWO. But I do like smoothies and quirky web comics/blogs, so maybe I should just say ‘fuck em’? Scratch my belly in a tank top, eat some cheetos, lounge on the couch watching Jerry Springer while I’m at it?

  10. DaveP says:

    stay calm and carry on, jamba juice.

  11. possiblyj says:

    Only a true sophisticate would be familiar with both Jamba Juice and David Rees.

  12. O Diskordia says:

    I love how this conversation is carefully stepping around the fact that, obviously, the subject matter of GYWO has much to do with the reaction of Jamba Juice’s “plagiarism.” Nevermind what the CC licenses and all that are, if GYWO was from a right-wing, Libertarian, anarchosyndicalist, hell, a totalitarian perspective, nobody would give a rat’s… well, you know. But the fact that it caters to a particular view makes it “such a huge deal”. I maintain that it’s only seen that way because David Rees is catering to a certain viewpoint, highly (perhaps overly) represented on the internet, and those people feel the need to reflexively freak out because… hell, I don’t know why.
    Actually, I don’t care either, and can’t believe it rated a post. Sad that it seems like such an important topic, and that it incites such pointless indignation. Why do people get so jacked up about such pointless, worthless crap? The world may never know;

  13. Dan Someone says:

    I think there is some merit to a form of the “endorsement/false association” argument that Cory is making here. GYWO has been around (and *passed* around) long enough that there’s probably a reasonably large base of people who know it or are familiar with it — which Jamba could certainly have thought was squarely in the demographic they wanted to target. There’s no conceivable reason for Jamba Juice to co-opt Rees’s style so completely unless they had some idea that people who were familiar with GYWO would make the association. (Without that association, the ad itself is, IMO, pretty lame.) Even as a casual, sometime GYWO reader (not for a couple of years now, actually), I know if I had seen the ad in the wild, I would have wondered if they had worked out a deal with the guy who made that comic.

    And there is the potential reverse problem that Cory mentioned as well. Undoubtedly there are many Jamba Juice customers who have never heard of David Rees or GYWO. Suppose Jamba does a whole series of ads in this style. Now suppose their customers run across GYWO for the first time. At least some of them are likely to think Rees is riffing on the Jamba ads. Some of them might think he’s got some sort of deal with Jamba.

    An artist’s reputation can be injured by association with commercial interests. Would Rees have been accused of “sellnig out” by his fans? Would it have had a direct impact on his art, his income, his livelihood? Don’t know. But it’s clear to me that, even if there was no legal transgression here (and the question of trademark rights means it is not 100% clear on that count), Jamba’s use of the clip-art, dialogue style and overall look and feel created/popularized by Rees is at least ethically questionable.

  14. pahool says:

    It seems pretty close to the Negativland/U2 controversy in that a deliberate misrepresentation is involved in the presentation of a product. I see where it could be argued that this is advertisement of a commercial product where Negativland using the name U2 and the lyrics from their song was artistic, however, the album was ultimately offered as a commercial product.

  15. John Napsterista says:

    Sheesh. Dear Jamba Juice: a little noblesse oblige next time, please, k thx.

  16. trippcook says:

    “Not tricking people?” REALLY? GYWO’s fanbase won’t move JJ’s needle. All the fans know that he’s pissed about it. The nonfans don’t know what the fuck GYWO is. There is no deception here. There’s just lazy-ass ad people.

  17. Xopher says:

    O Diskordia, if you don’t like what the Boingers post, I encourage you to go to some other site. Given that your post in this thread is your first and at this writing only post on BB, I’d also encourage you to have a nice big glass of STFU.

  18. rochrobb says:

    I thought Don Hertzfeldt did animation for some Pop Tarts commercials I had seen on TV, until I read he hadn’t.

    Faithfully mimicking a style is a form of identity theft.

  19. mellowknees says:

    imo, it is pretty crappy for Jamba to emulate the style of an independent comic.

    But then, imo, Jamba Juice is a crappy corporation. All through their stores they have sloganeering and products designed to make you think they give a shit about the environment and people’s health, and then they hand you your smoothie in a giant styrofoam cup.

    So, you know, there you go. Don’t expect a lot of ethical decisions out of a company that pretends to care about things it clearly doesn’t actually care about.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Cory,

    I hate corporate co-opting myself (see: WalMart ads taking credit for their employees’ human decency) but in a case like this I have to say it cuts both ways.

    Rees should probably just point out that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and that clearly they couldn’t improve on his work and by the way, could you put a disclaimer on that?

    I think that’s the high road here.

  21. Slizzered says:

    Frankly, this sort of thing only strengthens my impression that copyfighters are unwittingly making it easier for large companies to screw artists.

    Nice going, fellahs.

  22. Anonymous says:

    [blockquote]“#85 POSTED BY MISTERFRICATIVE, JULY 27, 2009 4:43 PM
    IANAL, but to set a couple of points straight: This isn’t about copyright, and it’s the opposite of plagiarism. The legal — and certainly ethical/moral — question here relates to ‘trade dress’.”[/blockquote]

    You are going to have to work hard to argue trade dress considering Jamba is a Juice (a food product) and GYWO is a **comic**. And there is that little problem of the fact that most of the distinctiveness of GYWO is the **clip art** that Rees is presumably licensed to use but in no way owns. Can you even register a trademark that uses IP you don’t own?

    [blockquote]“For me, here’s where the asymmetry comes in: Is it OK for someone to appropriate someone else’s work and use it, without permission, knowledge, or compensation, to promote their own stuff? No.

    Is it OK for someone to appropriate someone else’s work and use it, without permission, knowledge, or compensation, to make art? Yes.”[/blockquote]

    Why?

