Comments on: Breasts:2 Pigs:1

Breasts:2 Pigs:1

flarbuse — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 14:47:44 -0800

Government vs. Blogger A woman who has a breastfeeding blog tries to raise some money for the Mothers' Milk Bank of Ohio by selling a t-shirt containing a slogan that the National Pork Board finds to be an infringement of their trademark . Chaos ensues.

By: davar

davar — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 15:00:56 -0800

Here is an update: I have received an apology from Steve Murphy, the CEO of the National Pork Board and we are currently working toward a resolution.

By: papakwanz

papakwanz — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 15:04:42 -0800

Those shirts rule.

By: hal9k

hal9k — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 15:08:59 -0800

Seems kind of ham-handed but nice of Mr. Murphy to have apologized. Hope they go forward and make a clean breast of it.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 15:13:02 -0800

Jennifer Laycock.

By: Brittanie

Brittanie — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 15:28:55 -0800

Pretty sure parody falls under the category of free expression and is therefore protected by the First Amendment. More here. At least she got an apology.

By: jamjam

jamjam — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 15:56:01 -0800

If she wants to upset a marketing board a little closer to home, she could try: 'Got milk?..... I do.'

By: dhartung

dhartung — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 16:29:16 -0800

Yeah, trademark law pretty much requires a cease-and-desist, even if it's deemed a "nastygram". Obviously there are cases where you can ignore a C&D, and cases where you need a lawyer yourself. Maybe trademark law shouldn't be this way, but it is.

By: phrontist

phrontist — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 16:35:20 -0800

Breasts: Not Just for Selling Cars Anymore ha!

By: Citizen Premier

Citizen Premier — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 16:48:01 -0800

Well, the woman was selling the t-shirts, not just giving them away. Essentially she was mooching off the popularity of the National Pork Board's slogan to make a profit. Seems to me she was in the wrong.

By: MegoSteve

MegoSteve — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 16:48:27 -0800

Here's a dumb question... couldn't these trademark holders offer cheap licenses to their trademarks for the purposes of legally defending their mark? Using this case as an example, could the Pork Board's attorneys say something like, "Hey, we're required by law to defend this, but we like your shirt. Please you send us $1 as a 'license fee' for the purposes of keeping our trademark valid and put X legal notice on the page where you're selling these"?

By: aaronetc

aaronetc — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:44:29 -0800

Pretty sure parody falls under the category of free expression and is therefore protected by the First Amendment. In what way is this a parody? Isn't the point of a parody to, in some way, make fun of the original?

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:03:59 -0800

Do they think I'm trying to an promote an adult breastfeeding fetish??! Good point. That would be a bit like trying to sell coal to Newcastle.

By: drstein

drstein — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:08:33 -0800

I don't really know if "chaos" ensued. Sounds like "bloggers get up in arms and lawyer up" happened instead. And she even got an apology out of it.

By: artifarce

artifarce — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:30:47 -0800

Perhaps the chaos was nipped in the bud.

By: bruce

bruce — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:51:42 -0800

i'm a little bored and i dislike national corporate advertising entities funded out of what i pay for food, so here's what i'm gonna do... from now on, i'm gonna call my dick "the tastiest other white meat." if i get a nastygram from the pork industry, i'll post it on metafilter.

By: nickyskye

nickyskye — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 20:09:46 -0800

"Apparently the National Pork Board is worried that someone might come to my breastfeeding blog, check out the shirts and worry that when I say "white milk" what I really mean is "thick and juicy, straight from the hog PORK." Come on now, be honest...were you confused? Because I sort of thought I was comparing breastmilk (which just happens to be white) with the milk of a variety of other animals (cows? goats?) that happen to produce white milk (not kangaroos though, their milk is pink) and that often gets fed to infants INSTEAD of breast milk." I don't think they have a porkchop to stand on and they're just being boobs. Love her feistiness, sense of humor and her conflation of words, lactating+ activist= lactivist. You go girl!

By: Brittanie

Brittanie — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 20:23:45 -0800

Aaronetc — From the link I posted previously: A parody is also an attack on folly, but it takes the form of a contemptuous imitation of an existing artistic production — usually a serious work of literature, music, artwork or film — for satirical or humorous purposes. So, parody can be social commentary or simply done for the sake of humor. That's why programs like SNL are protected when, for example, they make fun of "The View." What I don't understand is that the First Amendment only applies to censorship by gov't, but all the cases I know of in which parody was deemed protected involve one non-gov't group (or person) suing another. The same is true for all the cases in the previous link. One of my journalism professors was involved in this landmark baseball card parody case. He worked for the company that made the fake cards.

By: aaronetc

aaronetc — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 20:37:55 -0800

Right, but this isn't exactly making fun of "the other white meat" or the pork industry, is it? It's just replacing the object word from another slogan with "milk," as far as I can see. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to use it in general or on the merits, just that a parody defense seems like a stretch, since they don't appear to be parodizing anything.

By: Brittanie

Brittanie — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 20:52:17 -0800

Parody doesn't have to target the object being imitated. It can target another subject — in this case, people who are uptight about breast feeding. This definition says that parody can be used for comedic effect *or* ridicule, so by the loosest definition, parody doesn't have to carry any message at all. It just has to be based on some other known subject.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 21:42:49 -0800

Um, doesn't parody as a form of fair use apply to copyright, not trademarks?

By: matteo

matteo — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 05:14:26 -0800

I'm with Big Pork

By: nebulawindphone

nebulawindphone — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 05:23:54 -0800

I'm with Big Pork Now someone put that on a t-shirt.

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 06:31:21 -0800

Government vs. Blogger The National Pork Board is not governmental.

By: Jody Tresidder

Jody Tresidder — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 08:00:21 -0800

"Here's a dumb question... couldn't these trademark holders offer cheap licenses to their trademarks for the purposes of legally defending their mark?..." MegoSteve I don't think that's a dumb question at all - yours is the best solution I've read to these totally anal and unattractive corporate eruptions. And it doesn't even add another layer of regulations to the anal corporate entity - since they're already wasting their time with the original letters of complaint.

By: effwerd

effwerd — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 08:02:20 -0800

The National Pork Board is not governmental. Oddly, this exact sentence begins all of the National Pork Board's PR literature.

By: flarbuse

flarbuse — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:45:48 -0800

National Pork Board was created by Congress and is overseen by the Department of Agriculture

By: Auz

Auz — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:32:27 -0800

"Parody doesn't have to target the object being imitated. It can target another subject" That was not the impression I got from the fall-out over Penny Arcade's American McGee/Strawberry Shortcake kerfuffle.