this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
268 points (96.2% liked)

Uplifting News

11656 readers
3 users here now

Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.

Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 22 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

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" space

[–] jdnewmil@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

This 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.

[–] intresteph@discuss.online 5 points 2 weeks ago

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?

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

I thought you'd be excited to have a solution...

[–] EmoDuck@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Infynis@midwest.social 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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!

[–] intresteph@discuss.online 2 points 2 weeks ago

If you get kids to make it free, it’s art haha.

Corporations everywhere start drooling, fire artists, start day cares for new signage.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago

Laws Apply to EVERYONE? Someone needs to tell the US!

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago

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.