The Funniest Thing About the Billboard Tax

The record shows, that “the game of ‘Monopoly’ was first played from 1920 to 1932 on various college campuses by a small group of individuals, many of whom were related by blood or marriage.

It is true that Darrow, in his correspondence with Parker Brothers, claimed to have invented the game and offered to sign an affidavit stating his story. However, Robert B. M. Barton, the former president of Parker Brothers, who negotiated with Darrow in 1935, testified that he did not believe Darrow’s claim.

-Supreme Court of the United States, Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, 1982

You remember the Billboard Lobbyist Sanitizers, of course:

Well this week we received this letter [PDF] from Hasbro’s lawyer:

Hasbro and Parker Brothers do not own Monopoly and never have. The game has always been in the public domain.

This is our response to Hasbro:

I deny manufacturing and distributing, selling or ever being in the possession of a hand sanitizer, which is called “Billboard Lobbyist Sanitizer.” Please be advised that you appear to be mistaking a theoretical Photoshopped image for something physical that existed in actual fact.

The artwork on the Photoshopped image was created and uploaded to Flickr.com by a third party.

This artwork appears to be entirely original and bears no resemblance whatsoever to the “Mr. Monopoly” graphic depicted in your letter; however, I have no way of knowing the particular origin of the original artwork.

In addition, even if the artwork on the Photoshopped image bore a resemblance to the “Mr. Monopoly” graphic, the graphic is well within in the public domain, as the original copyright for the Monopoly game was obtained in 1935.

Furthermore, the term “Monopoly” cannot fall within the purview of the Copyright Act as the term is generic.

In addition, the graphic in your letter is merely a stock image of a man wearing a dinner jacket with a hat and is also generic enough to fall outside the purview of the Copyright Act.

And, even if the graphic or the term “Monopoly” did fall within the purview of the Copyright Act, your client’s history of abusive and bad faith suppression of the origin of the game (see The Billion Dollar Monopoly Swindle) renders your supposed copyright unenforceable in Canadian courts under the doctrine of unclean hands. Lastly, given this history, there is no evidence that your client is the bona fide owner of the supposed copyright to the stock image in question.

I deny that my web site, IllegalSigns.ca, is depicting the Photoshopped “Billboard Lobbyist Sanitizer” image. The images appear to be displayed by Flickr.com. I would suggest that your client make a claim under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act against Flickr.com, although the aforementioned doctrine of unclean hands ought to prevent that claim from being successful.

Furthermore, even if my web site was depicting the image, and even if you were the owners of this image, a contextual analysis of the blog post, along with a full understanding of all intended irony, parody and jest, would result in the conclusion that this depiction would be protected by the Copyright Act for numerous reasons, including but not limited to the fact that I was merely reporting and expounding upon a newsworthy item related to a public policy matter that Toronto City Council was about to debate.

I therefore cannot cease “selling” the supposed theoretical “product” as none existed, and I certainly cannot “destroy” non-existent theoretical containers. I also cannot provide you with an “accounting” of my “profits” as no money changed hands in this matter other than the money transferred from your client to yourself, of which you are already keenly aware. I cannot provide you with a “list” of material referred to in paragraph ii of your letter, as there are no such materials in my possession and there never have been.

Even in the outlandish possibility that a third party created and distributed a hand sanitizer product based on the images another third party uploaded to Flickr.com, I cannot be held vicariously responsible.

I look forward to litigating this matter in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Lastly, I will be publishing your letter, in its entirely, and this response, in its entirety, on my web site.

Sincerely,

Rami Tabello

This is Hasbro’s response:

Dear Mr. Tabello,

Your reply advises that the sanitizer product pictured on your website (not Flickr.com) on November 27, 2009 is non-existent, and is a spoof. If true, that resolves the issue of distribution.

You have, however, misstated the facts and the rights of Hasbro in the Mr. Monopoly graphics. The graphic shown in the pictures of the non-existent product displayed on your web site on November 27, 2009 is identical to the Mr. Monopoly graphic. The page in question was found at http://illegalsigns.ca/2009/11/27/free-billboard-lobbyist-sanitizer-now-available-for-all-members-of-council/#comments and can be currently found at http://illegalsigns.ca/page/2/.

This is not a generic stock image. It is protected under Federal Trade-Mark Registration No. TMA461,613, a copy of which was sent to you. In addition, the copyright protection in this graphic has not expired in Canada. We trust that you will respect these rights and refrain from any further display of this graphic on your web site.

Yours truly,

Lloyd Sarginson

C. Lloyd Sarginson
B.Sc. (Chem. Eng.), LL.B.

It took a chemical engineer to write that.

We will not be making any changes to our web site. Don’t tase me, Hasbro.




