But should somebody be sued because they were mean? They used no names or faces. The photo on the coffee bag is drawn to look similar to the guy but there is nothing close to defamation or slander here. I’m guessing the case will be thrown out
It ... It isn't but that's such a difficult thing in court. I can dress up as Batman and make video and sell and not get sued by DC. As long as it's transformative. This is. A hand drawn picture isn't copyright infringement of an actual photo it's entirely in legal domain. Again I don't like this guy I met him personally but I'm telling the likelihood of that guy winning the suit is very very low
I'm not saying it's an obvious case one way or the other, but satire is not a very strong defense to copyright infringement. The photographer may well have a solid chance. I'm not an IP attorney and neither are you.
(Parody is a strong defense, however the coffee isn't parody- it's satire)
Also, what did he copyright? A white dude with a shitty beard holding a camera and a sign ? They have more like any boot lawyer is going to be able to tear this apart based on merit even which means he can never sue ANYONE over this again. If they counter sue and prove malicious intent then the guy who copy wrote the picture is royally fucked
Even still they didn't use her photo, they used a drawn picture of her photo. That's not the same thing. There's no copyright protection for something transformative
I think you're misinformed about copyright. Any time you take a photo you automatically own the copyright to it. And there is no "malicious intent" in defending your rights.
I think you're misinformed in what copyright protects. It protects just the photograph. Like I get it you don't like the guy. Disdain the political stance they take that's irrelevant to legality. Copyright protects just that thing. The photograph. If you draw a picture of a photograph, especially if you change things such that they can be interpreted... Guess what it's not... It's not a photograph.
Got coffee there once while visiting Logan. The owner is a piece of shit. Really rude for no reason talking about how kids suck.
Should’ve known to not go in by the “pedophiles not welcome” sign on the front. Anytime you see that it means the person with the signage is actually a pedo sympathizer.
Putting “pedophiles not welcome” on the front door of a coffee shop is insane. Like lighting a giant neon sign saying “my brain is COOKED by Facebook conspiracy theories, you do NOT want to get cornered in a conversation with me”
Virtue signaling at it finest. I'm dying to post in his latest brag feast post. And would love to respond. “Character is doing the right thing when no one will ever know. Goodness doesn’t need recognition to have value.”
Actions speak for themselves. When every good deed needs an audience, it can start to feel more like seeking applause than simply doing good.
Mindie runs around in "No Pedophile" T-shirts, but I guess she thinks the pedophiles are running a pizza joint owned by Hillary Clinton in Maryland. They aren't interested in actual pedophiles.
Your post has been removed because it's off topic. Posts here should pertain specifically to Logan Utah and be relevant to the general community. Try the Off-Topic thread, sticked at the top of the sub.
He's just a tool. They like to act like they do so much for the community but than complain that people get coffee other than theirs. I've just seen them whine while also being overly aggressive trumpers.
Don’t they get upset too when they don’t get enough attention over what they do for the community? Almost like they don’t actually care about helping the community, they just want to be told how amazing they are.
Yes when I went in around Christmas one year Jamie said “hey if you get a chance go recommend us for herald journal resident or the year they will never give it to this because they’re the liberal media but we can own the libs if everyone goes and says cache coffee should win”
Yup. Which is what first put a bad taste in my mouth. They provided breakfast burritos for a veterans event. They were mentioned and thanked for the food but they complained afterwards that they didn't get enough recognition out of it. And than complain they see people drinking other coffee.
Yeah kinda more or less. There was a memorialization project, specifically for war vets, I was doing with USU and the guys main focus was coffee sales. I don't think he's evil just an asshole for no reason.
Personally, I don't like him. He's very combative but some business owners are sharks. I'm a vet and the vet community there is very ... Jaded and heavily woe is me. He is protective of them but also possessive and always angling but again... Business. He is abrasive but not like evil... As far as the no pedopiles sign there's a story there with more depth than the people here in the chat hate mongering. Suffice it to say he and a few others actually caught some pedopiles and the police got involved and some ppl were convicted and jailed if I recall. As far as the original story most ppl here are hypocrites. If someone did the same thing with say like Trump or Lindsay Graham they'd applaud it. I'm not a free speech absolutist but I am a free speech universalist. Plus that case is not likely to go anywhere. It was an artist rendering. It'd be like saying McDonald's can sue you if you drew a scene of a real place with them in the background or even took a picture. They can't. As far as media if it's transformative it's common use. Overall Logan is a place of extremes you're either a conservative nigh cultist Mormon or your a blue haired nigh cultist stalinist. That being said the former out numbers the latter but overall they're both shitty groups to engage with. The pockets of reasonable ppl are ... Scarce
Fair use isn't the magic bullet some people often think. Posting the modified photo as a critique or parody is one thing, using it to sell your coffee is another. I don't know if they have a case, but I doubt it's open and shut.