    You seem to imply that art isn’t a money making proposition, isn’t a business. Sure, it isn’t for everybody, but if you are going to use “art” as the differentiator rather than “commercial” then that is a highly relevant point. Are you going to propose a new CC license that specifies “art” as the only allowable use? Will you differentiate “underground” art from “fine” art? Will you say any artist who makes money is precluded? How will that work.

    People seem unhappy that permissive IP works both ways, both up to commercial users and down to non commercial user. Well, that’s part of the bargain of permissive IP laws, as opposed to specific, restrictive licensing schemes like Creative Commons.

    [blockquote]“So there’s no hypocrisy here. What Jamba Juice is doing is wrong.” [/blockquote]

    Yes, there is hypocrisy, you just don’t see it because your hypocrisy conforms to your wold view and consider it normative.

  23. Anonymous says:

    This comment is absolutely ridiculous, and in my opinion shows a bit of hypocrisy–it is hardly plausible to suggest that Jamba Juice is deliberately attempting to act like it has ‘support’ of a web artist who will be unknown by 95% + of its customers.

    Jamba Juice is using a good idea that, it seems, is in the common domain. They’re ‘mashing it up’ if you will for reuse in Jamba domain.

    What is wrong with that? You guys constantly promote artists mashing up other artists work. So Jamba makes a profit? Is that a bad thing? If not, given that people are not likely to go into Jamba Juice thinking that GYWO is promoting it, I’m not sure I see a problem.

    Good for Jamba for taking a good idea and mashing it up (they mash up decent smoothies too).

  24. Anonymous says:

    It seems like Jamba Juice has permanently pissed off fans of “Get Your War On.” If nothing else, this is bad PR. Shouldn’t they at least be trying to channel the controversy into something positive? (I don’t know what that would be, though. Giving Rees $5,000 worth of free juice? Sending juice to the charity of his choice? Sending it to children in Afghanistan and Iraq?)

    * It seems to me Rees has the perfect weapon with which to fight back: his own comic strip. It looks exactly like Jamba Juice’s ad campaign — for which Jamba Juice has no one to blame but themselves.

    Maybe he should print up stickers of a “Get Your War On” panel about the corporate sins of Jamba Juice. I imagine those could get more (bad) publicity for Jamba Juice than their original ad campaign.

  25. Anonymous says:

    How it is “plagiarism” when they didn’t copy any of his actual work. You admit that it is the **style** they copied, not the actual work. Since when did BoingBoing’s consider emulating a style to be plagiarism? While I note your concession in your complaint, this kind of “outrage” severely weakens BoingBoing’s stance on IP, IMO.

  26. Ultan says:

    This is the third time they have posted this non-wonderful non-story and I still don’t care that some ad agency ripped off the part of GYWO that itself shows absolutely no originality. No remix-reuse recycle unless you aren’t getting paid to do advertising is apparently the closest thing this redundant post has to a point. Fine. Now quit doing Jamba’s advertising for them, already.

  27. clarequilty says:

    The hypocrisy of these GYWO / Jamba Juice posts is pretty hilarious. So because 1) the ads are schlock; 2) they were produced by an agency for a corporation to shill a product, rather than by a hipster to express himself or kill time or make a splash; 3) Rees is an artist with underground cred; QED this is a case of theft, not appropriation.

    Meanwhile, the Jay-Z / Radiohead mashup is cause for celebration — “Git yerself some while the gittin’s good.” The difference, I imagine, is that Jaydiohead is somehow greater than the sum of its appropriated parts. It is a work of art, whereas the Jamba Juice ads are plagiarism. And what’s plagiarism, exactly? Like hard-core pornography, are we supposed to “know it when we see it”? Thank goodness we’ve got experts to tell us when to feel moral outrage and when to crank up the volume and dance.

  28. andyhavens says:

    In my heart of hearts, here’s what I hope:

    1. That somebody at JJ (or their agency), who was a huge fan of GYWO, put the ads together as an homage.

    2. Somebody in the Legal Dept. said, “Dude… you have to get the original artist’s OK. That’s totally a rip-off.”

    3. They contacted Rees, who said, “It’s OK by me. But instead of putting a little, ‘Inspired by Rees’ tag at the bottom of your ads, let’s pretend you ripped me off without my knowing it.”

    4. Legal guy asks, “Why?”

    5. “Because we’ll both get a TON more attention that way. It’s super-ironic. It wraps up copyright, fair use, public domain and an ARG all into one. When we do the final reveal, it’ll be hysterical.”

    6. Legal guy shrugs and says, “OK. We got the email from you that says, ‘It’s OK.’ Roll it!”

    That would make me happy.

    If that’s not the way it worked, then I agree with Cory. JJ has every right to do this, but it’s dumb. It’s also just a bad ad, anyway.

  29. misterfricative says:

    @anonymous #89 Yes, of course I’m interpreting this through my own worldview, but the [entirely non-legalistic] view that I’m arguing for is not hypocritical. It’s actually known as noblesse oblige.

  30. escoton says:

    Oh no! The sky is falling!

  31. Dave Faris says:

    Isn’t imitation the sincerest form of flattery?

    I just have a hard time swallowing the outrage, Cory. Whether it’s Jamba Juice stealing the “look and feel” of this guy’s comics, or someone downloading a torrent of an album on mp3. Intellectual property theft is still theft.

    You can’t be for one and against the other.

  32. Francesco Fondi says:

    Interesting how many BB commenters think: “it’s legal so it’s ok for them to use David Rees style”.

    The difference between “legal” and “acceptable/correct” is subtle but it’s there, so something that can be “legal” is not always “correct” and this concept is even more important when we talk about advertisement…

  33. maryhodder says:

    I think one of the tenets of digital copyright going forward is attribution when one remixes. I don’t fault Jamba Juice for remixing, and attribution, if they actually do it. That would be okay.