City Council Adopts Billboard Tax and Comprehensive New Signs By-Law

It was a fantastic day at City Council and someday we should let you know the inside scoop of how a rag tag team of public space and arts activists beat a murder of high priced billboard lobbyists and convinced City Council to adopt the Buildings Departments’ recommendations to adopt a $10.4 Million billboard tax and new by-law to regulate billboards.

Mondoville, Torontoist, Spacing Wire (Post 1 and Post2), NOW, EYE, The Star and BlogTO has  coverage of what happened.

Mayor David Miller has the best quote:

Here’s what we got in a nutshell:

  • This by-law is so restrictive on new billboards that there will hardly be a decent place left to build a new billboard in the City of Toronto;
  • The fines are so high that once the Chief Building Official declares a billboard illegal, we expect it gone pretty quickly if the CBO is serious;
  • The tax, at $10.4 Million is a very good amount. There are scores roof signs in Scarborough and Etobicoke that will be uneconomical to operate under this tax.
  • The variance process will require a variance to be approved by a quazi-judicial body; if the variance is approved, the application could be bumped to to require City Council approval. If the variance is rejected, an application to Council cannot be made.

With the high level of billboard attrition in Toronto due to the growth of the City, the by-laws that City Council passed today could cut the number of Toronto’s billboards in half over twenty five years. That is, if it lasts the test of time. Already, during the Council debate, a Councillor suggested that a new administration could undo these by-laws. That’s why elections are so important.

Next: we expect a concerted attempt at tax evasion and a court challenge to the Ontario Superior Court that the industry is likely to launch. We’ll bring that trial to you, lie by perjurious lie.




Councillor Karen Stintz Laughs it up With Four Billboard Lobbyists

Last week, City Council put off the Sign By-Law and Billboard Tax debate until 10am Monday morning while it considered other business. In the meantime, City Council’s public gallery was packed with billboard lobbyists and activists.

From time to time, City Councillors would chat with members of the public as well as the industry’s paid lobbyists. But one City Councillor only spoke to the lobbyists. Her name is Karen Stintz. And we have the video to prove it:

The silent video hits high drama at 0:33, when Stintz’ animation gets a tad wild.

In that video you can see, starting from Karen Stintz’ left:

Chris Korwin-Kuczynski: Advising OMAC and Pattison, he is the man who successfully banned the Barenaked Ladies from Nathan Philips Square when he was a City Councillor; Paul “School Killer” Christie, also advising both OMAC and Pattison; Stephen McGregor of CBS Outdoor and Sid Catalano of Pattison.

You may remember Karen Stintz from this Spacing Wire expose:  Karen Stintz, Billboards, and how to get around the Lobbyist Registry, a blog post that one City Councillor said was “widely distributed and quite well enjoyed around City Council.” But it was Torontoist who said it most presciently in December 2006 when it wrote:

Karen Stintz is the worst of a very questionable bunch. She may be the most articulate and witty member of Council’s unofficial opposition (goodness knows she doesn’t have much competition), but her positions rarely seem authentically her own but rather products of ideology or focused lobbying efforts. (Almost every time I have attended a Council meeting, I have seen her at the back of the gallery chatting away with lobbyists.)

A free box of sanitizers for the Councillor for Ward 16.

On Monday, follow the Council debate on Twitter at #TOCouncil and view the live video feed at Rogerstv.com.




City Council to Consider Signs By-Law on Friday Between 10am and Sundown

So it’s about time the billboard industry read the writing on the wall instead of putting it there without a permit.

Follow the debate on Twitter at #TOCouncil and view the live video feed at Rogerstv.com.




City Council to Resume Debate on Signs By-Law This Afternoon or Friday

Yesterday City Council debated the new Signs By-Law and Billboard Tax for about 4 hours until the debate was adjourned to deal with ice rink time allocation. The best place to follow what is happening is at the #TOCouncil hashtag on Twitter, where we will be contributing updates.

We expect the debate to continue either later this afternoon, or, most likely, on Friday.

The debate has been going well. It looks as if Council will adopt the Signs By-Law. The major debate will be over the level of the tax. There is a proposal from Councillor Norm Kelly to cut the tax rate in half.

There are other motions on the table regarding the Signs by-law that are very worrisome, although they have a lesser chance of passing.

This motion from Kelly would permit as-of-right “static” LED video screens in every ward.

This motion from Councillor Mammoliti would strip the Emory Village area of any meaningful regulations on billboards, including allowing an unlimited number of “static” LED video screens. However, it would require property owners to obtain approval from “Emory Village BIA Sign Committee” before building a sign. Blair Murdoch of All-Vision Canada has an exclusive agreement with Emory Village BIA to provide billboard leasing services which explains why Blair was busy at City Hall yesterday. This motion from Councillor Moscoe would refer Mammoliti’s motion to staff for a report.

We are asking City Council to reject the Kelly motion and adopt the Moscoe motion.