Alright, fuck Nike and their Minor Threat ad

I'm sad.

All corporations are evil.

Here endeth the lesson.

*closes copy of No Logo*

This song was about inferior footwear.

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

-- Ned Raggett (ne...), June

Yeah yeah Ned I know I'm being a terribly naive, pendantic punk fool about this, but still....compare Nike's corporate behavior to how Ian has conducted his label and band's business.

The one weird irony is that if this were happening the other way around -- if an artist we cared for were recycling a commercial image like this, and the corporation were hopping mad -- we'd probably all be standing up for the artist's right to subvert and parody and all that other good stuff.

Yeah, I'd thought of that...that IS true....hmm....

i don't really think this is weird (for obv reasons) or ironic. there's definitely a different power dynamic going on when an artist challenges a huge, incredibly wealthy corporation than the other way around.

Sure. Because it would be parody, and not an advertisement. There's a school of thought that art and advertisment are completely separate, that ads - even creative ones - only serve a commercial purpose and don't have the same value as a creative work - even one that makes a lot of money. By that logic, the scenario you describe wouldn't be hypocritical.

I think it's probably more a matter of what if you rack up $500,000 you don't have in legal bills and then LOSE.

But they're not doing it to subvert or parody Minor Threat, they're doing it to capitalize on the implied endorsement. They're not commenting on the image, they're stealing the image. It's a question of intent, and the intent here is pretty obvious.

xposts

I remember Mark Hosler of Negativland talking about the time they got an offer to make music for a beer commercial - he said that the ad guys who approached him were young, a few years out of college, and huge Negativland fans who thought the band could use the extra cash. Negativland didn't go for it but I was struck by the way he described the agency; my brain usually imagines '50s-style grey flannel types who only study this stuff to exploit it.

I remember Mark Hosler of Negativland talking about the time they got an offer to make music for a beer commercial - he said that the ad guys who approached him were young, a few years out of college, and huge Negativland fans who thought the band could use the extra cash. Negativland didn't go for it but I was struck by the way he described the agency; my brain usually imagines '50s-style grey flannel types who only study this stuff to exploit it.

Maybe the ad guys thought this was cool.

xp!!!!

No, you're right. They're probably even younger than myself and fancy themselves as having their finger on the pulse of youth culture blah blah blah and wear expensive sunglasses and drive cool cars and wear ironic t-shirts and all that.

Thing is, they have a FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING about Minor Threat/Dischord and are deeply fooling themselves if they think their won't be any retribution from the parties involved.

Anyway, just pointing up the irony -- that's it's very difficult to claim any hard and fast and rules about which institutions can reasonably appropriate one another's public imagery. In context, we all know exactly how this one works. But if you were trying to come up with context-free guidelines that didn't have to be constantly adjudicated, you'd have some serious problems, no?

No, just bums like you or I.

on the other hand, i remember the scene in the fugazi doc where they interview the kids outside the show and we learn that punk rock is about "kicking ass and playing good music", etc.

Think of it as a "branding" issue--an issue which corporations are totally obsessed with right now--Nike shouldn't be incorporating the Dischord "brand" into its own images, etc. without permission. They would strike hard and fast at anyone who tried to do the same to them.

xpost haha

Even sadder is the tale of Bill Waterson, who did EVERYTHING in his power to insure that Calvin & Hobbes kept their integrity and did not end up on a bunch of coffee mugs and t-shirts, etc. And now that poor fucker has to see his creation pissing & praying every time he gets in a car, and he has NO legal recourse at all because they can't track down any of the bootleggers. Maybe that's for a different board though. But still: it sux pretty bad.

The better question is: should Dischord sue Nike?

Should Pepsi have sued Negativland for Dispepsi on the same grounds? They didn't.
That doesn't make Pepsi any worse or better (or Negativland for that matter.)

It does clearly seem that we are dividing that artists are allowed a certain amount of liberty to do parody/appropriation of icons, but corporations should be sued for doing the same thing, because they are huge, horrible corporations.

Nike isn't doing anything worse than what a parodying art/rock/punk band would do. They're being demonized for it only because they're Nike. If Amazon did something similar, I bet it wouldn't register a peep, as they're a "cooler" corporation and "not as evil."

I'm hardly an apologist for Nike here, and never bought a Nike product in my life (or knowingly supported them directly, that is), but we have to step back a bit here, and keep the emotions aside and answer some of these questions.

This is just a more wordy version of Nabisco's irony post way above.

I strongly disagree with this assumption.

