What was the Woodstock ad calling out Steve Rocco?

[rabblesoft]

In return Rocco sued and ran Woodstock out of the industry. What was the ad?

[bea!]

not really what i would call "calling out" steve rocco, but...

[slogant-shirt]

i love all that skate add beef from the 90's, like the dear George add and all the rip offs. i remember reading some where that foundation did a couple world ripp offs after roco gave them the boot from dwindle. anyone got any picks of them.

also, im surprised roco never copped to much heat for this

[friendly dave]

Rocco was skateboarding's best hater.
*With much appreciation to the chrome ball incident: http://chromeballincident.blogspot.com/search/label/steve%20rocco

[MexicanSpaniard]

The bitch koston one is relevant now

[G.Lewis]

That pesky Steve Rocco was a professional shit disturber.  Have to respect that.

[darrin lee]

[Paletta]

^^^^^^
I personally thought that flip ad was kind fucked. Appleyard played a massive part in making flip wot it is with his parts in sorry and really sorry and winning SOTY. Dudes getting old and has the right to make a bit of money before he can't keep up anymore.

[oyolar]

^^^^^^
I personally thought that flip ad was kind fucked. Appleyard played a massive part in making flip wot it is with his parts in sorry and really sorry and winning SOTY. Dudes getting old and has the right to make a bit of money before he can't keep up anymore.

Yeah, and consider the fact that all three of them are sponsored by Volcom, which has surf, snow, and MX teams along with skateboarding, and David Gonzalez is sponsored by Globe.  So evidently they're all at least slightly for sale.

[darrin lee]

^^^^^^
I personally thought that flip ad was kind fucked. Appleyard played a massive part in making flip wot it is with his parts in sorry and really sorry and winning SOTY. Dudes getting old and has the right to make a bit of money before he can't keep up anymore.

Yep.  Even if Apples was milking it, it's just a loser move on Flip's part.  They really didn't think that one through.

[bbk]

^^^^^^
I personally thought that flip ad was kind fucked. Appleyard played a massive part in making flip wot it is with his parts in sorry and really sorry and winning SOTY. Dudes getting old and has the right to make a bit of money before he can't keep up anymore.

Yeah, and consider the fact that all three of them are sponsored by Volcom, which has surf, snow, and MX teams along with skateboarding, and David Gonzalez is sponsored by Globe.  So evidently they're all at least slightly for sale.

http://vanssurf.com/

[darrin lee]

Rowley's participation in this ad must have also had alot to do with the ending of their now defunct joint website "werdlife.com" with Apples, Arto, Bratrud & Geoff.  Where were they going with that?!?! 

[HATE!]

I had one of those Bitch boards back in 96.  I think it was 7.25"  God, that's so tiny.

I miss the beef ads too. 

[Donkey Lips]

That Geoff/David ad was funny. Some serious hurt feelings there about a dude just switching teams. Besides, Appleyard was a serious team hopper back in the day. Flip should be stoked they had him for almost a decade.

[bea!]

the ironic part is that Steve Rocco, mr shit disturber who made a career of making fun of ex-riders and companies in his ad, decided to sue Woodstock and Metiver when they did it to him. 

OOH i have a good one... does anybody remember the Consolidated ad where they call out Bo Turner and call him a fag?

[popsiclesandskatin]

Shecklers die crying ad that mocked Zero was good.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

^^^^^^
I personally thought that flip ad was kind fucked. Appleyard played a massive part in making flip wot it is with his parts in sorry and really sorry and winning SOTY. Dudes getting old and has the right to make a bit of money before he can't keep up anymore.

In fairness, how do you know that they didn't also get offered large deals from element and turned them down through this ad? It might not be directed toward Appleyard, he just might have been the only one who took the deal.

Does anybody remember some of the rider wars?
If I'm not confused wasn't there some really funny incident where Richard Mulder had ads for two different companies at once, I think it was foundation and World, and the world one was basically him making fun of his foundation one? I think the world one has him in a car waving goodbye.
There was another one over Jason Rothmeyer (teehee), but I don't remember that one well at all.

That rocco letter to Larry Balma is fucking rad. That letter represented the best part of skate culture in the early 90's. Too much in too few hands? Fuck you, we'll do out own thing, don't fuck with us.

I never realized that "Letter to George" was written by Gonz, I guess it makes sense, but I don't picture him as being so negative.

[Skate Edge]

"start concentrating a little effort on where it's needed most - like making trucks that turn."

Well if that's not the pot calling the kettle black...

World was notorious for making boards that snapped like toothpicks. 

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

One thing I just realized- Woodstock lost because he had no balls. I seriously doubt they went to court, Rocco just threatened him. If he got a lawyer he could easily defend the ad as satire/parody, which is protected from copyright law. Then after that, he could have run an ad calling Rocco a bitch in his failed attempt to quiet shit talkers and won both battles.

[sluggers]

One thing I just realized- Woodstock lost because he had no balls. I seriously doubt they went to court, Rocco just threatened him. If he got a lawyer he could easily defend the ad as satire/parody, which is protected from copyright law. Then after that, he could have run an ad calling Rocco a bitch in his failed attempt to quiet shit talkers and won both battles.

Rocco sued and they settled out of court for 50 grand.

Parody is not a defense against a claim of trademark infringement.

Also, courts have been sympathetic to arguments of dilution by tarnishment which certainly would have applied.

