1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Business owner puts up large pro-gun billboard

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by ryan3465, Mar 5, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ryan3465

    ryan3465 Well-Known Member

    Here in Central Maine, a local business owner has a tradition of putting up billboards over his cleaning shop thanking our first responders, soldiers & veterans, etc. Today I drove by and saw his newest billboard:

    Last edited: Mar 5, 2013
  2. gfanikf

    gfanikf Well-Known Member

    I hope he paid Warner Brothers to licence the image...and that's not including right of publicity issues for Clint....I do copyright law for a living. :)
  3. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Well-Known Member

    Stealing someone's intellectual property rights to promote your own rights? It does seem contradictory.
  4. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Well-Known Member

    The quote should say - Dirty Harry (or Harry Callaghan). Not Clint Eastwood. The character said it. Technically, the writer "said" it. Clint was "acting" at the time. Attributing it to Clint is clearly just trying to use Clint's fame for his own purpose.
  5. TheGloriousTachikoma

    TheGloriousTachikoma Well-Known Member

  6. r1derbike

    r1derbike Well-Known Member

    Let's see how long it takes before Clint's counsel urges it taken down?
  7. X-JaVeN-X

    X-JaVeN-X Well-Known Member

    Isn't Clint Eastwood pro-2a? Why would he want it taken down?
  8. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    The sentiment on the board is that of the Antis. "If there's a gun around I want to be the one controlling it." might as well be a catchphrase for them.

    Why would Eastwood mind? If someone takes something I might have given them if they'd asked I would mind and might insist on it back, wouldn't you? He could have used any of the pro-2A posters out there free for the asking, but he stole and then twisted something that belonged to someone else.

    People should really think and research carefully before doing things like that.
  9. Devonai

    Devonai Well-Known Member

    Gfanikf, isn't it possible that the image falls under Fair Use, as the business in question doesn't stand to derive any income directly from it? Or maybe as an educational message?
  10. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Well-Known Member

    Amazing people can't understand Intellectual property rights.

    Because it's not his alone to give away. In this case it looks like both the movie rights and Clint's professional name/image. His job is selling his image and name. People who do that have investors they have signed contracts with who pay him for using his name and image. He "shares" his license for profit. If he doesn't maintain control of his image/name then others can use it without his permission. It's stealing from Clint/WB and those who invest in Clint/WB. Nor could Clint agree to give away property that belongs to the films owners. I doubt WB gives 2 hoots about the 2nd. Their job is to make money. No money, no permission.

    When someone steals/copies music they are stealing from the artist and the investors who took a risk on paying the artist for their work. Same here. Using that image, and Clint's name, without payment is theft of intellectual property.

    From the Constitution of the United States of America;

  11. gym

    gym member

    There is probablly a statute declaring it being "time barred", it's like 30-40 years old. I think that unless you own the rights to the slogan and or picture you may be out of luck, Probablly the photo more than the slogan. I believe you have to keep up with the licensing and perhaps after 25 years or so, they stop paying for certain types of things, just my opinion. I know that with Corporate name and DBA's you need to keep up with this or someone can steal it after a certain amount of time, also websites and other intellectual property.
  12. Blackstone

    Blackstone Well-Known Member

    Clint Eastwood is pro-2A though from what I know, so I can't see himself taking issue with this

    Also, I'm pretty sure that quote is correctly attributed to Clint himself, rather than any of his film characters
  13. X-JaVeN-X

    X-JaVeN-X Well-Known Member

    So if I post a quote from a movie on the internet for everyone to see...it's stealing? Give me a break. If I proclaimed to be the owner of such "intellectual property" (if you want to call it that), and in some way devised a way to profit from it, then sure I can see that. From what I see...this guy just posted a quote, from an actor that to my knowledge shares the same sentiment. A sane person would take it as a compliment...a child on a playground would be the one running around screaming "Mine! Mine! Mine!".
  14. X-JaVeN-X

    X-JaVeN-X Well-Known Member

    If WB is smart, they'll think the owner for free advertising for their film. Comparing what this person did on a billboard to "stealing" music is not an apples to apples comparison. Now, if the owner was standing on the corner handing out free bootleg copies of WB films, then maybe you'd be in the same neighborhood.

    If posting quotes from a movie for the public to see were illegal, then the entire internet should be shut down.

    I mean really...


    Is WB going to come after me now? Stop being ridiculous...
  15. Grmlin

    Grmlin Well-Known Member

    Gee, maybe the billboard owner received permission first and if he didn't that will be their problem. I for one like it.
  16. InkEd

    InkEd Well-Known Member

    I'll go ahead and say it.... "too many lawyers":rolleyes:

    No offense.
  17. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Well-Known Member

    You like to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we should ignore and which to support?
  18. BaltimoreBoy

    BaltimoreBoy Well-Known Member


    "You like to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we should ignore and which to support?"

    Not ignore perhaps, but deprecate. So, for example the so-called commerce and elastic clauses have been grossly misused. It would have been better if the elastic clause hadn't been written, and the commerce clause clarified to mean that state governments could not interfere with interstate commerce - i.e. the original free trade zone.

    As the case with these other clauses, so-called 'intellectual property' has become a bad joke. First, there is no such thing as 'intellectual property'. There are copyrights. There are patents. There are trade secrets. There are trademarks.

    None of them are 'property' in the conventional sense. All of them are granted at congressional whim. Thus they have become part of the gucci gulch playground.

    They are also not 'rights'. A right to defend oneself is a proposition of natural law. A right to not have others tell funny jokes that they heard me tell is something different.

    So, yes there are many parts of the constitution one can disagree with. Indeed second amendment critics are entitled to seek its' repeal - as the more honest ones do.

    Try the Electronic Freedom Foundation for some interesting discussions. https://www.eff.org/

    That's probably enough for something that is diverging from firearms.
  19. gfanikf

    gfanikf Well-Known Member

    Keep in mind reading the EFF in regards to copyright is like reading a VPC paper on the 2A. There I said my piece and I can move on.

    Point being if you're using a billboard they uses materials you do not own, you probably want to licence the rights to use them.
  20. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Well-Known Member

    Too many lawyers is not the problem. We make them legislators, giving them the opportunity to make more and ever-increasingly-complicated laws that they'll have to sort out for us peons once they leave office. That's the real problem.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page