Mormon Church vs. Utah coffee shop
Posted March 24, 2007
TAYLORSVILLE, Utah (AP) -- For a coffee shop, T-shirts of a Mormon angel with java flowing into his trumpet are selling well. But they don't have the blessing of religious leaders. The shirts have upset the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not only is Moroni a revered figure - Mormons believe he appeared to church founder Joseph Smith - but LDS members are discouraged from drinking coffee.
The shirts show the angel Moroni, a male figure in a robe blowing a trumpet. The trumpet is turned up at an angle as coffee is poured in.
"They've been the best-selling T-shirts we've ever done," said Just Add Coffee co-owner Ed Beazer.
The church informed Beazer that the angel's image is a registered trademark.
"If they provide proof, we're going to comply," Beazer said. "We don't want to break any laws or anything."
Just Add Coffee put the image on greeting cards about a year ago and started selling the shirts before Christmas. Moroni also appeared in ads that caught the church's attention.
Church spokesman Scott Trotter said the image is a trademark.
"It was a spoof," Beazer said. "It was meant to be fun."
[Question for the lawyers from Bible Belt Blogger -- Are parodies exempt from trademark laws in some instances?]
H/T: Caleb Powers
Comments
I suppose we should just be glad that it isn't Muhammad's picture and that the coffee shop isn't in Riyadh. Or London. Or Amsterdam.
Certainly in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994), the US Supreme Court held that 2 Live Crew's parody of Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" was "fair use," and therefore proper even though the earlier work was fully copyrighted.
I suspect this falls into the same category. One of the main tests appears to be whether the parody somehow undercuts or reduces the commercial value of the original.
Given that the original work is stuck on top of a building in the middle of downtown Salt Lake City and has been reproduced millions of times by the LDS Church, I can't imagine that they can meet this test.
Plus, unlike the 2 Live Crew situation, I would certainly argue that having the Mormon angel drinking coffee, apparently forbidden to Mormons, is a form of religious speech, or even political speech, that would be protected at a higher level than the purely artistic parody protected in the Campbell case.
After all, the Jerry Falwell spoof that appeared in Hustler magazine and ended up in the Supreme Court was a parody of a series of advertisements run by Campari.
Moroni, the Moron Angel, that used to be a Native American before he died. He is of course white because Native Americans came from Jerusalem. Dum dum dum dum dum.
I guess you can copyright fictional characters. But one need only look at "Epic Movie" to see that parodies of well-known, profitable, fictional characters is perfectly legal.
I don't believe Mormon leaders are as upset as they are just trying to protect a trademark. I've lived in Utah my whole life and have never heard a complaint about all the Mormon parody stuff that's in the area (e.g. beer brands, local theater, other coffee brands).
Just a thought, but do we always have to look to what the courts have decided to determine whether or not something should be done? Why can't normal people just look a situation, like this one, and decide that it is in bad taste? Of course, since it's making a buck for the coffee shop owner then it must be OK, right? I know, I know, I live in a fantasy world if I think that people will stop doing something that will make them money, even if it would be the right thing to do. Guess I should just take all the integrity and honesty that my parents taught me and throw it away, right, just because the Supreme Court said that wasn't the correct decision? What a joke.
I'm not saying this because it's a Mormon thing either. In another arena, but in the same vein, I would defend the rights of Native Americans to not be mocked by sports mascots. If it upsets even a minority of people then it shouldn't be done, and I sure hope that we wouldn't make a decision simply because Larry Flynt's parody was upheld as free speech. What a sad state of affairs if that's how we make our decision.
Right vs wrong. Good vs evil. It still exists, even if we don't want to believe so. But like I've heard said before, "there is still black and white in the world, and just people are grey."
BTW, Bart, do you ever have anything constructive to say? Then again, "by their fruits ye shall know them..."
"If it upsets even a minority of people then it shouldn't be done..."
That is a disgusting remark and it offends me.
Part of having the First Amendment is the ability to offend people. That's what's makes us different from those bloodthirsty Muslims.
I try on a daily basis to offend as many people as possible. I use all forms of media to accomplish this.
I say "hats off" to this coffee shop owner and his mockery of a fictional character!
Let's talk about the Mormons for a moment.