    But in this case, there is no remix, no parody, no commentary, no attribution. They seem to still operate in analog copyright land, which means they issue statements about endorsements, or no endorsements, instead of acknowledging that they blew it. And they blew it by plagiarizing something.

    I’m sure they are utterly confused that BB and others who live in the digital world would be upset. But partly the affront is that culturally, they’ve stolen credit for something and someone who lives in this digital space and by the ideas of digital copyright, and so we are offended for him, even if Rees is just sort of joking about it (what else is he going to do).

    Thanks to you and Xeni and Carrie McLaren for describing and highlighting these issues.

    mary

  34. Anonymous says:

    As others have noted, if Rees wanted a style he could call his own then the use of the same royalty free clip art was a bad way to go.

    When Daily Kos first started their banner featured a distinctive graphic, but it was stock art, art any body could use on their own websites and result in a similar look and fee. So, Kos commissioned a new, exclusive work from the same artist, one that was customized for their website and that nobody else could use, creating a distinctive brand.

    If Rees wanted his own unique, legally defensible brand then using work from mass market stock as his identity was the wrong way to go about it. The commons (to the extent that royaltee free clip art can be called the commons) is a rich resource, but their are also disadvantages to reyling on it exclusively, especially when it comes to branding.

    Sure, all of that that doesn’t mean BB can’t gripe about Jamba’s use of the style, but still, the indignation seems more than a little over the top and seems contrary to the idea that cultural memes should be open to fair use.

  35. Church says:

    Sorry, I just can’t take seriously statements like, “Rounded-edge text box with single line pointing to mouth? I developed that in 2001…”

    Clearly, he was using pieces from the commons. That’s great, that’s what it’s for. But don’t be surprised when someone else does the same thing. You don’t get to sue the girl in your eighth grade homeroom just because she dresses like you. Even if she is selling Girl Scout cookies.

  36. ctp says:

    Call me jaded and cynical (and a snob too I guess), but I can’t see more than 1% of Jamba’s customer base doing anything more than just shrugging it off and ordering their next milkshake.

    It looks like a perfectly clear copyright violation to me – they are pretty much copying his work. Jamba knows full well though that they have a lot more lawyers than some comic artist does, and they’ll take that to the bank every time.

  37. Anonymous says:

    Funny how the copyright-rage fan scene seems so much more upset about this than Rees himself. He’s taking the best approach in the situation by just treating it as an absurdist running gag with potential for fun audience participation. That way he gets to point out a pretty shocking bit of plagiarism while avoiding coming across as a humorless ‘copyfight’ bore, great. More people should follow his example.

  38. pimlottc says:

    I find that many people (even otherwise intelligent people) confuse what’s legal to do vs. what’s moral to do. Just because you are legally in-the-clear to do something doesn’t mean it’s not a dick move. But for many people, their concept of what’s ‘right’ is derived almost entirely from external laws. While laws are certainly important, they can’t and shouldn’t replace our own moral compasses, and thus shouldn’t be the only basis for judgment and consideration.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

  39. Dave Faris says:

    I guess the difference is, if you’re a cool kid, you make “remixes.” If you’re an advertising agency, you’re a “plagiarist.”

  40. arkizzle / Moderator says:

    The thing some are missing here, is that Jamba clearly took a route through Rees’ work, to appropriate the original (public domain) clipart.

    If, as Jamba claims, they had used the clipart separately to Rees’ use, they wouldn’t have ended up with the same speech-balloon style and layouts.

    So regardless of whether you think Rees should be granted any ownership of either the style or speech-balloons, Jamba has clearly and provably used his comics/work as the basis for their ads, not just similarly used the clip art.

  41. Anonymous says:

    “if the roles were reversed (funny webguy uses the same public domain art as big company to do something that subverts the original), we’d all be crying fair use, and rightly so.”

    How can you say it’s fair use if it’s reversed, but not in this case?
    This screams of hypocrisy and possibly something even more ludicrous.
    Why could it possibly be ok if Rees was doing it, but not if Jamba Juice does?
    Fair use is fair use, are you just angry because it’s not some independent unknown web-comic guy doing it?

  42. Anonymous says:

    I think what gets me is the “outrage” over this. Clearly BB would be cheering were the tables turned, as is hinted in the OP, so BB’s position on IP isn’t a consistent one but one tied to who does the “infringement,” though, in this case, there is no infringement.

    If BB had just said “Jamba should have posted a disclaimer saying they are not associated with Rees,” (“Celebrity underground artist impersonated”) or some such, and noted that without all the seemingly hypocritical outrage I think that would have been a stronger and supportable position.

  43. Boba Fett Diop says:

    It may not be illegal, or even dishonest, but it is fucking lazy. Seriously, if someone from a creative agency brought this idea to me for one of my clients, I would beat them to death.

    What the fuck is Jamba Juice thinking anyhow? How could they possibly believe that co-opting the style of a harshly satirical comic would create some sort of resonance with their potential customers. People unfamiliar with Rees’ work are not likely to get it, and fans of Rees are more likely to be alienated. This reeks of fail, braised in stupid sauce and drizzled with shit coulis.

  44. Anonymous says:

    Clearly there are some differing opinions from the Boing-Boing readers and I welcome shades-of-gray. Seems like they got away with it.

  45. holtt says:

    So many of you are misreading Cory, almost willfully. I think Cory’s point could be summed up as “don’t be a dick.”

    I thought the whole idea of CC, Remixing and all that stuff was, “You may do as you wish, and you will not be judged based on what you do”.

    When you start judging what people do and say, “dont do it because I/we don’t like it”, then you’re essentially becoming a lot like the world’s small minded censors – no laws to back you up, but if you clamor enough you can get your way.

