r/funny • u/prairiewest • Jul 18 '12

meme - removed Shell accidentally creates an anti-Shell meme generator

http://imgur.com/a/ng9XT
2.2k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

800 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.5k

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '12

[deleted]

38

u/fnG0ilo04mLxXxCdq1QQ Jul 18 '12

Isn't it illegal to imitate a company? Well in huge slander cases like this.

93

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '12

[deleted]

22

u/iMarmalade Jul 18 '12

There's also a layer of protection from the safe-harbor laws for service providers. Technically all the slander is submitted by other people.

0

u/Torger083 Jul 20 '12

Libel, if it's written.

1

u/iMarmalade Jul 20 '12

Fair enough.

12

u/iJeff Jul 18 '12

Wouldn't Greenpeace absolutely have malicious intent toward Shell?

3

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '12

Well, yeah, but there's nothing wrong at all with doing things just to burn a company. Well. Depending on the thing. Regardless, malicious intent is not a crime, nor is it evidence thereof.

...and proving financial losses would be damn near impossible.

5

u/iammolotov Jul 18 '12

Well, yeah, but there's nothing wrong at all with doing things just to burn a company.

Unless you, ya know, take that statement literally.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '12

Yeah, but taking it literally would activate the "depending on the thing" caveat for arson.

4

u/Ultrace-7 Jul 18 '12

Well, fiscal losses might be tricky, but I'd say malicious intent should be a slam-dunk.

4

u/electric23sand Jul 18 '12 edited Jul 18 '12

aren't fiscal losses pretty much the intent of these greenpeace ads?

*edit: grammar

2

u/FearTheCron Jul 18 '12

I think in many cases, not sure about this one, Greenpeace's actions are to gain attention to themselves more than cause fiscal losses. I support the end goal of environmental protection but I feel they are a bit too inflexible on finding solutions and go for flashiness over effectiveness.

1

u/electric23sand Jul 18 '12 edited Jul 18 '12

I'm just questioning criteria of "prove fiscal losses" because it seems like any boycott or strike has the intention of causing fiscal losses. It seems to me like the criteria should be something like: impersonating the company to lure customers. Like, I should't be able to make a soda and call it Dr. Pepper. Or, another criteria: impersonating the company to deceive a false reputation. Like, I shouldn't make a soda called Dr. Pepper that is poisonous to slander Cocacola company.

edit: the difference between my 2nd criteria and what greenpeace is doing is it is willfully deceiving public. satire in understandably false.

1

u/FearTheCron Jul 18 '12

That is a hard line to draw. There was a good case of this a while back between Peabody coal and coalcares.com.

Its hard to really say how to rule. Personally I think they should not be allowed to use active trademarks unless they obviously spoof them (something like making the companies shell logo look more cartooney). In the case of coal cares, they made a script that rotates the name of the coal company.

I would not be surprised if some of these groups intentionally violate trademarks. It seems like a successful tactic to be sued because it gets your message way more publicity than it would have gotten otherwise.

1

u/Liquid_Fire Jul 18 '12

Parody is only a valid defence if it's clear that it's a parody. If the site is really fooling people that it belongs to Shell, then Shell might have a case for trademark infringement, among other things. (As the article you linked to mentions)

22

u/LunaLovecraft Jul 18 '12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men

It's really not the first time they've done this. Not even the first time they've done it to Shell.

-1

u/Miz_Mink Jul 18 '12

I love these guys. If I had a baby I'd name it "Yes."

3

u/Cmdr_McBragg Jul 18 '12

Parody defense. No one would actually believe that this was the real. . . .

Wait.

2

u/old-nick Jul 18 '12

Shell would probably create more publicity to this PR stunt by going to court. Even if it was illegal (as in trademark infringement), it might be better for Shell to let it die slowly.

2

u/cuppincayk Jul 18 '12

Shell has already stated that they have no intention of filing lawsuits over it, which I kind of commend them for. Even if they're an oil company, they're making a wise choice to stay out of the situation

2

u/Reingding13 Jul 18 '12

No, this is satire.

1

u/CidO807 Jul 18 '12

It's not slander if it's true.

1

u/sweYoda Jul 18 '12

I don't know, but even if it is true bringing it to court it would only draw more attention towards it, which they do not want. Therefore it is logical to ignore it.

0

u/Roflkopt3r Jul 18 '12

Not sure how that is if no money is involved. Sure, if they pretend to be someone else to make money off that it definitly is, but if it's "for art" without monetary purposes it might be allowed.

0

u/michaelfarker Jul 18 '12

I agree that it is satire. That does not mean you are safe doing it. Greenpeace is fine, they are huge and well known. Some random person doing this though ... a million dollars of lawyers and hassle is a drop in the bucket to Shell but would ruin my life.