Moral dilemma - To turn in 'Simpsons' copyright infringer?

[KurtNYC]

There is a restaurant near me that is called "Homer's." The interior is done in cartoon-like bold colors. They have huge chalkboards for their menu and they drew Homer Simpson in the corner of one. Although business has been light, they recently expanded and opened Homer's Donuts next door ("Mmmmmm. Donuts.")

I have met Matt Groening and watched him patiently talk to fans and draw their favorite character on an 8 x 10 glossy of the Simpson's cast (the characters, not the voice actors). He sat there to the bitter end, gave more than the other Fox talent who were there (Scott Baio showed up late and left after 45 minutes of promoting his ill-fated show "Rewind"). Groening is a great guy -- the sweet, mature version of fun-loving Bart Simpson.

So I have nothing against this local restaurant. I think it would have been easy enough for them to make the restaurant a generic cartoon theme but they didn't. They love the Simpsons which is great but they shouldn't be ripping off Matt Groening.

My dilemma is that to turn them in, I would have to call Fox Broadcasting's legal department. Fox, not Groening, would be the ones to work this out with the restaurant owner. Ruppert Murdoch's minions will fire off cease and desist letters and follow-up to make the guy change all of his signage and probably the fictitious name filings, licenses would have to be refiled, etc. And this is really just a Simpsons fan who has gone way out of bounds. Anybody who can run a successful business in Manhattan is smart enough to know you can't just open a restaurant using characters and intellectual property that you don't have a deal to use.

Your thoughts?

[RagingInMiami]

1. Do they sell Duff beer?

[Deja Q]

2. They went after DU for far, far less.

:shrug:

[barackmyworld]

8. I don't know this story

can you inform me?

[Deja Q]

44. Simpsons-based avatars cought the attention of freepazoids. They ran to

FAUX and FAUX socked it to DU.

Look for an avatar, there are many, reading "Removed under legal threat from fox."

[NoPasaran]

3. Nobody likes a squealer n/t

[Deja Q]

4. Except the pigs.

:D

[Buzz Clik]

17. Squeal like a pig!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

23. Right-o. Let some freeper who loves Murdoch turn them in. (nt)

[Not_Giving_Up]

5. There's a gas station near my house...their receipts say

Kwik-E-Mart...I thought about it, but figured fuq it, who cares?

[Beetwasher]

6. Are You Sure They Haven't Already Gone Through The Legalese?

You're probably right that they haven't, but are you sure?

BTW, where is this place in NYC? I'd like to check it out...How's the food?

[KurtNYC]

12. Review is here

http://www.menupages.com/restaurantdetails.asp?neighborhoodid=13&restaurantid=5470

487 Amsterdam Ave
Homer's is a great place for relaxed fun with family and friends. We spent a few hours there one Saturday night. The dollar beers are great. The atmosphere is malt shop with bright lighting and video games and a long counter, but the counter also feels like a bar and they have a pool table and a courtyard with outdoor seating area. Along with ice cream, popped corn, and the bar style menu, Homer's serves organic coffee and vegetarian chili. They have something for just about anyone.

[tridim]

7. I don't get it..

Is the existence of the restaurant harming Groening's IP in any way? Honestly, I think it's a cool idea.

[KurtNYC]

11. Yes

The Simpsons is a consistently well-written, high quality product. The restaurant seeks to use that reputation and Groening has no say so. It is identity theft in a sense.

[Midlodemocrat]

14. Do you think there is the possibility that he is flattered

...by the copycat? I see your dilemna, though, I don't think I would do anything overt about it. I don't think it harms anyone, least of all Matt, but that is just my opinion.

You must be a man of great integrity to be concerned about this. I commend you.

[CanuckAmok]

28. There was a Martini lounge in Vancouver once...

...called DeNiro's. It was a really tasteful, elegant place.

They had absolutely no imagery or reference to Robert DeNiro or the films he's been in, anywhere in their decor, menu or advertising. They just called the place "DeNiro's" because they think Robert DeNiro is cool, and the wanted to emulate that 'Goodfellas' vibe in a non-specific look.