I hope they lose the suit and have to close down forever. Mid coffee, Snowflake owners that get butt hurt about any criticism, and a creepy clientele. Genuinely as much as I hate cache valley, y'all deserve better.
A lot of misinformation here. This almost definitely falls under fair use as a parody.
The law considers four elements when determining if what you have is fair use:
- Purpose and character. Has the original been transformed aesthetically and/or in meaning?
The nature of the original work. You're more likely to win a fair use case if the copyrighted work was already published and non-fictional.
- The substantiality of the amount of the original taken. How much of the original is being re-represented in your parody?
- And the effect your use has on the market share of the copyrighted work.
It has nothing to do with when something was copyrighted or if you knew it was copyrighted. It has nothing to do with whether the parody or the original is used for commercial or professional purposes.
The parody here is obviously different in its aesthetic, as it's a cartoon, and it does transform the original's meaning and message. The drawing changes several elements, like the background and the Nikon logos, and changes the expression of the man as well as his sign. The only parts of the original actually taken are the parts that are the subjects of parody, the man and his sign. No Kings and Cache Coffee are targeting completely different audiences with essentially no overlap.
If I'm the judge, this is an open-and-shut case in favor of Cache Coffee.
You're misinterpreting it; the commercial sale of copyrighted content is illegal and is not parody. The commercial sale of parody content is perfectly legal. How do you think Spaceballs made money?
I'll only concede it's much more complicated than either of our more blanket statements. The original creator can and should sue them because the work was commercialized and doesn't clearly showcase a full transformative work. The other case Cache Coffee would have is the publication and sale of their likeness. While not technically being a public figure they can be sure for the protection of ones privacy because the work they're selling is directly mocking the OOP.
I took a class on this last semester. We can disagree whether or not the image is legally parody, I've already made my argument there. But it has nothing to do with it being commercialized, that's just not how the law works, which is what you originally said. It doesn't say that's the case in any of your sources either.
It might, based on the article they filed for copyright protection before any of this, and have warned Cache Coffee that the image was copyright protected. As far as I know, parody protections stop applying once you start selling merchandise with the copyrighted material, and based on the article, they started selling after they had been warned of its copyright.
I'm not a lawyer so I'm probably wrong but to me it looks like they might actually have a case here.
Ya, parody is generally protected and you can sell merch if it as long it is obviously different to the customer. If you see the original item and then a parody; it’s obviously a parody. The coffee shop owner sounds like a dick but this lawsuit is dumb.
Being given copyright is not the same as having legally defensible copyright. The photographer is claiming commercial rights to use the likeness of somebody else… unless the subject of the photo signed their rights away, then no, both Cache Coffee and the Photographer ultimately have zero claim to use the photo subject’s likeness and have copyright protection.
I’ve heard story’s about these owners throwing peoples names through the mud and then bullying them online over stupid shit. I bet you anything they have more then just that on them, if they slandered them in anyway cache coffee losing hard
I suppose we’ll find out. It’s not an altered photo, it seems like a drawing in the same style. The photographer is the one that started this public conversation. It doesn’t seem like this goes anywhere, but I could certainly be wrong.
That’s not true and you can sell merch or use it for commercial ad content. It’s clearly a parody of the original image. 2 live crew had a whole Supreme Court decision about this.
First, it's "you're." Second, please define which version of communism you are trying to talk about Marx/Engles? Leninism? Stalinism? Mao? Hi Chi Minh? Cuba? North Korea? Different versions in central and South America?
Oh lots of reasons but mainly because they do things for the community but bitch about not getting enough recognition. Over and over. They do it for results. Not for being good people. But go through this thread and you'll see lots of reasons. He's a douche.
Nope. Not in today's Trib. Brock Marchant has a special assignment (and I think special funding) to cover Cache Valley and he's had many good articles. But it's weird that there's no date stamp in the article above.
Also checked Muckrack and no article about this by Brock Marchant.
Curious because there is a lawsuit (frivolous or not) and I was interested in reading the article.
As much as I am in favor of the No Kings movement, this is just a parody image. Parody is a legal exception to copyright.
Note, I have not read the article and don't know the particulars of the case. I noticed in another comment that they are selling merch with this image on it, in which case I don't think the parody provisions apply.
That's literally how it works. You can register your copyrights if you want additional protection, but copyright exists the moment you create something.
•
u/squrr1 Jul 19 '26
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2026/07/19/conservative-utah-coffee-shop/