Business owner puts up large pro-gun billboard

Status
Not open for further replies.

ryan3465

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
86
Location
Central Maine
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:
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1362511220.791058.jpg

Thanks,
Ryan
 
Last edited:
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. :)
 
Stealing someone's intellectual property rights to promote your own rights? It does seem contradictory.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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;

Article I, section 8

The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
 
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.
 
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
 
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!".
 
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...

clint-eastwood-poster-44-dirty-harry-make-my-day-5053.jpg


Is WB going to come after me now? Stop being ridiculous...
 
Gee, maybe the billboard owner received permission first and if he didn't that will be their problem. I for one like it.
 
You like to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we should ignore and which to support?
 
joeschmoe:

"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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Right, I found the sign disturbing. The character making the statement was a cop. It bespeaks of gun control. Nobody here wants to have to be disarmed by a cop who demands control of our guns simply because the cop is around.

If you understand the context of the image, it is NOT pro gun.
 
Since it's not my shop I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he did some research prior to placing the billboard.

If he did not do his research then he may be asked to remove the sign, maybe even ordered to remove the sign. He will probably remove it in whatever timeframe allowed and move on to the next sign.

Get over yourselves.
 
Maybe this is a little off topic, but I never understood that slogan in light of pro 2A regards anyway. Really? You want to be the one controlling it? So I'm not responsible enough to have it? Sounds like Fenstien. You know, having a CCW and not wanting anybody else to have them.

I know Clint is pro 2A, but that statement wasn't very well thought out IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top