  46. Anonymous says:

    One important question to ask when differentiating between “remixing” and “plagiarism” is “How well-known is the original?”

    When people see the remix/copy/mashup, will they understand the allusions being made, or will they see it as a unique body of work? If the original piece is not commonplace enough that the connection is OBVIOUS to the average person, then attribution, credit, and/or permission is needed.

  47. mypalmike says:

    Sleazy as it is, Jamba Juice has given Rees more publicity than he could have ever paid for.

  48. Baldhead says:

    We are talking about the exact same clipart in the exact same sequence here…. Certainly kinda lame.

  49. holtt says:

    “Copyfight – we’re here for you, as long as you’re not a dick.”

  50. jfrancis says:

    This whole ‘turnabout is fair play / what’s good for the goose is good for the gander’ argument seems false to me.

    I was walking down the quad with my girlfriend, who is shorter than I am, hanging on my arm when I wondered what it would be like if we reversed positions. Instead of me clinging, it now felt like I was guiding or directing her around.

    Some things are just asymmetrical and don’t reverse.

  51. ASIFA-Hollywood Animation Archive says:

    Rees’ knowledge of the history of his medium is sorely lacking.

    the GYWO dialogue balloon style

    The whole idea of the public domain is that it allows artists to utilize material they didn’t create and don’t own. That is the same for Rees as it is for Jamba. If Rees wants to claim ownership of something, he should create it himself from scratch. Learn to draw.

  52. Anonymous says:

    Just what is plagiarized here? Rees hasn’t created anything other than layout and text. Everything else was itself other peoples work or fairly non-creative. Rees himself doesn’t credit the creator of the clip art. With the total lack of creative effort on Rees’ part, why would you pick him as your poster boy?

  53. Cory Doctorow says:

    @2, @3: The difference between a mashup and plagiarism is easy, and defined in the FA. When you explicitly say, ‘I am mixing A & B to make C,’ you are mashing up.

    When you take A and B without credit, make C, and spend millions of dollars plastering C everywhere without ever breathing a hint of where C came from, that’s plagiarism.

    I have graded term papers that were ‘mashups.’ They had quotes, footnotes, and called back to their influences. I have seen papers that were plagiarised: they passed off someone else’s work as their own, in whole or in part. Students understand the difference. Anonymous commenters should be able to understand the difference, too.

  54. Anonymous says:

    I’m with #9 Church, who said it just right. This is absurd, and made even more absurd by the Rees’s reaction. I personally think that we should boycott David Rees… or just forget about him, which is what I plan on doing sometime after lunch.

  55. Benjamin says:

    #13 hits it on the head.

    If you’re going all in on copyfight, then you’re going to have to take the good with the bad, you know? That’s the danger you subject yourself to when using creations in the public domain.

    GYWO has made his own money off the clip art, and his “style” is vague to say the least. People have been doing those word bubbles for ages. He didn’t invent that “style”. He does not “own” the clip art. It is not “his”. Jamba Juice has every right to make their money too. He should have re-produced clip-art-ish art, and done a cookie-cutter comic from scratch. But no, he took the easy way out, and there you have it.

    The clip art he uses is in the great big screw-you-in-the-ass sandbox of public domain. And in that sandbox, there are no conjugal visits from Mrs. Iownthiswork.

  56. ASIFA-Hollywood Animation Archive says:

    Anyone who thinks there is a place for noblesse oblige in advertising has never met any advertising people!

  57. Benjamin says:

    #16 has it too, thank you for that.

  58. Nick Shogun says:

    I’ve never heard of GYWO before. It took this ‘fiasco,’ if that’s a word we can apply here, to make me aware that anything like it even existed. And isn’t GYWO just like all of those other webcomics out there that repeat images with different text, like Dinosaur Comics? Can you imagine if Ryan North from DC started ranting about some corporation using HIS dialogue balloon style in an advertisement? Frankly, I don’t think there are more than a hundred ways to make a dialogue balloon and can’t imagine anyone claiming to own one particular style. Coupled with that fact that it’s only two frames of public domain clip art, I can see how the association between Jamba Juice and GYWO could be made, but don’t believe Jamba Juice is in the wrong.

  59. Anonymous says:

    I can’t believe people took Rees’ statement about speech balloon style seriously. My God people, grow a brain and recognize sarcasm coming from a humorist. How much more could he have hit you in the face with it?

  60. ASIFA-Hollywood Animation Archive says:

    Just because you are legally in-the-clear to do something doesn’t mean it’s not a dick move.

    How is it immoral to use public domain material? The context of the use is totally different. One is a sequential web comic. The other is an advertisement for a product. Ownership only extends to what we create. The only thing Rees created himeself was the words inside of the balloons. Jamba didn’t use those.

    Once a work enters the public domain, it belongs to everyone to do with as they wish. They can do something new with it- or do the exact same thing other people are doing with it- no difference.

  61. egojab says:

    “if the roles were reversed (funny webguy uses the same public domain art as big company to do something that subverts the original), we’d all be crying fair use, and rightly so.”

    How can you say it’s fair use if it’s reversed, but not in this case?
    This screams of hypocrisy and possibly something even more ludicrous.
    Why could it possibly be ok if Rees was doing it, but not if Jamba Juice does?
    Fair use is fair use, are you just angry because it’s not some independent unknown web-comic guy doing it?

  62. Cory Doctorow says:

    No, @13 commits the category error, conflating all kinds of appropriation.

    Jamba Juice produced something that was deliberately meant to confuse people as to its origin — used the same art, the same sort of dialog, the same structure, the same design elements — but didn’t make any kind of explicit nod back to Rees, nor disclaim his endorsement.