[via]

^^^^^^
I personally thought that flip ad was kind fucked. Appleyard played a massive part in making flip wot it is with his parts in sorry and really sorry and winning SOTY. Dudes getting old and has the right to make a bit of money before he can't keep up anymore.

Does anybody remember some of the rider wars?
If I'm not confused wasn't there some really funny incident where Richard Mulder had ads for two different companies at once, I think it was foundation and World, and the world one was basically him making fun of his foundation one? I think the world one has him in a car waving goodbye.
There was another one over Jason Rothmeyer (teehee), but I don't remember that one well at all.

"...But you had to know that Rocco was gonna get revenge. And he did just that by charging you for an ad featuring Richard Mulder before stealing your rider and taunting you with an ad featuring him in the same issue. Gnarly." (Chrome ball)

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

One thing I just realized- Woodstock lost because he had no balls. I seriously doubt they went to court, Rocco just threatened him. If he got a lawyer he could easily defend the ad as satire/parody, which is protected from copyright law. Then after that, he could have run an ad calling Rocco a bitch in his failed attempt to quiet shit talkers and won both battles.

Rocco sued and they settled out of court for 50 grand.

Parody is not a defense against a claim of trademark infringement.

Also, courts have been sympathetic to arguments of dilution by tarnishment which certainly would have applied.

Shut up you fucking idiot.
Here's stanford's law department proving you are fucking stupid:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html
Particularly of note:

n its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and ?transformative? purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an illegal infringement.

Wow, you are fucking stupid and wrong again! Do you ever get tired of saying stupid fucking shit and getting slapped down for your stupidity? I would.

Edit: just saw that the link even gets into it deeper here:

Parody

A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that, by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to ?conjure up? the original.

Feel like a fucking idiot yet?

[sluggers]

And, maybe you should learn the difference between copyright and a trademark, dumbass.

[sdscanz]

^^^this is a real arguement on a skateboard forum? who gives a shit about any of that crap.

and woodstock fucking sucked who cares.

[sluggers]

In case the Gipper actually cares and wants the case law:

http://usip.com/pdf/Article_Trademarks/parodytm.pdf - Parody No Automatic Defense to Trademark Infringement

http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf -The Satire/Parody Distinction in Copyright and Trademark Law - Can Satire Ever Be A Fair Use?

There is a reason The South Butt apparel company is no longer around.

And coincidentally, speaking of World Industries, trademark infringement, dilution and tarnishment:

http://espn.go.com/action/story/_/id/7960183/adidas-files-lawsuit-world-industries-skate-shoe

[realitycontrol]

when do we start talking about the Civil War?

[sluggers]

Not to mention the right of publicity issues that would have been brought up as a well-known former professional skateboarder and renowned business owner.

A parodist must also dodge the right of publicity celebrities have in their identities. The right of publicity essentially provides a celebrity the exclusive ability to commercially exploit that identity, which includes their voices, names, signatures, photographs or likenesses. The unauthorized use of this identity by another in promoting products, or any other commercial endeavor, violates the right of publicity. The commercial exploitation of a celebrity's identity is violated even if the use does not explicitly use the celebrity's "name or likeliness."

The right of publicity is that a celebrity has a protected pecuniary interest in the commercial exploitation of his identity. If the celebrity's identity is commercially exploited, there has been an invasion of his right whether or not his "name or likeness" is used.

It is why Michael Jordan sued two grocery stores for even placing an ad in Sports Illustrated congratulating him on his selection to the basketball hall of fame.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Michael-Jordan-Sues-Jewel-and-Dominicks.html

Who is the fucking idiot now?

As for the truth about the Civil War or War for Southern Independence or the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States, start here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html

[sluggers]

I am actually against intellectual property, but the Gipper is totally ignorant of the actual law and linking to an irrelevant portion of the law on the Stanford University website does not change that.

For more reading on a justification against IP, see:

http://mises.org/books/against.pdf

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

In case the Gipper actually cares and wants the case law:

http://usip.com/pdf/Article_Trademarks/parodytm.pdf - Parody No Automatic Defense to Trademark Infringement

http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf -The Satire/Parody Distinction in Copyright and Trademark Law - Can Satire Ever Be A Fair Use?

There is a reason The South Butt apparel company is no longer around.

And coincidentally, speaking of World Industries, trademark infringement, dilution and tarnishment:

http://espn.go.com/action/story/_/id/7960183/adidas-files-lawsuit-world-industries-skate-shoe

You fucking jackass, that's only if they use it as their trademark. So if they made a company that was all goofy devil logo it wouldn't be ok, but they didn't. They made one or two ads making fun of world, using their logo. There is no way that would have been trademark infringment. People do that to the coke logo to comment on the actions of coke all the time and don't get sued. Woodstock got punked by Rocco, but he didn't have to.
And sluggers, don't argue, everybody already thinks you are fucking retarded

[sluggers]

Dude, just admit you got royally burned and are a fucking idiot.

Trademark infringement isn't all about if you only use it as your logo. It is about how you use someone else's trademark.

And, you conveniently avoid the well established "right of publicity" in US courts and dilution/tarnishment issues.

Give up while you are well behind.

It is ok to be wrong. Your mom still loves you. Maybe.

As for specifically mentioning Coke you are even dumber than all fuck.

Look up the court case Coca-Cola Co. v. Gemini Rising, Inc.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tmcases/coca.htm

If you hadn't guessed already, Coke won that case.

Look up the term "enjoin" in the dictionary.