Wine with non-Helmeted Cyclist on Label Banned in Alabama

"http://blog.al.com/live/2009/07/wine_too_fullbodied_for_bama_s.html"

Le 7/27/2009 10:35, SMS a bien réfléchi et puis a déclaré:
"http://blog.al.com/live/2009/07/wine_too_fullbodied_for_bama_s.html"
If anything is clearly objectionable, it is the taking of a prize for
the label, when it is not the work of the prize's recipient. I don't
think that adding "Pinot noir" makes it a new graphic.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

I think the winery has a great opportunity to exploit this government
stupidity. They should overprint a black censorship bar across the label,
so it complies with Alabama law, and they give away free posters of the
original label with each bottle.

They should overprint a black censorship bar across the
label, so it complies with Alabama law, and they give away
free posters of the original label with each bottle.

=v= Brilliant!

=v= Lagunitas Censored Copper Ale did something like that,
except in that case it was the federal Alcohol and Tobacco
Tax and Trade Bureau who put the kibosh on their original
label ("The Kronic"). Of course, they can't give away free
samples with their bottles, except for medicinial uses.
_Jym_

Leo Lichtman wrote:
I think the winery has a great opportunity to exploit this government
stupidity. They should overprint a black censorship bar across the label,
so it complies with Alabama law, and they give away free posters of the
original label with each bottle.

Probably there's some law against giving away the poster with the wine.

Just print up some stickers "Banned in Alabama by the Order of the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board" that go over the image and send them
out to the distributors and retailers to stick on the bottles. Should
send sales skyrocketing.

No one was buying Al Franken's Book, _Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell
Them, A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right_ until Faux sued him,
claiming that they had trademarked "Fair and Balanced."

SMS a bien réfléchi et puis a déclaré:
"http://blog.al.com/live/2009/07/wine_too_fullbodied_for_bama_s.html"

Sandy wrote:
If anything is clearly objectionable, it is the taking of a prize for
the label, when it is not the work of the prize's recipient. I don't
think that adding "Pinot noir" makes it a new graphic.

We have a news clip on our clip wall of a California vintner
whose label art of a reclining nude was rejected. The artist
tried again, removing the 'offensive' flesh. Yep, a
reclining skeleton in the same composition. Also rejected.

At least our industry has a (small) sense of humor.

By the way I agree with Sandy. Stealing is wrong even if one
'gets away with it', still wrong.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Jul 27, 2:39*pm, AMuzi wrote:

By the way I agree with Sandy. Stealing is wrong even if one
'gets away with it', still wrong.

I wasn't aware that one could steal from the public domain.

Andrew Muzi wrote:
SMS a bien réfléchi et puis a déclaré:
"http://blog.al.com/live/2009/07/wine_too_fullbodied_for_bama_s.html"

Sandy wrote:
If anything is clearly objectionable, it is the taking of a prize for
the label, when it is not the work of the prize's recipient. I don't
think that adding "Pinot noir" makes it a new graphic.

We have a news clip on our clip wall of a California vintner whose label
art of a reclining nude was rejected. The artist tried again, removing
the 'offensive' flesh. Yep, a reclining skeleton in the same
composition. Also rejected.[...]

The upright mafia strikes again!

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Celebrity culture is an opposite of community, informing us
that these few nonsense-heads matter but that the rest of
us do not. - Jay Griffiths

SMS a bien réfléchi et puis a déclaré:
"http://blog.al.com/live/2009/07/wine_too_fullbodied_for_bama_s.html"

Sandy wrote:
If anything is clearly objectionable, it is the taking of a prize for
the label, when it is not the work of the prize's recipient. I don't
think that adding "Pinot noir" makes it a new graphic.

Andrew Muzi wrote:
We have a news clip on our clip wall of a California vintner whose
label art of a reclining nude was rejected. The artist tried again,
removing the 'offensive' flesh. Yep, a reclining skeleton in the same
composition. Also rejected.[...]

Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
The upright mafia strikes again!


Well! Will wonders never cease!

The guy actually achieved approval!
http://www.winelabels.org/labels.htm

(second item)

She looks all ready for a spin on your other vehicle, Tom.
(I found the skeleton more interesting)

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

http://blog.al.com/live/2009/07/wine...or_bama_s.html

=v= I wouldn't dream of banning a flying long-haired redheaded
unhelmeted cyclist just for being nude. In fact, they are
welcome in my house:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jym/141123391/

=v= The non-redhead in the photo has also been banned for not
wearing a helmet. I took an action snapshot of her riding her
Bike Friday, which was made into a poster by Bike Friday, but
there was an outcry about her not wearing a helment and the
campaign was quickly pulled.

=v= Farrah Fawcett never had to worry about that!
_Jym_