    For Rees fans, this means the potential of being confused about whether he had endorsed his products. For Rees naifs, it means that they’re apt to be confused later and assume he’s appropriated from Jamba.

    This is intellectually dishonest in *exactly the way that, say, the Grey Album isn’t*. There is no pretense in The Grey Album, the Beastles, or other mashups that the creator is the author of all the subelements. Rather, the creator explicits disclaims the endorsement or support of the creators of the underlying works.

    To say you can’t be supportive of remix without supporting plagiarism is like saying you can’t support boxing without supporting murder, or you can’t support lockpicking as a hobby without supporting burglary, or you can’t support graffiti without supporting window-breaking, or you can’t support smoking dope without supporting mugging old ladies for meth-money. It’s a cheap rhetorical trick — almost as cheap as plagiarising a webcomic by not giving credit or disclaiming the endorsement.

  63. ASIFA-Hollywood Animation Archive says:

    My comment said that normatively, people who make reference to creations derived from PD cources should cite those sources, and where confusion might arise, they should also disclaim any endorsement.

    No one is under any obligation to cite sources if a work consists of public domain material. Did the guy who put word balloons on clip art cite the artists who created the clip art? Did he disclaim any endorsement by the artist who created the clip art?

    Here is the bottom line. If the person using PD sources wanted to be able to claim legal or moral ownership of his work, he should have contributed something himself. In fact, he did… the words in the balloons… which Jamba Juice didn’t use.

    If you are claiming this has nothing to do with ownership, then you are claiming that it is possibe to “own” a style. Artistic growth happens within a community by sharing style.

    Braque created cubism. Picasso picked it up and took it forward. Duchamp did “Nude Decending A Staircase”. First there was Bob Crewe’s “Music to Watch Girls By” with a “Ba-Ba” chorus. Then, “Would You Like To Fly In My Beautiful Balloon” had a “Ba-Ba” chorus. Pretty soon the Partridge Family was doing “Ba-Ba” choruses. Who “morally owns the “LOL Cat”?

    If you want to be a part of an artistic community (which includes commercial entities in this real world) you have to be prepared to allow your style to be used and elaborated on in different contexts. If you want to *own* something, you should create it all by yourself and as the creator, slap a copyright notice on it.

    It isn’t morally correct to claim that you can use someone else’s work but someone else can’t. Simply putting a dialogue balloon on clip art is NOT creating. If I took an image of the Mona Lisa and put a dialogue balloon on it that said “Hey there sailors!” would I be able to claim that some burger joint is immoral for putting a dialogue balloon on her that says “Eat at Joes”?

    The moral of this story is to create something yourself of value if you want to own it.

  64. hungryjoe says:

    @15: if that’s the case, I can begin to see a glimmer of the outrage.

    But if it’s a question of “style” that outrages us so much, I don’t see why it starts with Rees. There are people much farther back along the food chain who used clip art with funny captions to do great work. Rees is not some kind of pioneer with a massive intellectual stake in his work.

    I don’t mean to denigrate Rees’ work, either. This is just a well-traveled medium. Attempting to demarcate ownership at this point feels like a web company asserting a patent for hypertext in the 21st Century.

  65. sirdook says:

    Cory,

    The violation you describe in this post is not plagiarism. Plagiarism is passing someone else’s work off as your own. In the post you seem to be accusing JJ of the opposite – passing their work off as someone else’s. (E.g. “It fools the public into thinking that Jamba Juice has an endorsement that it just doesn’t have.”)

    I don’t know if there’s a standard terms for this (perhaps some sort of violation of trademark?), but it clearly isn’t plagiarism.

    The important point, in the context of the larger copyfight agenda, is the distinction you make between what’s legal and what’s ethical. You can agree that Jamba Juice had every right to do what they did but still think it’s sleazy and criticize them for it. (For the record, I don’t know enough about this case to make either judgment myself).

  66. Cory Doctorow says:

    @21: “How can you say it’s fair use if it’s reversed, but not in this case?”

    I don’t. I said the opposite. RTFA.

  67. ASIFA-Hollywood Animation Archive says:

    Can you even register a trademark that uses IP you don’t own?

    Yes. Trademarks that were created before 1924 may not be protected by copyright, but they can still be protected by trademark.

  68. Church says:

    There seems to be an “I touched it, therefor I own it” concept that is hard-wired into most of us. What Rees is claiming is identical to the conceit behind the broadcast flag.

  69. ASIFA-Hollywood Animation Archive says:

    The difference between a mashup and plagiarism is easy, and defined in the FA. When you explicitly say, ‘I am mixing A & B to make C,’ you are mashing up. When you take A and B without credit, make C, and spend millions of dollars plastering C everywhere without ever breathing a hint of where C came from, that’s plagiarism.

    That isn’t true. If that was the case, every time someone created something using public domain works, a little more of the potential use of the works would be off limits for others. Public domain is public domain. It belongs to everyone to do with as they please. There is no requirement for the use to be original or unique in any way.

    If you create something new utilizing public domain material, only the *new creative work* you add to the mix is protected. In this case, that’s the words in the dialogue balloons. Everything else is fair game to use, copy, imitate or exploit. Public domain belongs to all of us. We have to protect its free use regardless of whether it’s a mashup artist or corporation.

    Now, if Rees has trademarked some sort of images to represent his products, THEN he has a case to claim that Jamba is misleading the public into believing that Jamba is somehow affiliated with him. Trademark protects applying an image to a product. The image can be copyrighted or not. The trademark owner still controls how the image can be used when it is applied to products. Totally different thing.

  70. hungryjoe says:

    @22 – I don’t think Jamba Juice intended to pass its work off as the work of Rees, nor imply his endorsement of their product.