Yeah, that's basically what I'm getting at. And really I do think mega-corps should be held to completely different standards on this sort of thing, because their appropriations aren't contributing anything to culture the way an artist's might. But trying to code that into any sort of feasible system of legal interpretation would surely but near-impossible; right now we have much clearer standards like "parody" and they're still in need of constant adjudication.

So if Little, Brown did try to sue Midwest Product over that album cover, I'd probably be on Midwest Product's side; they're just referencing an image that's common to a certain segment of our culture, and I think artists have the right to do that in the creation of a cultural artifact. And if Dischord sued Nike over this ad, I'd probably be on Dischord's side; I don't think corporations should be able to just pick up bits of created culture for the sole purpose of advertising something. I can justify that disparity within the context of culture and meaning and all that, but I can't quite imagine how you could express it in a way that's as blind and objective as actual laws are meant to be.

(xxpost)

I knew Coke's rebranding of Santa would come back to bite them on the ass.

Bullshit; a parodying art/rock/punk band does this out of parody and not for advertising purposes. The purpose of advertising it to generate money. Now you might argue that the purpose of some art is to generate money, fine; but the fact is courts have regularly sided with the rights of artists in cases like this. But corporate brand theft is not something the judicial system supports.

They're being demonized for it only because they're Nike. If Amazon did something similar, I bet it wouldn't register a peep, as they're a "cooler" corporation and "not as evil."

bullshit, people would be pissed at amazon too.

(xxpost)

As for:
"Nike isn't doing anything worse than what a parodying art/rock/punk band would do."

(Oh, an x-post calling bullshit on that claim)

Does anyone remember the details of that Tom Waits/Doritos thing? Didn't Waits win because the simply used someone whose voice kinda sounded like Waits in a commercial? Wouldn't this essentially be the same thing, legally?*

*FYI, I know shit about the law, or most other things

Exactly. In this case, it is probably Wieden + Kennedy.

It's also possible that whoever did the art, even if it was some Dischord person, never claimed copyright. Same thing that bit T&G (?) on the ass with the Buttholes, kinda.

Hell if I'm going to support Nike in doing what they did. I find it revolting personally.

But are we encouraging anything other than business as usual in IntellectualPropertyLand or are we not when we want Dischord to sue Nike? If so, there's nothing wrong with that. I just wish people would admit it, that's all.

Baahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh my ass.

I've forwarded this to Ian's pal Glen E. Friedman (I used to live down the hall from him). I'm curious to get their side of the story.

Pitchfork has a story on it, with a statement from Dischord:

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/news/05-06/23.shtml

x-post

Cheers, M@tt!

Possibly the difference for me is that I think people creating cultural artifacts have the ability to reference other cultural artifacts...
hopefully with a nice note somewhere in the indicia that says "cover design by (name of midwest products artist) based on a design by (name of little, brown artist) with apologies to Little, Brown inc."

I knew Coke's rebranding of Santa would come back to bite them on the ass.
Coke CEO STILL hasn't gotten that 6 disc CD changer he asked Santa for.

yeah, but I guess in my mind the difference is that (and not that Dischord probably thinks in this way)....from a corporate standpoint, it seems to me that Minor Threat and that cover created a "brand" or property that has a certain value, based on its cultural relevance...value both economic and otherwise, and Nike, is using something for its own purposes, without compensating the business and artist that created it.

If you're an artist that runs a record label, you're a business.

Yes, it's sad that Nike is treated the same way as Dischord in these types of disputes, assuming a dispute is/will be present. We all know Nike has a lot more money than Dischord. Big guy appropriating from little guy, etc. etc. It sucks, I know.

I just wish everyone would admit that their well intentioned disgust over this is just that: disgust... and stop short of all the "DISCHORD SHOULD SUE THOSE NIKE FUCKERS" rhetoric.

Certainly the word of mouth over this is going to help compensate Dischord somewhat! Doesn't make its use any less disgusting, but there are odd benefits for Dischord here.

I'm sure that the Estate of Andy Warhol feels similarly, despite how litigious they may or may not be.

Name of ArtistFirst North American Rights
Address of Artist(c) 2005
ZipcodeAll other rights reserved

merely adds some legal oomph (and clarification). Or so I gather.

But you'll all have to Google for "Berne Convention" and read up on it. I don't completely recall anymore.

Fair enough that this would give the cover art creator ownership, but it doubly wouldn't give Dischord any say if they weren't involved with the creation.

(Hmmm, maybe the shoddiness of the ad is a legal shield!)

