Ralph Lauren Admits It Needs Photoshop Help... Doesn't Say Much About DMCA Help
from the could-go-a-bit-further,-you-know... dept
Following last week's hubbub over Ralph Lauren and its lawyers sending bogus DMCA takedowns to sites who posted a Ralph Lauren ad that appeared to show an inhumanly skinny model, the company has put out a statement confessing that the ad was terrible:"For over 42 years we have built a brand based on quality and integrity. After further investigation, we have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman's body. We have addressed the problem and going forward will take every precaution to ensure that the caliber of our artwork represents our brand appropriately."That's nice and all... but it doesn't address the question of sending bogus takedown notices to both the Photoshop Disasters' webhost and Boing Boing's webhost. The fact that the company later admits that its photoshopping was done poorly actually makes the situation seem even worse -- as the company, rather than admit that at first, used a bogus legal proceeding to take down legitimate criticism -- criticism that the company itself is now admitting was perfectly legitimate.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dmca, photoshop, takedown
Companies: ralph lauren
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Caliber?
Hire an editor with half a brain?
How could any editor look at that picture and not see something wrong? Or at least get a hint to maybe look at the original?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caliber?
My guess is that the editors themselves have such a warped sense of what is normal that they themselves didn't see a problem with the picture. "Looks great! Ship it."
Is it any wonder then that an industry which foster disassociation from reality wouldn't see a problem with sending cease and desist lettters to sites who were using the picture which was exactly in line with fair use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caliber?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caliber?
That's too skinny. Girl needs a sandwitch. I mean damn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wha? Did my comprehension skills just fail me?
Artwork?
Caliber?
While I've no problem with people using technology to create artwork, I have to draw the line at photo manipulation being deemed on the same level.
To each their own, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wha? Did my comprehension skills just fail me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wha? Did my comprehension skills just fail me?
So we are in agreement that it isn't art then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wha? Did my comprehension skills just fail me?
And cheerleading isn't a sport then, right?
Regardless of one's cheerleading opinions, the point being that different people have different definitions and interpretations.
Especially when it comes to such a subjective and abstract concept as art. People can find art in quite literally anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wha? Did my comprehension skills just fail me?
No, it is not.
"Regardless of one's cheerleading opinions, the point being that different people have different definitions and interpretations."
Completely agree, and I tend towards being fairly inclusive when it comes to opinions. Sports/athletics is one of the few areas where I enjoy strong, black and white opinions (hence the above). As best as I can tell, lively debate is just about the only thing left to GET out of sports anyway, so i embrace it. There certainly isn't honest competition, so that's out. And it's not about city pride/loyalty anymore, since today's home hero is tomorrow's free agent acquisition. And it isn't about the gambling, since that's all rigged from some high school sports to the Olympics and Pro's.
So all that's left is heated debate, which is born out of over the top, highly personal opinions.
So again, no, cheerleading isn't a sport, and neither is hunting, Nascar, auto-racing, poker, or synchronized swimming.
Curling on the other hand, now THAT is a sport...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wha? Did my comprehension skills just fail me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wha? Did my comprehension skills just fail me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wha? Did my comprehension skills just fail me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wha? Did my comprehension skills just fail me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wha? Did my comprehension skills just fail me?
Maybe I should clarify. Nah, no bother.
The photo manipulator could have saved thousands of dollars by drawing a stick figure wearing a pair of jeans.
But I get your gist, in case you think otherwise. I guess I should have been more specific to the image mentioned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm curious...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm curious...
The crazy skinny ad *was indeed* created by the people at RL. It was (most likely) not parody.
That ad was then taken by others and posted with commentary that was either parody, criticism or both.
This is where the parody comes in, and it's perfectly legal to parody someone else, even if they were serious. In fact, I would imagine it somewhat odd for someone to parody a parody. Not impossible...but you start running into diminishing returns with that kind of redundancy, so I don't think you're gonna see that too often. Much more common to parody something "serious".
So yes, the reposting and parody of the RL ad was fair use, and always is.
Where it would *not* be fair use is if the bloggers reposted the image and then tried to sell their own jeans or flannel shirts using the ad to get attention. This would be brand-dilution at very least, and probably a bunch of other stuff.
But you're free to comment on and critique/parody anything pretty much and you're covered by fair use.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]