  71. Anonymous says:

    Dam. I am so tired of seeing comic ‘artists’ rehash clip art with a bit of clever and wordy text then claim the ossified result to be original.

    I accept that in this age of the mash-up an editing of someone else’s material can show more originality than the source. However… what is this guys claim to originality? A speech balloon style? Common!!!

    George Herriman was doing ‘single line pointing to mouth’ speech bubbles years ago! In law (afaik, ianal etc) originality is measured by percentage. Not enough to start with to warrant a breach.

  72. Anonymous says:

    “#91 POSTED BY ASIFA-HOLLYWOOD ANIMATION ARCHIVE, JULY 27, 2009 10:10 PM
    Can you even register a trademark that uses IP you don’t own?

    Yes. Trademarks that were created before 1924 may not be protected by copyright, but they can still be protected by trademark.”

    Good Point. And Micky Mouse will still be trademarked when Mickey goes out of copyright (if Disney doesn’t get yet another extension).

    What I meant to ask was can you register a trademark that uses IP owned by somebody else, but the answer is probably also “yes” since many trademarks use fonts that are licensed rather than owned by the trademark holder, though you can’t actually copyright a font, so that may not be a dispositive example.

  73. Church says:

    “Now, if Rees has trademarked some sort of images to represent his products, THEN he has a case to claim that Jamba is misleading the public into believing that Jamba is somehow affiliated with him.”

    IANAL, but unless GYWO has a beverage component, it would be a hard case to make. I can make a snowplowing company that has a red triangle as a trademark, and it should be fine, despite Bass Ale owning that trademark for as long as there have been trademarks. Different industries, you see.

  74. pxlpig says:

    I hear bad publicity is better than no publicity. Morals aside (if you have any) I think Rees and Jamba both are getting what they want.

  75. Jayel Aheram says:

    This is so disheartening to read copyfascist reasoning coming from Cory. :\

  76. DoctorMantis says:

    The unsigned Jamba Juice ads look like they’re Rees’s work. Even a sophisticated person who’s familiar with both Rees and Jamba might mistake one for the other.

    That’s kind of Ree’s fault though. He’s taken something that anyone can take to make his own, and in the process telling anyone else they can’t use it even though he doesn’t own it. It may not be moral but it’s certainly legal and if there’s one thing you can depend on from the corporate mind, it will do what it wants as long as it thinks it can get away with it. So it goes.

    I also think this argument doesn’t hold water because the really distinctive part of GYWO is the humor, and this add isn’t funny.

  77. Benjamin says:

    I think this a good debate.

    “This is intellectually dishonest in *exactly the way that, say, the Grey Album isn’t*. There is no pretense in The Grey Album, the Beastles, or other mashups that the creator is the author of all the subelements. Rather, the creator explicits disclaims the endorsement or support of the creators of the underlying works.”

    I suppose this gets at my core problem with the copyfight. You make a good point that I concur with in the apples-to-oranges comparison using boxing and the like. But if you’re going to use material in the public domain, and mashup or whatever, you’re going to subject yourself to the terrors of the intellectually dishonest. You’re in that sandbox. It’s all about where the line is drawn – if you have copyright, the law draws the line.

    If you’re doing it just for fun, if you’re truly just making art, that’s wonderful, I feel like the commons are a place for people like that. But he should’ve expected this day to come, and we shouldn’t crucify jamba for it. And hell, how do we know that the intention wasn’t to give him a nod?
    At any rate, this is why I think he should have used his own copywritten art. This is a big lesson for him – however much of a ‘cool kid’ he is that we can sympathize with.

    At the least, for GYWO, it got me to his comic for the first time.

  78. failix says:

    @62: “Only a true sophisticate would be familiar with both Jamba Juice and David Rees.”

    That’s what I thought too, I knew Rees, but had never heard of Jamba Juice before…

    For once, I think that both sides of the argument have valid points. Continue please, this could lead to an interesting conclusion.

  79. Anonymous says:

    @34 Well, the statement they’ve released says they weren’t, and I believe them. Who could seriously think that they were trying to draw people into their shops by creating an apparent endorsement of some unknown artist. My impression is that ad campaigns for a widespread franchise like Jamba Juice would be aimed at a much larger segment of the population than Rees’ fans represent.

    Hell, they made an ad campaign imitating his work, so someone involved obviously appreciates it, but the argument could be made that any mention of Rees in the campaign would result in people believing he /was/ endorsing Jamba Juice, and that not mentioning him should have kept the thought of his endorsement from even being raised.

  80. arkizzle / Moderator says:

    HungryJoe, but they did imply his work, by using his specific elements in his specific layouts. The original clipart doesn’t imply being laid-out in this kind of comic-panellng, Rees’ work did.

    Jamba didn’t find this clip art randomly and imagine a new environment and presentation style for the characters. They took Rees’ layouts and retitled them.

    If Rees’ hadn’t created his comic, Jamba wouldn’t have come up with this campaign, therefore Rees’ work (plus the original clipart) is a part of the source, from which Jamba took.

  81. agoodsandwich says:

    Wow, this discussion goes in all sorts of directions.

    I think I know exactly what’s going on here.

    During one project critique day when I was in design school, a fellow student presented his project, which was basically a graphite drawing of the Chick fil A ad featuring a cow holding a sign that says “eat more chikin”, except with different text on the sign. It was clear to anyone that he copied an existing ad, even to those who hadn’t seen the original. The student was otherwise talented, but somehow tricked himself into thinking this was his creation.

    In design school there was also a surprising amount of people who thought that it was okay to get their images from wherever on the internet they found a picture they liked. Never mind technical and copyright issues, they were just stuck in Design-Mind, more concerned with what clever cool things they were designing than with practical concerns.