When Robert DeNiro was in Vancouver shooting something, the two women who owned the lounge sent him a gift basket to his hotel, and an invitation to "DeNiro's", while he was visiting.

The next thing they knew, DeNiro had a cease and desist order against the use of the name, and he basically sued them into bankruptcy.

So, instead of having a business helping to perpetuate his persona at no cost to him, he destroyed a small business and alienated hundreds of fans.

[Midlodemocrat]

30. How typical!

...you would think he would be flattered. What a dope.

[Book Lover]

32. Please look at it from this perspective

Bar owner has change of fortunes - gradually the carpets are cleaned less frequently, the bathrooms get funkier and funkier, the drinks get watered down... but DeNiro's name is still shining brightly over the doorway. The perception is that DeNiro is peddling crap, even if he has nothing at all to do with the place. Homage is one thing, but misappropriation of a person's reputation is another.

[CanuckAmok]

34. I understand both sides...

...but a C&D order would probably have been enough. He instead proceeded to level suit after suit at them until they couldn't afford to stay in business.

Sorry, but that's just petty and shitty.

[Book Lover]

39. From the outside yes it looks petty

But I am compelled to ask if you know the situation personally? Perhaps they or their lawyer responded to the C&D inappropriately and bringing suit was the correct response. Or perhaps not; perhaps DeNiro was given agressive legal advice; or perhaps DeNiro was pissed off enough that he stirred it all up from eth get-go. In any case, I do understand your point about the place looking sharp and in that way aiding the reputation of the name "DeNiro."

[Book Lover]

27. "The Simpsons is a consistently well-written, high quality product."

Where were you for seasons 9-12? :-)

Seriously though, if the restaurateur had enough money to pay the bribes to get his/her place open, they can cough up enough money to pay the fines for breaking the law. Rather than employ an artist or interior designer, they decided to plaster an idea they didn't come up with or pay to have created all over their place of business. I'm not saying turn them in, or call Fox legal; maybe you should just not patronize them.

[el_gato]

9. sheesh...don't you have something more important to worry about?

[KurtNYC]

13. My intellectual property gets ripped off all the time

and it sucks. If it was money out YOUR wallet you probably wouldn't ask that.

[barackmyworld]

15. mine too

This t-shirt company in cali ripped off my John Edwards t-shirt within hours of it getting on Yahoo News. Didn't listen to my cease and desist either...wish I had time to sue.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

24. *ahem*

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml

[KurtNYC]

31. From that link...

Trademark law was not intended to promote any business activity, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are buying

By that description, this restaurant is fraud on their customers.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

36. That may be technically correct.

But of course, the point of my response wasn't defending or condemning the restaurant, only this loaded term "intellectual property".

About the restaurant, like others are pointing out, you'll benefit Fox, not Groening. AND there's a non-negligible probability arrangements were already made.

[el_gato]

25. someone should call the American Kennel Club and New York City

since you have a picture of a dog and use NYC in your screen name.
We can let the lawyers settle it.

the word pathetic comes to mind

[KurtNYC]

33. ah, more name calling -- ad hominem

Dfinition The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm

[el_gato]

40. boo fuckin' hoo

Some little restaraunt uses a simpsons motif and you get your panties in a wad. I've lost all respect for you.

As I said the word pathetic comes to mind.

[KurtNYC]

42. You know what word comes to my mind?

double ad hominem.

Okay that is 3 words (so sue me) ;-)

[quispquake]

10. The only ones that will profit from this...

is Fox & not Groening...so let'em have their cool decor!!!

[mac56]

16. Can you ask the owner?

Maybe he or she has already jumped all the legal hoops. Or maybe he or she just isn't aware of any wrongdoing. Unlikely, I know, but it's possible.

