FT: Framboos + ISO: Glass

The normal balloon glass with their logo in white?

 

That's probably prohibitively expensive. Libbey had a few glasses that were pretty close, if anyone cares you could proceed with that. I think a lot of the other "glasswalez" would be pretty easy to recreate, as they're probably just libbey glasses. (For instance, that weird Fantome one looks to just be #37179, although that one was always a knockoff, right?)

Correct. According to the e-mail I received that glass is no longer produced.

 

Glassblowers would probably charge ~$300 if we commissioned at least 6 of them, that's $50+silk screening for a bottle of Framboos!

 

Only problem I forsee is, ghostwæls won't taste as .rar out of the commissioned glasses..

 

For personal use only! I had actually thought about this and if we could've gotten the right glass I would've put something in the design to make it different.

 

Haha I was just kidding, I think it's funny that after the JCN fakes and Blabaer fakes, that people don't think glass couldn't be easily reproduced. Especially when its so freaking easy.

 

I figured, but since we hijacked an ISO I wanted to make sure people knew. And I'm not actually sure this is that much harder than counterfeiting beer. Well, at least this one glass, doing an American glasswhale (is there such a thing?) would be much easier.

 

I have long wondered the same thing as to why people offer up crazy stuff for glasses that simply have lettering on them. Seems like this one would be ridicuously easy to re-created and at limited cost since you are basically putting simple block letters onto a cheap glass.

 

i just fake $5 bills. they are such a low denomination that no one even notices or cares to, not even banks. it only takes 20 of them to get a benjamin and i can run off close to 1000 in an hour. you guys can waste your time faking baseball cards and glasses, i'll just buy the real deals with my monopoly money.





(don't think it is necessary to say, but before someone calls the feds, I'M JUST KIDDING!!!!!)

 

I said this on the rate beer version of this thread, but making your own iris glass is most likely a copyright violation. The iris artwork was done by Julie van Roy... so you are directly stealing from the Cantillon family. Not sure all of that would be worth it for a fucking glass simply because you want a glass people won't trade for peanuts.

 

As long as you don't sell it won't be. It's perfectly legal to use copyrighted material as long as you don't profit from it. Plus it would be trivial to alter the design a bit and be able to claim fair use. ALSO it's not at all clear to me that Cantillon would:

1) Ever find out.
2) Have any kind of jurisdiction to prosecute if they did.

So you're wrong on a whole bunch of counts, but okay.


Also, I don't particularly care about getting the glass that much. I'm more interested in seeing who does.

 

I thought most of this but didn't have the care to type it out, so I just hit "like" instead.

 

Not true. Can you copy a musician's CD so long as you don't sell it? No. The copyright fair use doctrine does not allow personal infringement simply because you aren't reselling the work. Just like copying a musician's CD you are depriving the creator of the copyrighted work of potential business. While Cantillon no longer sells the Iris glass, they could decide to in the future and your are undermining their product and rights.

Copyright law protects both creator's original works as well as all derivative works. The Iris logo on the glass is protected, whatever modification of the Iris logo necessary to avoid liability would entirely eviscerate the point of making your own glass. You might as well put a fucking rose on the glass.

(1) Yeah, cause the internet isn't searchable and this post isn't being read by people that know Jean, et al., personally and professionally.

(2) U.S. and Belgium are signatories of the Berne Convention which provides reciprocal copyright protection

My original response was not intended to be confrontational--merely informative. That said, you really shouldn't speak about things you aren't well versed in. Copyright law would be one of those things.

 

How would they be able to tell a fake Iris glass from a legitimate Iris glass? (assuming one actually wanted to recreate it?)

The rest of the stuff is probably true.

 

What? Since when? It has never worked this way. I'm allowed to make copies for my own personal use.

It really doesn't take that much. Again, I'm not sure where you're getting this from, but as long as it's not a rote copy it's allowed. Think about those "Calvin peeing on things" logos. That isn't an authorized use of Calvin, and everyone knows it's Calvin, but it's just different enough that Watterson can't do anything about it. And that's for commercial use!

Sure, but:
1) I've never committed to doing anything; and
2) They're not losing any money from this, so who cares? If they don't care enough to have eBay take down those knockoff pieces of kitsch like the neon Cantillon signs (which I cannot imagine are real, but maybe they) are, then they're not going to come after a few beer geeks who aren't even profiting off of their image. Isn't there a bar somewhere that uses the Cantillon logo, and they've done nothing about it? You'd think they'd go after that first.

Fair enough.

I've read quite a bit about this, granted years ago. But everything you're saying runs counter to everything I've ever read. So unless you're a copyright lawyer, which I'm guessing you're not since you've had said it by now, I'm going to remain rather confident that you're wrong.

 

First, this is occuring after you already purchased the CD. Second, the fair use argument is that you are archiving a work to which you already own the rights. Third, there are strong arguments that you do not have a license to duplicate your own CDs--the RIAA has sued on this basis with some success. If you copy a CD you are renting or borrowing the answer is clearly that you cannot copy the CD simply because you don't resell it.

Here, you are essentially saying that one can copy a glass because they already bought one. Can you make a fake Louis Vuitton bag simply because you bought one already? Can you buy a painting from an artist, and have a copy made so you can frame one at home and one in your office? The answer to these questions is no.

A court of law never decided that the Calvin stickers were not copyright infringement. Watterson threatened to sue many of the manufacturers--and many complied. There were simply too many manufactures to make actual suit viable.

I am not saying they would or would not go after you. I am saying they could. At somepoint one's internal moral compass must guide them to decide whether its cool to do it simply because they won't bother coming after you.

No, I am not a copyright lawyer. I am a securities lawyer who happened to have focused on copyright and patent law in law school (with much success).

 

This is more what I care about. Here's the thing, what's the harm to Cantillon? Is there some reason that he wants these glasses to be scarce? I very much doubt it. Does it harm him in any way if I do make some glasses? I don't think you can create a compelling case for that. I could just ask for permission, and if I were actually going to do this I would. I'm more intrigued in the beer community's response to such a thing. We all know how people feel about faking beer, but what about glasses? What does it mean to have a "real" or "fake" glass? Who would only want the "real", and why? With this one it's a moot point since the exact blank doesn't exist any more, but I still find it interesting, and asking the question was my way of getting at that.

Next time lead with that. I'm still not actually convinced that I'd lose a case if I did this, but knowing the way copyright law works I am quite willing to believe that courts side with producers more often than not, even if there's plenty of ambiguity in there. And, of course, if I got a C&D from Cantillon I'd comply. (But like I said before, I'd also ask first.)

 

This will be my last response back and forth--as it's getting close to beating a dead horse.

This is the great thing about copyright law... it provides rights. As a result, the harm is simply the interferrence of those rights. Specifically, one has the right to exclusivity and protection of their creations. You are harming that exclusivity by making fake glasses using their logo (or knock off of that logo).

The monetary harms that could be calculated include the loss to potential future business opportunities (Cantillon's ability to sell the glass again), potential diminuation of value of the original glasses, and to make matters just lovely, Belgian copyright law (now EU law), much like US copyright law, provides statutory damages (i.e. civil fines).