25 ms·
By using the word "Dumb", it (in theory) becomes a parody. You couldn't call your store "Starbucks", however "Dumb Starbucks" (again, in theory) is a parody and
by gkoberger 13y ago
By using the word "Dumb", it (in theory) becomes a parody. You couldn't call your store "Starbucks", however "Dumb Starbucks" (again, in theory) is a parody and therefore not a copyright violation.
- CamperBob2 13y agoSure, but why that particular adjective? "Dumb" doesn't carry any cultural resonance or verbal alliteration when paired with "Starbucks." If he'd called it "Fourbucks", for instance, that might've been funnier.
- recursive 13y agoI think it's intended to be the minimal parody required for legal parody status.
- CamperBob2 13y agoI'm tempted to ask for an explanation of the downvotes, too, but I think I'll quit while I'm ahead.
- evan_ 13y agoThe joke isn't that he's making fun of Starbucks. The joke is that Nathan Fielder (or more accurately, the character he's playing) is so naïve that he thinks that the "Dumb Starbucks" plan will actually work. His character is supposed to be the dryest, least-witty person on the planet. He takes everything seriously, and when he does say something funny, it's funnier because he seemingly doesn't realize it. If it was funny, it would ruin the joke.
- anigbrowl 13y agoThis isn't actually relevant (although it's part of their schtick) because parody is not a defense to trademark infringement. Brands typically aren't covered by copyright because they're not substantial enough to qualify as a work.