One of my favorite bars in Mpls was "Dick Tracy's". Done up in comic-strip colors, and all the icons and typefaces from the strip. The syndicate got wind of it, and it morphed almost overnight into "Tracy's Saloon". Same color scheme, but a cute little duck logo instead of Dick Tracy's squint. (Duck Tracy...get it?)

[Garage Queen]

18. Also, is the owner's name/nickname "Homer"?

If so, he just could be playing off of the Simpson's reference.

For small businesses, I think live-and-let-live. But, if he opens a chain...And be SURE that he hasn't already addressed this himself.

[mac56]

20. Here in Athens there's a restaurant called "Aunt Bea's".

Lots of "Andy Griffith Show" memorabilia, and endless tape loops of the show on the TV monitors. They don't use images of Aunt Bee on the sign, though, and they spell the name "Bea".

[KurtNYC]

19. The Simpsons does cross-promotion with Burger King

and several other food entities. I would bet that those deals preclude any small side deals.

I'm leaning toward contacting Groening (or, more likely, "his people") and let them make the decision on where it goes next. I know how Fox works and could get something to Groening directly. Groening has a little fiefdom within Fox Broadcasting.

[nicolemrw]

48. i think thats a better idea

(contacting groening directly) let him decide if it hurts him or not.

[KurtNYC]

49. Thanks

I'm thinking the best course of action is to let it go.

David Boies made a great argument when defending Napster from the recording industry. Basically he said that copyright laws in the U.S. threaten to make us all spectators to our own culture. In other words, we can be consumers only. Fans of Star Wars wrote their own stories using the characters and Fox came after them. Shakespeare would not have been able to write half of plays in this legal environment. The national anthem was based on a British song which would have been copyrighted and therefor would not have been created (although we won the war so good luck enforcing THAT copyright).

Anyway, I agree with Boies.

In a perfect world, Groening could call this guy and say 'glad you like my work but you need to not (in effect) impersonate me for a profit.' And they would work something out but that isn't the way things go, especially with a large media entity involved.

I was really just looking for a lively argument and I got one.

[Squatch]

21. So, are you going to turn in DU too for having avatars of

James Bond?
The Apple icon?
Bongo?

How about not worrying about it, seeing as how it's none of your business?

[KurtNYC]

26. There is a big difference between

reproducing a logo and USING a logo, brand or a complete set of characters and settings in your business. No right thinking business person would stop you from reproducing their logo and plastering the world with it. However if you impersonate them in a for profit business -- it is a problem.

How about not worrying about it, seeing as how it's none of your business?

Okay, I said it was a moral dilemma. The restaurant has been open for over a year and I didn't run to the phone. I thought it might be interesting to share this with some Simpsons fans and see what people thought. I see from the responses that I didn't make the case for Groening strongly enough to have some balance.

Btw, personal attack is really not a persuasive argument.

[Squatch]

29. If you would so kind as to point out the personal attack...

:freak:

[KurtNYC]

35. 2 attacks

First you call me a tattletale with your subject line and imply that I am a troublemaker who is a threat to this board.

Secondly, you tell me I have no right to care about Matt Groening or his work; How about not worrying about it, seeing as how it's none of your business?

But that is water off a duck. :-)

[Squatch]

41. Hooooookay.....

I just have to shake my head over here.

You asked this board for its members' opinions on your questionable interference with matters that do not concern you, then you can't take the answers you get. You realize, after reading this thread, that a lot of people disagree with you, and that bothers you. So, you withdraw to a SHAKY defense of implicating dissenters, by categorizing their replies as ad hominem.

To quote somebody else in this thread..."the word pathetic comes to mind"

[KurtNYC]

46. I ask how I can help Matt Groening

and I get pictures of pigs fornicating. Yes the word pathetic comes to mind.

It was really just a hypothetical question because it ain't in me to bring Fox's bittpull lawyers on anybody. I think the answer I got here was that people don't really see any value in copyright/trademarks laws even if the copyright belongs to someone they like. Am I going to cry over that? Of course not.

