Copyright, Culture Jamming, and Comedy: How "Dumb Starbucks" caused a media frenzy
- fesce1
- Feb 19, 2016
- 4 min read
I think it is fair to assume that you, reader, know what "Starbucks" is. I think you would even be able to give me a pretty lengthy description of what "Starbucks" is exactly. This is because the name "Starbucks" is a popular protected trademark. As a well-known, profitable company, it takes legal steps to protect its authenticity. Now, if I asked you what "Dumb Starbucks" is would you know what I'm talking about? You might, because in Summer 2014 this "parody" company created quite a media frenzy. However, the question still stands: Was "Dumb Starbucks" actually ethical and legal? Either way, "Dumb Starbucks" leaves much to be discussed in terms of copyright, trademark infringement, parody law, and culture jamming. Let's take a look.
How "Dumb Starbucks" Got Started
"Dumb Starbucks" is the brainchild of Canadian comedian and writer Nathan Fielder and the writers for the Comedy Central television show Nathan For You. The show is a docu-reality comedy that follows Fielder who uses his business degree to boost sales within struggling small businesses. He does this by creating unorthodox marketing campaigns and schemes. In one episode, he convinced a realtor that if she ensured her clients that her houses were free from the paranormal/ghosts and promoted them as such, their business would succeed. For the "Dumb Starbucks" episode, he knew that people were familiar with the name "Starbucks" and this would draw customers in. He also knew that by using parody law, a lawyer, and a little bit of thought, he could avoid trademark infringement. Thus, "Dumb Starbucks" was born. Needless to say, it attracted the attention of not only the local media, but also the mainstream media. Have a look:
Source: YouTube user Dumb Starbucks
Copyright? Copy-wrong.
You may be thinking, wouldn't Starbucks hop on that copyright lawsuit immediately? Wrong. Though Starbucks did "evaluate" the possibility of taking legal action, "Dumb Starbucks" had a couple things in its corner. Let's think about what we know about copyright. An owner of copyright has exclusive rights over reproduction, preparation of derivative works, public performance of the work, and distribution. Because Starbucks is a company rather than an artist or creator of something more tangible, this case is actually more of an issue of trademark infringement. However, "Dumb Starbucks" used fair use of copyright by using the store as a media of performance art, and thus they were using the copyrighted material (logos, names of beverages, etc.) to make a commentary, criticize, and parody-- all actions that can be done without the permission of the copyright owner. Because this only works for a limited or "transformative" purpose, "Dumb Starbucks" had to find a smart way to end the "performance-piece." For the sake of comedy as a form of art, the shop was supposedly "shut down" by the Los Angeles Health Department, which was an integral part of the episode's plot.
Source: cbsnews.com
Trademark (almost) Infringement & Parody Law
So, we kind of know now how "Dumb Starbucks" got away with using the very real, very protected Starbucks name without getting accused legally of trademark infringement. But what exactly is trademark infringement? Well, to quote the United States Patent and Trademark Office, trademark infringement is "the unauthorized use of a trademark or service mark on or in connection with goods and/or services in a manner that is likely to cause confusion, deception, or mistake about the source of the goods and/or services." Now, if you've seen the beginning of the particular episode of Nathan For You currently being discussed, you would know that Nathan Fielder's primary comedic intent for going through all these loopholes was precisely confuse and deceive consumers as a marketing tactic for the show, but supposedly hide behind parody law. As for artistic intent, Nathan Fielder and Comedy Central knew that as a comedic art piece, they would also be protected under fair use, but only for a limited amount of time. They had to make it seem like this business was authentic and real and thus needed a reason for it to be temporary for the episode to make sense, which is why they had it "shut down" for health reasons. So, what might seem like an issue of trademark infringement, parody law, or copyright is actually more along the topics of culture jamming.
Source: ihspawprint.com
Culture Jamming and Being So Totally Meta
Culture jamming is usually an artistic tactic that aims to subvert mainstream corporate institutions to expose assumptions behind commercial culture. Many examples of culture jamming would be via street art or disruption of corporate advertising to make a point. Think about the artwork of popular graffiti artist Banksy. He often uses corporate logos and recognizable commercial content to make points about consumerism. So, why can't comedy be considered art? The episode itself is a testament to the effects of corporate greed and consumerism, as Fielder goes mad with power in a sense and takes all the credit for the success of "Dumb Starbucks" when his intent was to help a struggling small business owner. He inevitably recognized the "monster" he'd become and diverted the street attention and accreditation "Dumb Starbucks" got to Helios Cafe, the shop he set out to help in the first place. However, knowing that most of the episode was probably a stunt or art commentary to begin with, it makes one truly realize how smart, meta, and not-dumb comedy can be. I think that there was nothing ethically or legally wrong with "Dumb Starbucks" and I believe the point it made on consumerism and brand loyalty was brilliant.
Commentaires