Got a blog tip? Contact us
« Critical Mass, June | Main | Junk Foods Against Obesity »
If album covers were advertisements
Update (6/28/05): Thanks to all the negative publicity, Nike has cancelled its ad campaign and issued an apology.
After the unfortunate news spread that Nike has ripped off a Minor Threat album cover for a new ad campaign, some enterprising readers of I Love Music tried to imagine what other well-known album covers would look like if advertisers got a hold of them. There are loads of funny examples here so check 'em out.
(Thanks, Robin Edgerton and Lyle Hysen)
Posted by carrie on 06/27/2005 | Permalink
Comments
This is GREAT! Really funny...
Posted by: Jim | Jun 27, 2005 7:45:25 AM
The Doritos/Tom Waits one is funny since Ol' Tom 0wned them to the tune of 2 million dollars over them using an impersonator to do a commercial.
Ha!
Posted by: Chardman | Jun 27, 2005 5:29:23 PM
I'm a little surprised. I thought the StayFree! and/or Illegal Art folks were paid-in-full First amendment, remix culture, trademarks-and-copyrights be damned types.
Now it turns out it's okay to appropriate or "sample" logos and imagery only in certain situations, determined by how large your company is and what it is you're trying to sell.
Posted by: tew | Jun 28, 2005 1:09:16 AM
Maybe you should read the post again. No where does it call for limits to sampling in certain situations. But, sure, I hate Nike's campaign. I also think MC Hammer, Vanilla Ice, and P Diddy suck. Supporting sampling doesn't mean you have to throw all aesthetic and political judgements out the window.
Posted by: carrie | Jun 28, 2005 9:33:28 AM
Also I think there's a distinction between a big, wealthy corporation putting pressure on or litigating against some otherwise unknown individual for using their copyrighted images, sounds, et cetera -- even if said individual isn't making money off of using them -- and those same big, wealthy corporations knowingly duplicating someone else's work (I guess because they'd never get permission otherwise) to make a lot of money.
Posted by: frippy | Jun 28, 2005 1:08:04 PM
I really have to wonder if this campaign wasn't undertaken from the start with the knowledge of the "backlash" it would cause, that it was illegal and that Dischord would freak out. I have a hard time believing Nike's public statement that this was a "mistake" and that it wouldn't have been vetted by the lawyers. Look at us - we're talking about it here, and this is being repeated all over web. Difficult to fabricate that kind of viral marketing... even though the overall tone of the conversation is negative towards Nike ("those bastards, stealing punk culture in a crass... blah blah blah") - they come off great in their "apology." The amount of money they would pay in infringment damages is probably a lot less than launching a major marketing campaign - and this, honestly, has gotten a lot more attention than most any campaign they've done in recent years.
Posted by: brian | Jun 28, 2005 2:34:58 PM
Sampling for me, but not for thee, Nike!
Is it Nike's size and wealth that bothers frippy, or is it its size and wealth relative to whose art it's sampling? Or is it Nike's commercial intent? Their lack of sensitivity?
And is it just Nike's sucking that bothers carrie? Despite her comment, it seems clear that she's bothered not just by Nike's corporate policies, but also by the "unfortuante" way they "ripped off" someone else's work.
carrie seems to want some kind of aesthetic judgement as to whether someone is "sampling" or "ripping off": P. Diddy sucks, so he "rips off", while Danger Mouse is cool, so he "samples"?
I think it's an all-or-nothing kind of deal. You can't pick and choose the situations in which sampling is appropriate, unless you want to set someone (a court?) up as an arbiter of when it's "remix culture" and when it's just "ripping off".
Posted by: tew | Jun 28, 2005 3:05:15 PM
tew: There are a lot of straw men in your posts, so I may not get to them all, but here is a start.
1) What Nike does as a corporation - as opposed to a musician sampling a riff - isn't fair game because of the sharing principle. I assure you that they aggressively enforce the Nike marks and patents. If you don't lend, you can't borrow. I'd be shocked if Chuck D sued anyone for sampling a lyric. Not a legal principle, but a point worth making all the same. If you use IP law as a shield you shouldn't use it as a sword also.
2) Nike's use is not transformative, parodic, satirical or value-added in any way. It simply takes someone else's idea and slaps a logo on it. It isn't sampling so much as it is republication with a new title.
3) Carrie wasn't calling P. Diddy a copyright criminal. All of his crimes are against our collective ears. In that context, allowing aesthetic judgments to color one's choice of words doesn't seem like a big deal.
4) And while we are on aesthetics, back to Nike. While it isn't necessarily a crime for Nike to bite Minor Threat's album cover, it is surely offensive that they would try to piggyback on MT's indie cred without bothering to ask if they could hop aboard. Indie cred is based on being, well, indie. Purchasing indie cred through an ad campaign is dirty pool, and doing it by undermining a real indie is even dirtier. Again, this is an aesthetic judgment, not legal. Who says that we can't do both?
Posted by: Charles | Jun 28, 2005 4:24:43 PM
ummm...
despite anti-corporate prostletizers' proclivities to think otherwise it's highly unlikely Nike is "lying" in a letter admitting that Nike, not a company it hires to do advertizing, erred. No lawyer internal to Nike would let a letter admitting to unlawful use go out without some very serious review. much more likely is that exactly what Nike said happened actually happened. Part of the reason Nike has been so successful with the skateboarding set is that they actually do have a bunch of skaters working on their products - compare this to Puma and fixed gear bikes where the company just wants to be associated with hipsters as opposed to bring hipsters on to give some credibility to their schwag.
as for the major threat issue - of course it was gonna piss of ian, but it was also kinda cool - it's an inside joke to a very small group - and it woulda been more snarky to actually post a blue version of the s/t album than the red version I've seen comparing the two.
one last point - intellectual property and the sharing principle? the law is the law - it's not about "principles" upon which laws aren't even based - spending a little time learning the difference between copyright, trade mark and patents is well worth the effort, especially if you have any ideas worth anything other than posting on the internet.
Posted by: boutros | Jun 28, 2005 5:30:19 PM
What bothers me is that, if someone were to do with Nike trademarks what Nike has done with this album cover, Nike would more likely than not sic their copyright lawyers on that person for copyright infringement, diluting the brand, etc. And the company would certainly throw its size and wealth around to its advantage in that case.
Posted by: frippy | Jun 28, 2005 5:44:25 PM
Suprised DIDDY hasnt done it yet, he has exploited just about every angle of the music business and Hip Hop
DIDDYSUX.COM
Posted by: DIDDYSUX | Sep 10, 2005 2:13:28 AM
Dear Sir or Madam,
I'm really crazy in watching of stay advertisements and commercials. So, let me know if you have a good things, advertisements of worldwide relating with foodstuff products.
Many thanks and looking forward to hear from you.
Mr.Chan Aye Zaw
Posted by: mr.chanayezaw | Nov 10, 2008 10:20:18 PM
