Bakery suing Conway NH for $1 to keep a mural drawn by children up.
Bakery suing Conway NH for $1 to keep a mural drawn by children up.
A divide over a mural at a donut shop has led to a First Amendment fight for one New Hampshire man.
A bakery in Conway NH is suing the town after being told their mural violates advertising signage laws. It seems the sign just has pastries and doesn't otherwise advertise the business, so they're calling it art and arguing it should stay. The town disagrees so they're going to court over it.
The bakery is suing the town for $1, and permission to keep the kids mural up.
This is a small business fighting to keep kids art on display. Suing for $1 is a way to signal that are willing to do this at a financial loss, and that the display isn't a means of enriching themselves but rather their community.
You're viewing a single thread.
I don't know, I'll play devil's advocate. He says it was never advertising, it was art. Okay, let's say he's right. What about the Starbucks next door when they out branded coffees on their door? What about the shell station making "art" of themselves?
Was the Luxor in Vegas lining one side of the pyramid a Dorito advertising or art?
I'm not saying he's wrong at all, but I see the city's side. If they allow one, they have to allow everyone, and that means that every corporate entity will use the free
ad"art" spaceThis is a false equivalence. The content of the art discussed here has no labels or logos. As soon as you posit the existence of such content, IMO you are in a different conversation.
One could argue that sunburst pattern reflects the branding.
I think the town needs to stfu.
But, that sign could use more donuts.
If the Luxor didn't include the label Doritos on it then does that make it art?
As long as it does not contain a trademark, or that trademark is of a fictional character who is not themselves advertising a physical product, IMO it is in fact art. The moment you say they're Doritos specifically (and put the signage in a public space) or another such brand (Tostitos, Aribas, you get the idea) it's advertising by that specificity.
This, however, is clearly "generic" homemade donuts. The brand of the store is on the lower part but what trademark does the upper section feature? If the rays of sunshine were painted around the sign, or the kids painted it as a goodwill volunteer effort, I don't think the town can justify removing it except in a "there's a rule" way, and honestly? For something like this, screw the rules, we have the spirit of the law to consider.
If they allow one, they have to allow everyone
Oh! You haven't heard! We can tailor laws to do whatever we as society desire. So we could interpret this law to mean that signs drawn by children without any company logos count as art, and anything done by a paid artist or with logos is not.
Isn't that neat? :-D
Ok, sarcastic response wasn't needed. I am not the city council, I am just a guy who understands their initial response. What you're suggesting very well be the way they decide to go, however I don't think I deserved that tone.
I thought you'd be excited to have a solution...
I work in conjunction with small claim courts and it often surprises people how informal it can get. In the situation you describe the judge might just straight up tell Starbucks "You are a billion dollar company, the rules apply differently to you than to a small local business"
I agree, my comment was mostly so people could see that nuance, and I hope what you said is exactly what happens. The age old pornography law, I can't define it but I know it when I see it. Codifying it as art that does not explicitly advertise would be the way to go I think.
Yeah, I think this is an unfortunate situation, cause by the town. Because really, they're right, it definitely is advertisement. And now that there's a court case, they're going to be setting a precedent. So, while the art on this particular local business isn't harmful, and, imo, is good for the town, they now have to consider this ruling applied to all businesses, which includes places like Starbucks and McDonald's, that will absolutely abuse a decision in the local bakery's favor
Exactly. We all agree that the specific case definitely should be in their favor, but now it's going to be this whole thing. I think really the town should have given a single exemption for them, but now that they pushed it they risk everyone wanting to do it. Hey kids, come paint a mural for Starbucks (for free) showing how much fun it is to drink Starbucks!
If you get kids to make it free, it’s art haha.
Corporations everywhere start drooling, fire artists, start day cares for new signage.
Laws Apply to EVERYONE? Someone needs to tell the US!
Counterpoint: the spirit of the advertising law requiring you to put your name on the advertising is so you're not playing mind games with advertising. When you put up advertisement you're not allowed to hide that it was your advertisement. If you take up a billboard in town and say sheriff Jones is a lying sack of shit, It has to have that it was paid for by whatever foundation, and it can't be microscopic.
They are using this law in an attempt to keep a bakery from decorating the outside of their business with perfectly reasonable non-offensive imagery. The businesses sign is adequate and visible They are not trying to hide who they are.
My guess would be small town shenanigans and somebody pissed at somebody's Wheaties.