    In this case, some low level designer (an intern, perhaps?) thought this was a clever rework of the GYWO style, handed it to his art director who had never heard of GYWO, and Jamba Juice had no idea they were so obviously ripping it off.

    And it is DEFINITELY ripped off. It may be legal, it may be Public Domain clip art, but I can think of a thousand approaches using this same clip art that would look nothing like the GYWO comics. Hell, even using different images with the same speech balloons would have disguised it.

    Not illegal, probably not even a dick move. Just an ignorant design intern is my guess.

  82. Robert says:

    You know what would really help? A side-by-side comparison. That helped show that T-shirt companies were ripping off artists because you could see the parallels. I’m not a fan of GYWO, I’m not familiar with the work, I don’t know the style, and all I see on these posts is the Jamba Juice ad. I went to GYWO’s site, saw the GYWO cartoons, which are all in red and appear to use the same clip art over and over.

    Yes, there’s a blog post showing a comparison of a single frame. Which is Jamba Juice’s and which is GYWO? Why does the purported GYWO one not look like the strips on the GYWO site?

    So just post the comparison already! That would really clear it up.

  83. Anonymous says:

    So many of you are misreading Cory, almost willfully. I think Cory’s point could be summed up as “don’t be a dick.”

    Some things aren’t adequately described by copyright law or copyleft mores. There is nothing inconsistent about thinking that doing a mashup is cool but purely derivative, no-value-added style theft is not.

    You can’t look at the ad and reasonably think that the creator WASN’T referencing the style of GYWO, so biting the rhyme that hard, without credit or distancing from Rees was a dick move.

  84. pxlpig says:

    I hear bad publicity is better than no publicity. Morals aside (if you have any) I think Rees and Jamba both are getting what they want.

  85. libelle says:

    I stopped drinking beverages from Jamba Juice when I learned … giggle … snort … that “jamba” … chortle … means “I fart” in Swahili.

    That about sums it up, don’tcha think?

  86. jfrancis says:

    If this guy wants to claim ownership he should have invented something new. Like Kodak did when they invented their trademark. I mean, can you imaging a company trying to claim ownership of a ‘trademark’ made from a word plucked from the public domain, like, say, ‘Apple?’

  87. arkizzle / Moderator says:

    But he should’ve expected this day to come, and we shouldn’t crucify jamba for it.

    Why? We should just expect companies to trawl the net for something already-cool to sell their product? They are the kind of companies I have no respect for. So I guess Jamba has made its bed.

    And hell, how do we know that the intention wasn’t to give him a nod?

    Because they clearly said differently in their statement:

    We understand there has been some misunderstanding about the Summer Bliss campaign artwork and the comic strip created by David Rees due to the use of these clip art images. Jamba Juice would like to expressly communicate that the Summer Bliss promotion was not intended to imply any affiliation with Mr. Rees, Mr. Rees’ endorsement of Jamba Juice and its products, or Jamba Juice’s endorsement of Mr. Rees’ work.”

    At the least, for GYWO, it got me to his comic for the first time.

    Which wouldn’t have happened if Jamba hadn’t been pulled up. You’d have just thought, ‘there’s some quirky art’, and drank your smoothy.

  88. Cory Doctorow says:

    @38, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I, or Xeni, or Rees have said that Jamba should be prohibited from doing what they’ve done.

    No one has said that.

    Rather, many people have said that they shouldn’t have done what they did, even though the law allows it.

    In the same way that I might look at someone’s remix of a PD book in a way that, say, endorsed eugenics and say, ‘That book is bad’; or look at a collage that was muddy in composition and esthetically unappealing and say, ‘That collage is bad,’ I can look at Jamba’s failure to cite their sources and disclaim Rees’s endorsement and say ‘That ad is bad’ WITHOUT ever once saying, ‘This should be illegal.’

    @32: In what way is this remotely like the Broadcast Flag proposal? That was about forcing technology companies to build devices that couldn’t run open source software. This is about saying that the advertising agency should have credited its source. Apart from the fact that both of these situations can be described using standard English words they have nothing in common.

    @33: ‘That isn’t true. If that was the case, every time someone created something using public domain works, a little more of the potential use of the works would be off limits for others. Public domain is public domain. It belongs to everyone to do with as they please. There is no requirement for the use to be original or unique in any way.’

    No, this is a gross misreading of what was written above. My comment said that normatively, people who make reference to creations derived from PD cources should cite those sources, and where confusion might arise, they should also disclaim any endorsement.

    That has nothing to do with restricting — in law or otherwise — what people can do with PD works, not is it a requirement — in any sense — that uses be original or unique.

  89. Tdawwg says:

    I rather admire Jimby Jounce’s effrontery in this case: this kind of brazen theft is way preferable to, say, Outback Steak House’s repurposing of one of my favorite Of Montreal songs. “Immature artists imitate, mature artists steal,” no? It’s either a naked, failed attempt at GYWO’s readership, or a naked, successful attempt to bite into Rees’s cultural capital, siphoning some off and decreasing the potency of his brand at the same time: epically cynical win for sure.

  90. kleer001 says:

    Anyone else recall JJ’s appropriation of the imagry and style of Tibetan Thangka paintings a few years ago?

  91. Anonymous says:

    What about Tim O’Reilly’s famous quote, “the greatest threat to an artist is obscurity, not plagiarism”. I bet Rees will have a much bigger following from this long after Jamba Juice has moved on to another ad campaign.

    Corey, your objections really do sound hypocritical in light of your usual stance on open culture.

  92. Tdawwg says:

    I love the postmoderny quality of this argument: “So there’s no transcendental ground anymore for experience, everything melts into air, everything’s mediated, BUT THEY RUINED MY FAVORITE PUBLIC-SOURCE WEBCOMIC!!!” Ironic lulz abounding!

