Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts

Saturday, June 22, 2013

Remember what a big deal the 1987 "Revolution" Nike ad was?

[click to embiggen]

Buzzfeed reports that this complaint letter is framed at Nike headquarters. I remember when that ad came out, and it was actually a really big deal that an actual song by The Beatles had been "sold out" to sell shoes.



John Lennon had been dead for almost seven years at that point, and the publishing rights to most Beatles-era Lennon-McCartney songs had been purchased by Michael Jackson in 1985. In an unprecedented move, Wieden+Kennedy paid paid $250,000 to Michael Jackson and another $250,000 to Capitol Records which held the North American licensing rights to The Beatles’ recordings.

Apparently, Paul, George and Ringo were not happy about it. Through their record company, Apple, (which would later fight with Apple Computers) filed a lawsuit in July 1987. They named Nike, Wieden+Kennedy, and Capitol-EMI Records for $15 million in damages. It was settled out-of-court for an undisclosed sum.

Yoko Ono, however, approved of the song's commercial use, telling Time that the ad was "making John's music accessible to a new generation."

The real revolution — of advertisers using the borrowed interest of unaltered classic songs for campaigns — was unstoppable. It's now almost inconceivable to imagine a time when new and old hits were not repurposed as anthems for big brands. Even though it is pretty lazy creative, when you think about it.

And the letter? The imgr source cuts off the signature. But one thing I can say for sure, is that he or she was also a Monty Python fan.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

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.




Monday, December 5, 2011

Another nude photo revolutionary for the Muslim world?


Maybe not. Pakistani model Veena Malik has filed suit against FHM India for using this cover photo, which she claims has been "morphed". The magazine says it has proof that the session was consensual and authentic.

And it's not just the nudity that's controversial, both in conservative India and Ms. Malik's home country. "ISI" is a reference to the Pakistani intelligence service.

According to The National Post:


[FHM India editor Kabeer] Sharma said the idea had been to take an ironic swipe at India’s obsession with the ISI. 
A tag line on the cover that points to the initials, reads: “Hand in the end of the world too?”
“People, especially young people in both countries, want to move past this kind of thinking,” the editor said. 
“It’s a very powerful picture — it took a lot of guts for her to do that. It shows a powerful, sexy woman not afraid to speak her mind.”



Speaking her mind, but then taking it back. Is this fear of backlash, or just a publicity stunt?

Either way, it's hard to compare it to Egyptian feminist blogger Aliaa Magda Elmahdy's not-for-profit and potentially deadly one woman online nude protest. (And note, with irony, the cover headline :Why naked protests are just amateur porn"!)

Putting nude models on the cover of a lad mag is hardly a step forward for feminism in Pakistan. But it does show that the global normalization of sexuality and nudity is affecting even very conservative cultures.

Lest we forget, Hugh Hefner started out not to pornify women, but to sexually liberate the repressed adults of the 1950s. Things went awry as Playboy outlasted the male-dominated society it grew out of, and today it is no better than its grandchildren publications such as FHM.

It's a dangerous road, to be sure, trying to sexually liberate women by sexualizing them. But will the end result mean a more sex-positive world? We'll see...

Tip and pics via Buzzfeed