Edited November 23, 2015 by leighdear. I take a lot of photos and put them online where people can see them for free. I don't think the tshirt guys need to get a charitable deduction from donating the backpacks, because the cost of the backpacks, especially given their model , should be deductible as a business expense. It doesn't matter if Umano got the pictures from the school in exchange for a promise of a backpack of school supplies to the school. This is an all-you-can-eat place where they come around and shave the meat onto your plate and it's all I can do to not fill up on the cheese balls. Edited November 23, 2015 by Merneith. It sounded like they are targeting poor areas where maybe parents can't afford basic school supplies.
I'm probably showing my age here, but about 15-20 years ago there was a guy on a website? It doesn't matter how old the artist is. International copyright law is set out in. It's completely mean-spirited and terrible and I would never ever ever actually make fun of a child's drawing in reality. Alright, I walked over to Sprouts on my lunch break and got the last bag of Brazi Bites. In other words, I am absolutely not their target market. Tried them a couple of weeks ago.
Despite her claim, I've yet to see a Bantam Bagel in a Starbucks. And she was so pleased with herself for coming up with it, and so adamant that the entire business would tank overnight if they didn't immediately change to that idiotic name. This begs the question, why wouldn't you order again? But if someone wanted to take one of my photos and put it on shirt and actually make a lot of money off of it, I better be getting some kind of royalty or percentage of that, or a much higher one-time payment than a cheapo backpack! It all seems really sketchy and not very above board. If Umano might be able to claim that they paid the photographer to create a work for hire, and therefore don't need to pay the child in the work, but since the work is then being used commercially, they're still leaving themselves open to a lawsuit from the children or their guardians if they don't have strict permission. Brazi Bites: If they're anything like the cheese balls I get for appetizers at the Brazilian steakhouse I might become addicted.
So if you're going to get all in an uproar about how could he possibly be so terrible to children? But when you get them frozen, it's just kind of a pain in the butt to prepare them. Did I miss some other type of charity they are doing besides just giving the kids a backpack with some notebooks in it? Is that what makes them so chewy-delicious? Because the artist is a child, there are strict laws about how a child's money should be handled. . No way they would risk the future of their entire company for a random drawing of an elephant. Easier for me to keep actual bagels in the freezer, thaw in the microwave for 30 seconds, and spread on the cream cheese.
And they may have strict permissions and contracts, and just skipped talking about it because no one wants to watch a show about people discussing copyright law - which is valid. Also, an update on Mensch On A Bench that Lori Greiner and Robert Herjavec invested in during Season 6. I still am unsure of how I feel about the t shirts. Think of the empowered kids! They would be fun for like apps at a super bowl party or something. Each week, ambitious entrepreneurs present their breakthrough business concepts to ruthless investors to convince them to invest in the concept. A little too expensive, but not bad.
If he wasn't there, I think they'd all be arguing endlessly and I like his snark. I wonder if the increase in google searches has anything to do with that. I didn't hear her say it when talking about Bantam Bagels. Robert said you can't feel it, but I'm not sure I believe him. I agree the legal stuff would have been cut for non-interest to the viewing audience.
I do really wonder if they have contracts with the kids and their parents, and how this works with the school pitching it to the parents or what. A man has a product he believes is essential in every college dorm room; two Harvard grads transform shrunken sweaters back to their original sizes; and a surfer dude surprises the Sharks with a lucrative proposition. International laws are very different. I don't like when legit businesses choose her over a better Shark for the long-term. If the kids art is good enough that people will pay that much to have it on a mass produced shirt in a fancy store, then the kids should get more out of that deal.
As for the guys being smart enough to have all this legal stuff worked out - maybe. So I say this with a grain of salt - but the entire concept seems extremely exploitative to me. Aired Date: 2015-11-20 When an entrepreneur brings in a new recreational sport to the tank, the sharks get a chance to suit up and ram into each other with reckless abandon; two brothers designed a fashion brand enabling the wearer to do good while looking good; and a couple have a solution to the mystery of the missing sock. I think the ones from the Brazilian steak house were better. Also, the Sharks are invited to The White house to meet President Barack Obama and Daymond John is honored with a Presidential Ambassadorship.
I have some tapioca flour and the recipes look simple, so if I remember this after the holiday, I'm going to bake some. If I want a t-shirt, and I want to support children in need, I do not see those as mutually exclusive activities. Where's Barbara when you need her? Unless it's a work for hire, the ownership of the image remains with the artist. Here, let me quote it, from here: how do you choose the Artwork? We're taking their drawings and giving them a shitty backpack because it empowers kids! Love Damon, but he's fell for this before. Because the artist is a child, there are strict laws about how a child's money should be handled. I shop for goods I want, and support the causes I want. Payment would need to be to the artist, not to the artist's school or random underprivileged children.
I'd give them a solid B+ I'm probably in Umano's demographic. Was it because neither one of them could do a Borat impression? I can hardly get to the mashed potatoes, polenta, and other carby goodness at the Brazilian steakhouse because the cheesy bread balls are so friggin' fabulous. I might agree to let someone use my artwork for free if it were to benefit an actual non-profit, but they were clear that they are a for profit company. But he was basically approaching it with the premise that he's not allowing for the fact that a child drew the picture and objectively it's just not very good. Signatories agree to respect the law for artistic work in each others' territories. I'm going to be taking photos for fun whether someone pays me or not, so I don't really think of it as labor.