Joseph Smith was an illiterate man who most people thought was something of a kook. One day he comes into town and tells everyone that while praying in the woods a Native American angel named Moroni appeared to him. Moroni was white of course as was all of the original Native Americans because they came from Jerusalem. Then one of the tribes slaughtered the rest and God punished them by turning their skin red. This is the basis for the Mormon hatred of all non-whites.
So Moroni tells Smith where to find these golden tablets that records Christ coming to North America. So he finds these tablets and two "seer stones" that lets him read them. Well, at least that's what he says because no one else ever saw them.
Then he gets a science fiction writer to help him "translate" the tablets. He tells the writer that he has put the tablets in a big hat and will now read them and for him to write down what he says.
And that's how they wrote the Book of Mormon, dum dum dum dum dum dum.
But wait there is more.
The writer's wife is suspicious of all this (imagine that) and she devises a plan. She tells the writer to go back to Smith and say that he lost the translation. This way, if he is really reading the tablets, then the new translating with be an exact copy.
Well Smith is furious and he goes and prays. He comes back and tells the writer that God is so mad at him that He will never again allow him to translate from that particular book. So now he has to translate from a different book. So the story will be pretty much the same, but a little different. And THAT is how the Mormons KNOW that Joseph Smith was telling the truth.
Oh yeah, the Garden of Eden was in Independence Missouri. They actually beleive that.
Now if there was anything that deserved to be mocked and ridiculed it is this. The fact that there are thousands of people who believe it is even more ridiculous.
Finally, you need to read all of Matthew 7, not just that snippet. Lot's of good things in that chapter. It even talks about Billy Graham!
After reading the article, I had to laugh. At the same time, who wouldn't defend something the hold as sacred? I get very offended when I see posters of Christ kicking one back or smoking somw weed. I know I can do nothing about it but teach my children that it is wrong. I'm sure the church knows that the reproduction is going to be seen as legal, but they did the right thing just as the US did by trying to ban flag burning. I'll admit it, I'm a Mormon and know that some of the belief we have are not what other Christian churches believe, but that doesn't make them wrong. The Pharisees and the vast majority of the Jews turned away from Christ and thought he was a heretic as well.
Ya know, Bart, your post sort of reminds me of something. I was a while getting a handle on your style, but once I saw that your policy was, as you say, "I try on a daily basis to offend as many people as possible. I use all forms of media to accomplish this," and that generally you use a pro wrestler's rhetoric to get your point across, well, I figure we can talk even if we do butt heads on a lot of things. Used to wrestle a bit in college myself for the Bourbon Cowboy Association in Pikeville, and for God's sake don't ask what THAT was. At least I remember the trash talk even if I don't use it anymore.
Anyway: once a few years ago on a Christian apologetics message board not much different from this blog except it was a lot more conservative, I made almost the same points you make here against a very outspoken and brassy conservative Mormon apologist. The only difference I remember was that I put more emphasis in my argument on all the hoopla surrounding the "translation" of "The Book of Abraham." And I swear, that guy's reply...not that he really scored anything, but man, he could have given you LESSONS in trash talk! I'd love to see the two of you in a battle royal, and I wonder which one would come out looking like me after my last match in the BCA when this big old Goliath of a guy named Six Pack just picked me up and sort of tossed me over the ropes.
I read the same article today and to be honest, I started to laugh. But then I thought, what if a company owned by a Mormon were to sell t-shirts with a parody of the Virgin Mary? Or how about something that somehow made fun of the cross? How would that be taken by people of other religions? Having grown up in the same town as Frank, where the Mormon church is by far in the minority, and having to defend my religion on a constant basis, I swore to myself I would never do anything that would be construed as making fun of or demeaning another's religious beliefs. After serving my mission in Ecuador, a country pretty much controlled by the Catholic church, I strengthened my belief in one of our Articles of Faith, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege; let them worship how, where or what they may."
Just my thoughts.
Editor's note: The story raises at least two good issues. The first, noted by my friend David, is -- "Is this shirt in good taste? Does it mock faithful people's sincerely and deeply held religious views?"
The second issue, also important, is: "Should speech be prohibited if it is in poor taste and mocks faithful people's sincerely and deeply held religious views?"
The Supreme Court, in Jerry Falwell v. Hustler Magazine, suggested that parodies -- no matter how offensive -- are protected forms of speech. However, Falwell wasn't arguing that his name or likeness is trademarked -- which puts an entirely new spin on the matter.
What do you think, Mr. Powers?