View RSS Feed

Anita Blake

oh good grief

Rate this Entry
So here it is. I am neither a fan of Woody Allen or American Apparel, but this article just killed me.

Somehow, American Apparel's lawyers thought that it was a valid defense to claim that their advertisements had "no commercial purpose". I think that advertisements by there very goddamn nature exist solely for a commercial purpose, so it's no surprise that the judge ruled against them. If it were me, I would have been so flabbergasted at such a pathetic excuse for a defense that I would have charged double what the plaintiff was asking for, just on principle. But then, I've never been to law school...

Anyway, it's funny though, because on the one hand, this is a triumph against douchebaggery on a grand scale. On the other hand, it does mean that artists are increasingly more restricted in how they use things that exist in the public realm (but not the public "domain", because that's different.) Still, overall, I can't help but think of this as a good thing, because advertising companies need to realize that if they use someone's image, the public will believe that it is an endorsement of some kind by that public figure, or at least that the person (if living) has granted permission. It's one thing on youtube, it's another thing when it's plastered on giant, expensive billboards and sitting in the windows of giant franchises.

Still, I laugh. "The advertisements have no commercial purpose, they are meant as parody." Right. Then why was the name of a clothing company on it? Stupid people.

Submit "oh good grief" to Digg Submit "oh good grief" to del.icio.us Submit "oh good grief" to StumbleUpon Submit "oh good grief" to Google

Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

Trackbacks

Total Trackbacks 0
Trackback URL: