Who owns "Adland"?

If there's one thing that advertising people actually value, it's a brand. Especially if it's one of our own.

So it's no surprise that Åsk Wäppling, the Swedish owner of the advertising blog adland.tv, doesn't want other people using the term "Adland."

Adland is absolutely ancient in internet terms, having been established in 1996 when most ad people were still trying to figure out if the web was good for anything except free shock porn. A young Ms. Wäppling, under the pseudonym "Dabitch," instead saw the opportunity to create an online global ad archive and professional forum, which in this decade Brand Republic, Business Insider, and Fast Company have listed as one of the most influential in the industry. She even trademarked the name, several years ago. And he's been a mentor as I've fumbled my way into the ad blogosphere.

So you'd think it would be pretty clear that "Adland" = adland.tv. Especially among ad industry bloggers.

Apparently not. As you can see from the Google screencap above, venerable industry magazine Ad Age uses the term "adland," in a generic sense, to refer to the industry in several posts. I have no idea if they used it this way in print, years back, but online it definitely infringes on Dabitch's intellectual property. And she's let them know, many times.

Now other people are letting them know. When Ad Age posted "Adland seeks to hire veterans," Dabitch says she started getting resumes. After finding out they didn't mean THAT Adland, one vet let Ad Age know what he thought about the avoidable confusion:

Courtesy Dabitch

(adland.tv ended up helping the guy get some job leads anyway.)

Dabitch has written directly to Ad Age's legal heads, but after receiving what she characterizes as "nya, we won't" replies, she has taken to the court of social media.

She told me, "Now I tweet at them every time they use the word in a headline and I hope the responses take off."

Here's a recent example:

Here's our best tattoo @adage #adland pic.twitter.com/uQyUzuCDnl

— Adland (@adland) May 6, 2015

Cheeky. But will it get Ad Age's attention now? (More importantly, will it get the attention of its readers and advertisers?) We'll see. Because there are a lot of important ad pros watching that little red TV.

Did Motorola rip off a Talking Heads song?

Talking Heads: Chris Frantz, Tina Weymouth, David Byrne and Jerry Harrison (via Slate)

It's always a hard call when advertisers decide to use "original" music in an ad that is heavily evocative of an established song.

Listen to this ad, and make note of any classic songs that come to mind:

Qu'est-ce que c'est?

Yeah, me too. But is it plagiarism? That's for lawyers to decide.

From inside the ad agency world, I can tell you exactly how this went down. Creative teams often draw inspiration from songs they like. The ones with very healthy budgets, and willing rock stars, may actually get the chance to licence that song. But that's the exception.

Often, the song even gets used in the creative presentation, or in the case of a TV ad, it might be used to score the animatic. (A moving storyboard, used in pre-production.) Even early edits may have that song in them, just to help with pacing and tone.

But if the song is, ultimately, unattainable, the team eventually needs to brief a commercial composer. These briefings often include "something like [name of song or artist]" or the song itself may be used as an example in the briefing. This is normal.

For example, when we were doing a government of Canada ad a few years ago, I briefed the composer using Arcade Fire videos. However, I didn't say "make it sound like Arcade Fire," or "Make it sound like 'The Suburbs' or 'We Used to Wait'," I told told him I wanted "a contemporary alt-rock sound that will appeal to 20-somethings but still be appropriate for a government job training ad." The result was just what we wanted, but it was its own thing.

Even emulating a distinctive style can be problematic. In 1992, Tom Waits sued Frito-Lay for hiring a singer who sounded like him for an ad. He was awarded more than two million dollars.

The Motorola case is a little less open and shut. But it did catch the attention of Talking Heads/Tom Tom Club drummer Chris Frantz. Chris is married to Bassist Tina Weymouth, who wrote the bassline that the ad music partially emulates.

Chris asked his Facebook network, "My friends, if you have a moment, please click on this link and scroll down to "Play Video." Play the video and please tell me your thoughts. Thanks."

The verdict by friends and fans was that they didn't just hear "Psycho Killer" in the ad, but also Tom Tom Club's hit "Wordy Rappinghood."

Some felt it was a stretch. But at a time when Sam Smith willing pays Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne for "accidentally" lifting the structure of a hit song, or Robin Thicke and Pharrel try to pre-emptively sue the family of the artist they were "inspired" by, these are high-stakes issues.

What do you think?

This Disney Princess vibrator isn't just a violation of copyright

As if Disney Princesses weren't already problematic enough, childhood fantasies are sexualized in the name of irony.

From The Daily Dot:

The girly, delicate “Love Discovery Mini Vibrator” looks like your standard $68 sex toy, except that it’s being marketed as the clitoral stimulator of choice of Disney Princesses Ariel and Jasmine, with the caption “Yas gurl all princesses do it.” Nothing says “you should buy this sex toy!” like an endorsement from a mermaid.

Not funny, shopjeen. I doubt Disney's lawyers will be amused either.

New app lets you surgically birth "Frozen" Anna's baby

Remember that bizarre "Plastic Surgery Barbie" App that came out last year? Well, here's another opportunity for girls to learn about the magical worlds of surgery and copyright violation.

Buzzfeed's Daniel Kibblesmith talks readers through the game, which shows Frozen's 18-year-old  Princess Anna ready to give birth to Kristoff's baby (after they get married, of course!)

The app guides the user through a sanitized Caesarian birth, apparently not clarifying whether Anna is suffering from a complication that prevents vaginal delivery, or whether she's just "too posh to push." (It also implies that a woman is put under a general anaesthetic for the procedure, which is not typical.)

I'll leave the WTFing to Jezebel's Rebecca Rose:

Sure, maybe games or apps that talk about pregnancy can be a good teaching tool for parents who want to get their kids familiar with various aspects of childbirth. But unless you are a being on the planet Mikloap Alpha 7, there is no purple glowing orb that magically emerges from your womb because someone waves a special sparkle wand over it. No. Despite what they are trying to teach in Texas high school's sex education classes, this is not what happens during childbirth. 

After the baby is born, you have to use the scalpel to cut the umbilical cord (SO MUCH GODDAMN NOPE HERE) and weigh the baby.

Not exactly a welcome addition to the world of childbirth apps.

Anne Taintor sued for using teetotaller's photo on a hip flask

Via Amazon

We're used to the format: Ironic vintage photo with snarky caption. It's a specialty of Anne Taintor, and we see it on cards, mugs, magnets and other novelty items.

Do you ever wonder where these retro photos came from, and whether they're rights-cleared? Well, here's one case where a stolen photo came back to bit the thief.

The flask pictured above, which is still on sale at Amazon and other outlets, apparently features the unauthorized image of a woman named Veronica Vigil in New Mexico. It's her 1970 graduation photo. Oh, and she's a teetotaller.

According to the Santa Fe New Mexican, Ms. Vigil has filed suit against the Anne Taintor company, and a local gift shop carrying the item, stating:

“Plaintiff is an active member of her church and does not consume alcohol or drugs. Given the seriousness of the issues of substance abuse in the community in which plaintiff resides, she has held herself out by reputation for her children and her community, to refrain from abuse or even use of alcohol and illicit drugs and has set an example that the issue is a very serious one that destroys families and lives.”

It really can. Reminds me of the Christian college professor who got fired when his image was used (unauthorized) on beer labels.

Yes, that cool Iggy Pop Amnesty campaign was unauthorized

It happens all the time. And the creatives may have meant well. But just because you have a clever idea for a celebrity endorsement, and access to Photoshop, doesn't mean you can use their images without permission! No matter what the cause.

Last week, I wrote about this campaign on Osocio. With the tagline, "Torture a man and he'll say anything," witth Iggy Pop confessing, “Justin Bieber is the future of Rock and Roll,” The Dalai Lama declaring that “A man who doesn’t own a Rolex by age 50 has wasted his life” and Karl Lagerfeld stating “A Hawaiian shirt and flip-flops are the height of elegance.”

Clever, yes. But suspicious. While Iggy happily shills for PETA, The Dalai Lama seemed like a stretch. Conclusion: "What I’d really like to know is if the celebrities had any say in the use of their images."

Well, guess what? Pitchfork reports that Iggy and His Holiness, at least, had no say in the use of their images.

From Amnesty:

To generate awareness about our campaign against torture, Amnesty International Belgium French speaking section used an image of Iggy Pop without his authorization.
Even though we acted in good faith, we would like to apologise to Iggy Pop for having done so. 

The overall goal of this campaign is to try to influence people’s ideas on the use of torture. According to surveys, a shocking number of people believe that “torture may sometimes be useful” ; more than 36% of people even think that torture is justified in some cases. This is unacceptable, and we illustrate this reality with the message that a man who is tortured will say anything in order to escape this awfulness, using provocative images and statements to attract public attention. We would therefore also like to make it clear that the statement attributed to Iggy Pop that he believes Justin Bieber is the future of rock and roll does not represent Iggy Pop’s personal opinion but was part of the creative process for this campaign and was intended to be ironic.

For the launch of our latest campaign against torture, the image of His Holiness the Dalai Lama was used by our section (Belgium french speaking) and was widely shared on the internet. Although the Dalai Lama was not the target of the campaign, we understand that this image has caused particular concern in some quarters. We have therefore chosen to remove this picture from our digital material in order not to cause any further upset and ensure people’s attention remains focused on the real aim of this campaign : to stop torture. 

We apologise for any upset caused by this image.

Using celebrities without permission is common practice worldwide, especially in countries that don't have strong legal ties with the celebrities' countries of residence. But to hijack an image — one that, for better or worse, is the celebrity's brand — for an organization of such high prominence, for an important cause, and in an EU country, is idiocy.

Don't worry, Amnesty. I blame your agency. Who was that, anyway?

Global advertisers just can't leave Christ The Redeemer alone

Via Adrants

Last week, it was Rai (Italy) and Sportsbet (Australia). Now it's Ladbrokes, a European online gambling site operating in UK, Ireland, Belgium and Spain.



According to Adrants' Steve Hall, The Archdiocese of Rio demanded the video be removed from YouTube and the advertiser complied. But by then, it had already been copied reposted by others.

The stunt is, of course, fake. But as I mentioned before, the Archdiocese owns the image rights to the statue, putting them in a position to sue advertisers who use it.

Christ The Redeemer in a soccer jersey provokes anger, possible lawsuits

Via abcnews.go.com

It's not the first (or the worst) example of Rio de Janeiro's monumental Christ The Redeemer statue being used in an ad campaign. But maybe the context of the World Cup has people particularly jumpy.

In one example, from Australia, involved a giant inflatable Jesus hovering over Melbourne, sporting a Team Australia soccer jersey with the logo of bookmaker Sportsbet and the hashtag #KEEPTHEFAITH.



While Australia is known for edgy advertising, this stunt upset Reverend Tim Costello, chair of the Australian Churches Gambling Taskforce. He told the press, "One of the great statues in Rio is Jesus, and Brazil is a Catholic nation that takes its faith seriously and its football fanatically."

Indeed, Brazil's church was deeply offended. But by another campaign that had Jesus join Team, Italia:

Via NY Daily News

NY Daily News reports that The Brazilian Catholic Church  threatened to sue Italian broadcaster Rai after it showed the statue in an Italian jersey in its promotional video for its coverage of the World Cup.



While this upset the The Archdiocese of Rio on religious grounds, the issue could actually be one of intellectual property. The Archdiocese has image rights over the statue. After they threatened to sue Rai for $5.4 million, the network pulled the ad.

My own sensitivities are not too bruised by poking fun at The Jesus, since he's so embedded in secular western culture. But the intellectual property argument for this particular representation could be a real headache for cheeky advertisers.

UPDATE: Ad Critic Joe La Pompe informs me that it is a well-worn old idea!

Nike accidentally endorses NRA pro-assault-rifle PSA

Meet Dom Raso. He totally isn't reading a teleprompter. He would also like you to know that you can't trust the media, but you should trust him because he totally doesn't have a political agenda.

Mr. Raso works for NRA News. He is also a Navy Seal veteran, wearing a t-shirt promoting Operation Hawkeye, an organization that works for honour and recognition of special operations soldiers killed in the line of duty.

Operation Hawkeye, in turn, gets support from Nike. Which explains the logo on the shirt.

Only problem is, the Nike logo has now been used to endorse assault rifles, or at least an insistence that civilians have access to them and be able to take them everywhere.

I wonder how Nike feels about that?

H/T Gawker

Italy would rather not have its Renaissance masterpieces used to sell American guns

AdFreak reports:

Italy's culture minister, the Historical Heritage and Fine Arts Board curator, and the director of Florence’s Accademia Gallery (where "David" is currently on display) have all denounced the ad, and ArmaLite has been issued a legal notice to retract the image because the statue is considered government property and can't be used commercially without the proper rights and fees.

But as the author, David Kiefaber, points out, would Italy have been so upset if the ad hadn't been for a big American gun?  (Note also the difference in cultural sensitivities, as the America company censors David's penis.)

Here are a couple of other examples of Michelangelo's David in advertising:

Via Ads of The World

AOTW

Facebook ads recruit software snitches

This just appeared in my Facebook feed:

"No Piracy" is a program by BSA | The Software Alliance, "a nonprofit trade association created to advance the goals of the software industry and its hardware partners."

It's not the attempt to protect IP that bothers me, however. It's this:

"Report your boss and get paid" just seems a little nasty to me.

Islamophobic? Not in those heels!

Via Belgian Elle

BBC reports that shoe designer Christian Louboutin has won a court case to prevent Flemish far-right party Vlaams Belang from using his shoes in one of their anti-islam campaigns.

The legs, belonging to Vlaams Belang Senator Anke Van dermeersch, are marked at intervals of exposure from "Sharia-compliant" at floor level, to "moderate Islam," "provocation" "slut," "whore," "rape," and finally "stoning." The headline reads "Freedom, or Islam?" (All translated via Google.)

A judge at the Antwerp court gave the party 24 hours in which to take down the posters. They replaced it with this one, which replaces Louboutin's iconic red soles with Flemish yellow:

Via The Telegraph

(I'm not sure if that's Ms. Van dermeersch posing again. It seems an odd thing for a politician to do, but she is also a former professional model and Miss Belgium 1991.)

While it isn't surprising that a luxury fashion brand would not want to be associated with this kind of exclusionary political message, it's interesting to note that Louboutin has just launched a line of "nude" shoes in a variety of skin tones.

UPDATE: My Osocio colleague Tatjana (via her friend Srećko Šekeljić) informs me that this ad concept was actually ripped off from an artwork by young Canadian artist Rosea Lake:

Via Huffington Post

When she posted the piece on Tumblr in January, Ms. Lake wrote:

"Judgments"

I took this last year, but in retrospect, I think it’s my strongest piece from high school.

Working on this project really made me examine my own opinions, preconceptions and prejudices about “slutty” women and women who choose to cover all of their skin alike. I used to assume that all women who wore Hijabs were being oppressed, slut-shame, and look down on and judge any woman who didn’t express her sexuality in a way that I found appropriate. 

I’d like to think I’m more open now.

Oh, the irony.

There is now, of course, a Facebook page dedicated to this.

Wedding photographer claims her work was stolen for a "quickie marriage" radio contest

Ottawa wedding photographer Barbi Guild Cameron took to Facebook recently, claiming that local radio station HOT 89.9 took one of her photos, without permission or payment, for use in a partnership marketing kit:

The new Hot 89.9 out of Ottawa Canada runs a contest every spring where by couples get married in the span of 24 hours. I think it is a horrible, horrible contest and devalues marriage. It is certainly a contest I do NOT want my name or branding associated with. Imagine my shock when I see my image on their media/marketing kit info that entices potential advertisers to the contest to pay big bucks to be a part of it.

The image is from the blog of Barbara Ann Studios, where it appeared in a 2009 post about the wedding location of Strathmere.

Ms. Cameron continues:

I contacted the the radio station and they did not immediately get back to me. So then I contacted their owner, NewsCap Radio (who own ALOT radio stations across the country). They contacted me immediately expressing that they take copyright issue VERY SERIOUSLY. Well, everything was very serious until I mentioned that they were to compensate me for the illegal use of my image (AND ALTERED USE I MIGHT ADD). That is when the email tone turned negative. 

The Vice President of NewsCap Radio offered me $40. When I turned him down, he emailed me the following: 

"Barb you were kind enough to provide us with a few definitions. Here is one I just looked up:extortionNOUN The practice of obtaining something, esp. money through force or threatsSYNONYMS Blackmail-exaction
You are obviously a very talented photographer, I would stick with that. Extortion is not your thing.CheersSB" 

If they would have approached me to use the image, we would have had a chance to discuss the commercial use of it (IF I allowed the use of the image in the first place). However, once the image is used, I am at the disadvantage because the image is already out there. 

I no longer want money from them. I instead want this story to be shared and shared and shared and shared. Maybe, just maybe, some marketing person at a company will read it and it will educate them to not STEAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY just because Google barfed it up on their screen. 

 I can only imagine the horror that someone who counts on wedding business felt when her work — and her clients — were used to promote a contest that in her opinion "devalues marriage".

If all the above is true, it's quite conceivable that some graphic designer at HOT 89.9 figured nobody would ever know if they "borrowed" an image for a piece that was never supposed to be seen in public. But it's the alleged reaction from the Newcap VP that is really troubling.

Let's see how this plays out.

Thanks to Marc A for the tip.

Femen parody the Apple logo

Since I last wrote about Ukraine's most famous feminists, they have moved their main operations to Paris, France, and have started merchandising quite heavily to raise funds for their ongoing topless activism.

I wonder what lawsuit-happy Apple will think of this one?

The Beatles' Apple is now Apple's Apple

Remember Apple? No, not that Apple. This one:

Via

When I was a kid, in the '70s and early '80s, finding an original Beatles album with the green apple label at a used record store was like finding gold. The iconic brand was founded by The Fab Four themselves as part of Apple Corps Ltd., and was intended not only to publish Beatles albums and singles, but also to sign unknown and deserving talent in music, fashion, even technology.

via

The original "Apple Store" in London, known as the Apple Boutique was a bust, losing so much money that The Beatles closed shop and gave away all the merchandise. The label did much better, signing notable performers such as Mary Hopkin, James Taylor, Badfinger, and Billy Preston (as well, obviously, as being home the most famous band in the world at the time).

Blank apple label signed by James Taylor.
Am I the only one who saw naughty things in it?

The original Apple brand was still going strong with Beatles reissues in 1978, when an upstart computer company, Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.) started using the fruit for its own branding purposes. Apple Corps. sued for trademark infringement, and was awarded $80,000 in 1981. Part of this judgement was Apple Computer's agreement not to distribute music.

When Apple Computers started to offer Midi music functionality in the late '80s, Apple Corps. sued them again and won $26.5 million in 1991. But when the iTunes Music Store and the iPod appeared in 2003, Apple Corps sued again... and somehow lost their case.

Finally, in 2007, the two companies announced a confidential agreement in which ownership of all of the trademarks related to "Apple" (including all  Apple Corps logos) went to Apple Inc. (as Apple Computers was now known) the Corps licensing its trademarks back for continued use. Rumours said that $500 million had changed hands.

From then on, the two brands got along. The Beatles finally came to iTunes, while their 2010 remastered CDs and records from the late '60s featured the familiar green apple.

Yesterday, Cult of Mac announced that "the Canadian IP Office has just disclosed that the Beatles’ iconic recording label is now Apple, Inc. registered trademark."

According to original source, Patently Apple:

The Canadian database records show that there was unsuccessful opposition to Apple owing the logo by a company named Apple Box Productions Sub Inc.. The Canadian IP Office database shows that Apple Inc. has since been granted the registered trademark. As we reported, Apple originally filed for the famed Apple Corps logo trademark in Europe in March 2011.

And so, a '60s brand that was known for losing money and giving stuff away is now owned by a 21st century brand known for being overpriced and proprietary.

Just don't forget, Cupertino, that in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make.

Thanks to Boing Boing for the tip.

This post was written on a MacBook Pro, while listening to Abbey Road on an iPhone 4.

This Sexy Big Bird costume is brought to you by the letters C, E, A, S, E, A, N, D, D, E, S, I, S and T

With Big Bird the new symbol for the hate-on that Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has for PBS's public funding, Big Bird Halloween costumes are selling out across the United States. But Sesame Street Workshop would like the world to know that the push-up Big Bird minidress (above) is not an officially licensed product.

Sarah Beth Erb from Sesame Street Workshop told Buzzfeed's Katie Notopoulos, “our legal team has sent a cease and desist letter to the website selling them, will monitor the site, and follow up accordingly to make sure the items in question are removed.”

This, according to the Buzzfeed post, is the official costume:

I have to admit, Flapper Big Bird seems as strange to me as Slutty Big Bird. And the latter isn't nearly as hypersexed as many other costumes being pitched to young women these days.

Interestingly, Yandy sells both costumes on its site, the official one as "Sexy Big Bird Costume" ("Learning the ABC's has never been this sexy") and the other as "Exclusive Yellow Dress and Stockings" ("Bird head piece not included"). Sure, they suggest wearing a "Big Bird Headband" with it (as modelled by a young girl). But I'm not sure SSW has much of a case.

Muppets against Mitt

After last night's Presidential Debate started a feud between Republican candidate Mitt Romney and PBS, an anonymous Tweeter took on the role of an angry Big Bird, to the great mirth of those second-screening the TV coverage.

Today, the Pro-Obama Super PAC American Bridge 21st Century released a number of (obviously non-licensed) captioned image "ads" to highlight the views of the candidate who wants to cut funding for public broadcasting.

Fun stuff, but ABC News points out that Sesame Street is relatively safe from PBS cuts because it receives “very, very little funding” from the network. However, it notes, "fans of other PBS programs such as Frontline and Antiques Roadshow may not be so lucky."

Via BuzzFeed

Anti-gay group steals men's wedding portrait for homophobic mailer

Copyright Kristina Hill

The photo above celebrates the 2010 engagement of Tom Privitere and Brian Edward. Taken (and legally owned) by Brooklyn photographer Kristina Hill, it is an intimate portrait of two men intending to formalize their life together (NY State legalized same-sex marriage the next year, but they had already wed in Connecticut).

Below is a direct mail sent to constituents of Colorado State Senator Jean White (R), a proponent of same-sex "civil unions," by Public Advocate of the United States.

From their horrible web site:

Public Advocate offers strong and vocal opposition to :

• Same sex marriage and the furtherance of so-called "Gay Rights";

• The National Endowment of the Arts or taxpayer supported art and the federal funding and endorsement of pornography and obscenity as legitimate forms of art from any agency;

• The mainstream media's promotion and glorification of drug abuse, teenage sex, gangs, atheism, homosexuality and other immoral behavior and beliefs;

• The passage of hate crimes and thought control legislation that creates inequality in our state and federal legal systems and singles out Christians or moral thinking people for persecution, fines, and harrassment by the government at any level;

• "Pro-choice" or abortion strengthening legislation that upholds or expands the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973;

• The creation of special classes of Americans at the expense of the traditional American family.

(Bafflingly, they also claim to support "Equality under the law, regardless of one's sexual orientation")

You'll note that they have no statement on intellectual property laws. But Tom, Brian and Kristina do. They're suing PAUS (what a lovely acronym) in U.S. District Court, seeking damages, costs and attorney fees for the allegedly unauthorized use of the copyrighted photo.

When contacted by NBC News, PAUS President Eugene Delgaudio said  he was looking into it but did not elaborate.

The complaintants' attorney, the Southern Poverty Law Center's Christine Sun, told NBC:

“The use of Tom and Brian’s likenesses, or of Kristina’s copyrighted photo, was wholly gratuitous. Public Advocate could have just paid for a stock photo of a gay couple kissing but instead Public Advocate decided to take this very personal photo of this happy moment and use it to attack gay people.  … the doctrine of fair use is not intended to allow people to use copyrighted work just because it’s cheaper than paying for something.”  

A fair warning for all marketing people, homophobic or not.

Femen furious with Fiat for filching their image

The infamous Ukrainian anarcho-feminist movement, known for protesting topless agains prostitution, corruption and misogyny, now have a new target: admen.

Via the Femen Faceboook page:

Fiat dishonestly uses image of femen activists in advertising campaign to promote their product at the Latin American market. Brazilian advertisers use recognizable attributes of the women's movement femen in their video without our consent. We believe such action against us is unfair.

Have a look for yourself (it's in Portuguese):



It sure seems "inspired" by Femen, who also have an active chapter in Brazil. In addition to co-opting their concept, the ad also wimps out on the nudity, then undermines their ideals by having them women gleefully jump into the man's car at the end.

This wouldn't be the first time a grassroots, anti-system movement was co-opted by the very "Man" they oppose. But note that Femen don't seem to be attempting any legal action, just social complaint.

What do you think of this?

F'd Ad Fridays: "I'll be taking these Huggies and whatever cash ya got"

"Edwina's insides were a rocky place where my seed could find no purchase."

What a hilarious find by Buzzfeed's Dave Stopera — a Serbian Biology lesson book that stole its "happy family" on the cover from the Cohen Brother's awesome 1987 comedy, Raising Arizona.

If you haven't seen the film (shame on you) it's about a career criminal (Nicolas Cage) and his ex-cop wife (Holly Hunter) who turn to kidnapping when they cannot naturally conceive a child.

Not exactly textbook...