The other answer I got is that people think attacking the speaker is the same as countering the speakers argument. It isn't.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

47. I'm certainly no expert on IP law

However, one of my friend's is. (He's a practicing Manhattan lawyer.) I'm not sure how valid this is to the conversation at hand, but we had a discussion one night wherein he was telling me that names are not necessarily "trademarked" or "protected" in the ways that most of us think that they are.

For example (this was his example, btw), he was telling me that the term "Pepsi" is really only protected to the extent that a person could not name another beverage Pepsi. If you wanted to start a business that manufactured, say, calculators, you wouldn't experience much difficulty if you called your company "Pepsi Calculators". I say "much" because, of course, Pepsi could always file a suit against you (see Fox v. Franken); but, if you could hold them at bay long enough to go to trial, I believe that you would win out. The rationale is that Pepsi Calculators isn't going to suck away or damage revenues for Pepsi Cola because they are quite obviously manufacturing different products.

Lawyers - feel free to correct me if I am wrong about this. As I say this was explained to me one night a year ago or so by a Columbia Law grad who practices IP law, so I felt it was pretty legit.

Anyhoo, the point remains that Homer's (the restaurant) or Moe's (the bar) aren't really ever going to damage profits, etc. that Fox may make off the Simpsons.

Unless, of course, they decide to start building "Moe's" theme-bars in places like Times Square. God forbid!

[KurtNYC]

50. Good point regarding trademark names

This rises to another level. It is similar to someone who would decide to open a theme park and because they love Disney characters and films, they base all of the rides and attractions on Disney characters.

The name by itself would not be an infringment.
"Homer" plus donut selling IS an infringement.
"Homer" plus an image of Homer Simpson on the menu plus donuts just has to be an infringement.

The damage to Groening/Fox is negligible unless this restaurant gives someone mad-cow (the publicity would be horrible) or is just terrible in general.

The other risk (slight) is that if the trademark holder doesn't enforce his trademark, it can be argued that it was abandoned. For instance, I could start an airline called "PanAm" or "TWA" without damaging those defunct companies but someone may still hold the trademark. If they come after me they continue to hold the trademark. If they don't come after me then they have abandoned the trademark and I can use it legally.

[Droolian]

22. Don't.

You won't benefit Groening - only Fox.

[skygazer]

37. It is a strange moral dilemma

When is it right to be a whistle blower? When is it wrong? When someone is aware of another's wrongdoing, is it their moral duty to inform someone of it?

In the case of Enron, where many people were being bilked out of many dollars, there seems to be a clear consensus that whistle blowing was the thing to do. In the case of government cover ups, ditto. Many are affected and hurt by this and it seems correct to expose it.

The line gets fuzzier for people when there are fewer victims or when the whistle blower is not a direct victim. We don't want to become a "1984" nation where children turn in their parents for wrong thinking - yet we want our children to do "the right thing". And what is the right thing?

In my area, I often see letters to the local paper asking where one can turn in scofflaws who have out of state plates on their vehicles or who park illegally. On the surface, that seems very petty but where is the line drawn? When does it change from noble to petty?

I don't know what the answer is. I don't know what the "right thing" is. I guess I'd look at in the light of, how would I feel if it were my product that was being used without my permission. And act accordingly.

I don't envy you the decision. :hi:

[henslee]

38. If u want to waste your time but come, it comes with the territory. For

years I used to see a Snow White coffee shop complete with stolen Disney artwork and a Popeye cafe with popeye/spinach logo in L.A. I think they are still there.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

43. There's a bar called Moe's in Fort Greene

I'm pretty sure that this is more of an infringement than a place called Homer's.

This place has a big watercolor of Moe up behind the bar, and they call their "house" or "well" beer "Duff's". I must say, however, that I wouldn't dream of turning them in to Fox. The owners are big fans of The Simpsons and made the bar more in the spirit of homage rather than as a "gimmick" to try and make money.

[mac56]

45. There's a chain here in GA called "Moe's Southwest Grill"

The owners acknowledge that they had Moe's from "The Simpsons" in mind when they named it, but decided not to use any of the images or logos.