I think ill go get me a bottle right now just because of this.

You can’t have squigly lines? You can’t have plain words in an arch? You can’t have white text on black background? There is nothing about the JD label that is unique to JD.

About all I can see is, maybe the exact shapes of the squiggly lines should have been less exact. Like the Lynard Skynard T-shirt above.

If JD wanted to have a protect-able trademark, then they should have made themselves an actual trademark of some sort besides plain text in completely standard  fonts.
It is indeed good that they are asking nicely, because by rights they should have no right to demand it.

http://brokenpianoforpresident.com/2012/07/15/goodbye-beautiful-cover-art/ 
which edited the distillery’s letter to leave out all the friendly reasonableness to try to drive some publicity his way.

“6. You agree not to use the link on any web site that disparages the Brand, the Site, or the Brand’s products or services, or which infringes on the Brand’s or Brown-Forman Corporation’s or its affiliates’ intellectual property or other rights.”

Much more in this vein at http://www.jackdaniels.com/linking-policy and they expect you to register your agreement.

That said, while I don’t think there’s any provable infringement here, I think it’s for the best that he and his publisher complied with the request — if only because it demonstrates to IP lawyers of the world that asking nicely is a good way to get what you want.

JD brand is sooo strong, that book cover is a visual magnet due to the fact of the uniqueness of its graphic design. they have a case. the law is the law, and that is hard to change.

not like the getty images extortion letters, they hit one of my clients, for a mistaken placed picture stamp size, my client scared pay the amount, i paid my client 1/2 and lost the client, and getty lost my agency work and i will always recommend you look for a good decent image broker…

I will never use Getty but i will make an effort to drink JD, this is good PR take a bad and make a good for all.

Should we then say that we’re OK if companies start issuing nice takedown notices, even when the art they are taking down is fair use? 

So far, based on the discussion above, the answer is “no.”  Also, fair use may not apply to trademarks in the same way it applies to copyright, this particular instance is not a parody or any other aspect of fair use, Jack Daniels has a legitimate interest in protecting their brand, and the author doesn’t seem to have any legitimate interest in appropriating the JD brand.

I would recommend conserving your outrage for genuine outrages.

Still worth drinking, though.

edit: I forgot that JD walks like a bourbon duck, quacks like a bourbon duck, but is only the next door neighbor to a bourbon duck.

Seriously. I didn’t see it.

“Stalin kicked a child in the face.
What a wonderful man, he could kill the kid but he only…”
Same here.

Wake up You booze making guys, yours bottle label is so widely parodied and used in differed ways in culture that you technically already lost it!

People just put:
“jack daniels label parody”
or
“jack daniels label satire”
in google images…

You cold take every word away from this article and most people would still recognise the book as being connected with JD, that’s the problem.

If you choose to “file cease and desist orders” always ”file cease and desist orders”  responsibly.

Or maybe the JD PR dept vets the lawyers instead of the other way around?

I distrust big companies as much as the next person but there is something that seems more honest about a bastard company sending stern cease and desist letters then someone trying to rub my back and pretend like we are friends.