    Read Jameson, folks! It’s all OK: indeed, it all happened thirty years ago when you weren’t looking…. Your mediatized, marketed, commodified subjectivities are still intact. Welcome to the Dessert of the Rees.

  93. misterfricative says:

    God almighty, people, I can quite understand why David Rees is walking away from this mess. If I was him, I’d do the same.

    IANAL, but to set a couple of points straight: This isn’t about copyright, and it’s the opposite of plagiarism. The legal — and certainly ethical/moral — question here relates to ‘trade dress’.

    For me, here’s where the asymmetry comes in: Is it OK for someone to appropriate someone else’s work and use it, without permission, knowledge, or compensation, to promote their own stuff? No.

    Is it OK for someone to appropriate someone else’s work and use it, without permission, knowledge, or compensation, to make art? Yes.

    So there’s no hypocrisy here. What Jamba Juice is doing is wrong. What Warhol did with the soup cans was fine.

    Meanwhile, Jamba Juice’s carefully worded statement claims that they ‘would like to expressly communicate that the Summer Bliss promotion was not intended to imply any affiliation with Mr. Rees’ and anonymous poster #39 believes them. I however do not.

    And for the simple reason that, as #39 also says, ‘they made an ad campaign imitating his work. ‘ So, what? We’re supposed to think that this imitation of his work happened by accident?

    Anyway, fuck Jamba Juice. http://fuckgrapefruit.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/get-your-war-on/

  94. IWood says:

    I had a four-paragraph comment typed up and ready to submit (not lyin’), but then I realized that I just…don’t…care.

  95. MadMolecule says:

    ATTENTION: Rees’s posts accusing Jamba Juice of copying his ballon-style are A SARCASTIC JOKE. Pretty much everything he’s ever posted has been a sarcastic joke. Why are we suddenly forgetting that? Oh, right, because somebody got his hot-button pushed.

    Rees is no idiot. He knows as well as anyone that there’s no basis for a lawsuit here, and really no moral infringement. He’s stoking the flames with his brilliant, absurdist rants because he’s going to profit the most from all this. Why?

    Because Jamba Juice is more famous than he is. Millions of people who have never heard of GYWO buy smoothies at Jamba Juice every day. Hell, there’s been an SNL skit lampooning Jamba Juice. Cory, to suggest that Jamba Juice was trying to imply that Rees endorses them is ridiculous; Rees’s style and comics may be recognizable to readers of boingboing, but come on, he’s not the kind of Big Celebrity whose endorsement is going to sell smoothies to Jamba Juice customers.

    I’ll bet you a nickel that this is how the ads came to be: Jamba Juice hires an ad agency, or maybe they’ve got in-house ad staff. One person on the staff has seen GYWO somewhere, realizes that he images are in the public domain, and likes the simple style of it, so he/she makes an ad in that style. No one else in the company even recognizes it.

    It’s not plagiarism, because they didn’t copy anything that Rees created (which would be the dialogue of his strips).

    @SirDook: The violation you describe in this post is not plagiarism. Plagiarism is passing someone else’s work off as your own. In the post you seem to be accusing JJ of the opposite – passing their work off as someone else’s. (E.g. “It fools the public into thinking that Jamba Juice has an endorsement that it just doesn’t have.”)

    I don’t know if there’s a standard terms for this (perhaps some sort of violation of trademark?), but it clearly isn’t plagiarism.

    Plagiarism is passing off someone else’s work as your own. The opposite of plagiarism is forgery: Passing off your own work as someone else’s.

    Neither has occurred here.

  96. chandler says:

    Ad agencies rip off artists more than they’d like to admit, and the “Creatives” who supposedly come up with the novel way to communicate the brand values take the credit all the way to the awards ceremony.

    When Absolut wanted to use Keith Haring’s style, they didn’t just copy it (which would have been easy enough to do); they commissioned a work from Keith Haring himself and called it Absolut Haring. Which is the cooler approach, that or ripping off a style without even a tip of the hat?

    It’s quite possible that Jamba Juice was not aware this was ripped off. Perhaps Neighbor Advertising Agency said, “hey, there’s this cool style by this David Rees guy; we recommend we copy it and hope no-one notices.” More likely they said something like, “we’ve got this cool idea to use clip art, see, ’cause this will be an unconventional way to communicate the JJ values…” If that’s what happened, JJ should turn on the lights, explain what happened, and make peace with Mr. Rees. The “creative” at Neighbor should have to do 10 push-ups and write “I will not rip off my concepts” on the agency blackboard.

  97. Anonymous says:

    Corey, your whuffie just suffered serious deflation.

  98. MadMolecule says:

    Oops, the “I don’t know if… clearly isn’t plagiarism” should have been italicized as part of the quote in my post above.

  99. Anonymous says:

    I would say this is a pretty effective viral ad campaign they did right here and all the discussion about it is just contributing to its success.

  100. Sparrow says:

    This is like taking a mashup or remix, going back to the original sources of the samples, and putting them together in the same sequence with the same cuts and fades as the mashup, and then calling it your own original work. Since it copies the arrangement of the elements, it’s still a derivative of the mashup even if the samples are taken from the original source.

  101. DWittSF says:

    What I find amusing is the vapid banality of the JJ ad, which makes it feel like GYWO came after and subverted it–reverse culture jamming.

  102. Church says:

    “@32: In what way is this remotely like the Broadcast Flag proposal? That was about forcing technology companies to build devices that couldn’t run open source software.”

    True, I was referring to copy control, which is sorta-distinct.

    “This is about saying that the advertising agency should have credited its source”

    Public domain (or the practical equivalent) requires no attribution.

Leave a Reply