Urban Outfitters channels the Holocaust — again?

Via Bloomberg

Once is an accident, maybe. Twice is... suspect.

After being called out for a t-shirt design that some found reminiscent of the Star of David patch German Jews were forced to wear during the Holocaust, the Anti-Defamation League has brought public attention to this tapestry.

In a similarity that is much stronger than the t-shirt in the previous scandal, this textile seems to mimic both the pink triangle the Nazis used to identify men arrested as homosexuals and the grey striped uniforms of the death camps.

Via Instinct

One can only hope that this is a terrible coincidence and not someone's sick idea of a hip cultural reference. But so far, there doesn't seem to be any apology (or response of any kind) by Urban Outfitters.

Thanks to Laura for the tip.

Urban Outfitters takes an early lead in 2015's Body Image Hall of Shame

Is it a bad Photoshop, or does this model have impossibly long and skinny legs? Either way, the UK's Advertising Standards Authority ruled in favour of a consumer complaint that "the model in the picture was unhealthily thin, challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and harmful." It appeared in the UK version of the popular retailer's online catalogue.

The ASA ruling stated, "We understood that Urban Outfitters’ target market was young people and considered that using a noticeably underweight model was likely to impress upon that audience that the image was representative of the people who might wear Urban Outfitters’ clothing, and as being something to aspire to. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible."

Urban Outfitters responded with "We do not believe she was underweight."

Another recent ruling against the chain found their ad for a "Fuck my liver" hip flask, advertised with the slogan, "Drink like the rebel you are," to also be irresponsible.

Urban Outfitters' drinking shirts are a very American dilemma

Okay, I kind of made fun of Canadian yokeltude in my last post, but now I get to be smug.

The shirts above are from Urban Outfitters. And people are upset about it.

Here's how Steve Hall at Adrants summarized:

Mothers Against Drunk Driving President Jan Withers told the New York Times, "As a mother, these shirts are not acceptable for children under the age of 21. If they're targeting that audience, then they're sending the message that it's cool to drink. We know of the dangers of underage drinking and the fact that it's just downright illegal." 

With Urban Outfitters customer base mostly 18-24, much of this outrage may be warranted. Is this just harmless fun or does Urban Outfitters need a good spanking?

Is this a good place to mention that making the legal drinking age 21 is fucking ridiculous? At 18, you can vote, go to jail, sign contracts, and go to war. And you are not mature enough to have a goddamn beer?

Admittedly, here in Ontario, we are also inconsistent with age of majority. I would happily vote to have it reduced from 19 to 18 any day, even if it means more DITs (drinkers in training) in the bars.

Frig, I let my 8-year-old son wear a beer logo cap to school, and they didn't even say anything. To be fair, it's in a pretty nice neighbourhood, and rich people drink a lot. Hell, one day I saw a kid's lunch packed in a  reusable liquor store bag.

Anyway, all this to say that these shirts are mostly harmless. Teens wear much worse things than this. Way worse.

If I had a teenage daughter, I wouldn't really mind if she wore the "drinking team" or "vodka" shirts — except that I would question her taste. (The "I drink you're cute" one is sort of funny, but the message isn't the greatest indicator of high standards in men.)

If we want to get up-in-arms about shirts sold by Urban Outfitters, forget MADD's rantings about booze.  I have a much more troublesome from the same catalogue:

It says "no reason to say no." What a bad idea that is.

Then there's this:

Ummm...

F'd Ad Fridays: Why you should always be present for your 15-year-old supermodel daughter's photoshoots

The headline is probably wrong at this point. See updates at bottom.


Styleite reports that the parents of (now) 16-year-old model Hailey Clauson are suing Urban Outfitters, photographer Jason Lee Parry and two other stores for a grand total of $28 million in damages for putting the images of Hailey on apparel without their permission.

Parry and Clauson, archived from a deleted post (hmmm) on Hailey's Blog.

This is a young woman who has modelled for Gucci and Oscar de la Renta, and she’s been done spreads in French, Russian and Chinese Vogue. So on the surface, you'd think that this was about lost revenue from abuse of their supermodel daughter's image.

But apparently, it is something else:

The pic is presumably taken from the UO online shop, as it matches the style of their other merch. (Although it doesn't seem to be there now).

The parents' claim for damages stems from what the describe as the "blatantly salacious manner" in which the teen was photographed.

I imagine UO are pretty pissed off about this, especially if they didn't have all the details about the photo. The hipster retail chain is known for producing dozens of ironic tees, with images ranging from Saved by The Bell's Kelly Kapowsky to Thai Pepsi logos.

The photographer, meanwhile, had parental permission to do the original shoot, as demanded by law. And the pics from that session were already up on fashion blogs. Presumably stage parents in the industry would be aware of that. They also appear on Parry's online portfolio.

And then there's the issue of much more provocative professional work that she has also done:

She's also done topless stuff, but I'm not posting that.

I don't blame Urban Outfitters, or the photographer. They're only part of the problem. The big problem is a fashion industry for which only teenage girls have bodies flawless enough to convey the stylemakers' ideals of beauty. And even more so, the  blame has to be shared by parents who let that industry get a hold of their dependent children.


UPDATE e-online provided more details:

The suit alleges that Parry agreed to never release the shot after her then agency Ford Models complained. She is now represented by Next NY.

But the risqué photo turned up later in the German glossy Qvest. It also popped up on T-shirts sold at boutiques Blood is the New Black in Los Angeles and Brandy & Melville in SoHo.

A manager at the Brandy & Melville store in SoHo was unaware the shop had been named in the lawsuit and did not know if the tees were still being sold. "We don't know anything about it. I hadn't heard," said the employee.

Parry says both Coulson's mom and dad were at the photo shoot in question in March 2010 and gave him permission to publish the shot.

Coulson's mom, Bethany, did not return a request for comment.

More UPDATE - Parry apparently did the shoot for Qvest.


Sunday UPDATE - statement from "Team Parry":

“In regards to the recent lawsuit against Jason Lee Parry and Urban Outfitters­.

While the outcome of the Jason Lee Parry’s lawsuit will ultimately be determined in court, I would like to address the undeniable facts about these absurd allegation­s.

-The model’s father was present for a majority of the shoot. He was shown photos while on set and sanctioned them long before they were published.

-Ford modeling agency assigned the model for Jason Lee Parry’s shoot. Ford approved the fashion story featured in Qvest magazine to be published. The photo in question was featured in the model’s portfolio on Ford’s site. All correspond­ence is documented in emails approving the shoot.

- A total of seven people were on set during the entire duration of the shoot, including three female stylists, and a female videograph­er. The upmost care was given to ensure the model was provided privacy while changing wardrobes and that absolutely no nudity of any kind was visible.

-There was absolutely no breasts or genitalia visible in the image in question. There is less skin observable in the image than could be seen in any contempora­ry bathing suit photo.

- Unbeknowns­t to Jason Lee Parry the image in question was selected by the t-shirt brand. He was also unaware of retail distributi­on of the t-shirt.

-After the photos were released the model proudly posted the images in question to her personal site.”