Now, I suppose Mackaye could make a legal argument that since the picture doesn't actually show his face, it's meant to imply that it's actually a picture of him wearing Nikes. Maybe they would have some legal standing in the same area that artists have successfully sued political campaigns for using their music.

Sorry but AFAIK, you can't copyright a layout.

-- a real bear behind the microphone (adamr...), June 23rd, 2005 2:42 PM. (nordicskilla)

I'm an ad exec just like you
But I've got better things to do

(1) This Convention shall apply to all works which, at the moment of its coming into force, have not yet fallen into the public domain in the country of origin through the expiry of the term of protection.

That sounds suspiciously like "retroactive". Granted, IAMALANAL (I am merely a Lord, and not a lawyer); Please speak with a licensed legal professional before proceding.

just saying

so Nike says, "Well we did something we knew people would get pissed about, therefore they'll like Dischord MORE, so it's really like we're helping you out!"

My problem is that, okay, you know I work for a large magazine that is ad-driven, blah blah blah, and I'm pretty much used to our hyper-commericialized world and everything else, but what's irritating is that Ian has gone out of his way to NOT be involved with the corporate structure and their basicaly making him a part of it against his will, with his own artistic product, for that extra kick in the nuts....people that want to stay out of that world should have the option to do so*

*not saying that everybody has to or should or has to give a shit about any of this, but it's obv – whatever your opinion of Ian is – that he DOES give a shit about this kind of stuff and I think he should have the right to not have his images or even be tangentally associated with it.

xpost- oh yeah donut, I'm sure I would be pissed! I don't know, I'm not a lawyer and maybe they have some recourse. But as a designer I know that some of the complaints here are simply things that are not at all copyrightable and as someone who has been interested in IP discussions and artists like Negativland I can't suddenly flip the other way on this issue when it favors an organization I think is evil.

that's an interesting point....i guess I've never thought that much about Negativeland or any of that kind of stuff before...

...I'm actually kind of suprised how worked up I am about this. but I am, nonetheless.

What if Vans had done the ad?
-- gygax! (gygax0...)

I'm positive that Dischord would've been pissed no matter what kind of ad it was, they are nothing if not hardcore lefties...

Should we introduce a bill making it illegal to use imagery from institutions that sign an official "Someone always playing corporation games who cares they’re always changing corporation names
we just want to dance here someone stole the stage they call us irresponsible write us off the page" form?

like I said, I'm not that up on the law, and I'm not even sure that I want Ian to sue them...I just, I guess, understand why it probably make him mad, given his politics and everything...while I live squarely in the belly of the beast myself, and am quite comfortable having health care, a good living, *cough*unsupervised Internet access*cough*, and all the other perks of my job, I just kind of admire people that attempt to live by their convictions.

What makes one set of convictions better than another's?

The straight edge obv.

I didn't say that, at least I think I didn't....I mean, my paycheck comes from advertising.

You didn't directly say that.. but it sounded like you implied it when you said you wished that the Ian MacKayes of the world should be immune to having their imagery appropriated in any way.

I know by NIKE it's kinda suspect. BUT! it's for SKATEBOARDING. Something NIKE has been involved with for sometime. Buying ads, supporting contests and the scene overall...their team is top notch. HELLO GINO!!!! That being said, MINOR THREAT were skateboarders...there isnt a skateboarder that didnt LISTEN to MINOR THREAT religiously...Yes, Nike should have paid/asked for permisson....BUT THIS REALLY IS NO BIG DEAL...that image has been approprated ONE MILLION TIMES.

So instead of crying on the INTERNET, LETS GO GET COKES and go SKATE!!!

YES.

"that image has been approprated ONE MILLION TIMES"

I've never seen it be appropriated even once. This demands retribution!

are you blind?

HOW IRONIC

-- jones (victorygarden...), June 24th, 2005.

there are a hell of a lot more pressing issues in this world than this

sure, nike did a bad thing - but what do you expect from a company like them?

the simple answer is - you can't win, so its probably better channelling your energy into other avenues, right?

People working for Nike are already going to hell, this is just another coupon for the express pass.

Given the situation of many of Nike's workers, I found this all a bit offensive and ridiculous.

However, I was actually trying to evoke username:subgenius, who knows about these sorts of things...

I'm alright with Nike. But one thing that should be taken into account is this is Nike Skateboarding, I don't know how many here are familiar with it, but they go quite the lengths to maintain it's cool image. It's really more of a branch of nike that caters to the skateboard/sneaker culture, thus almost tries to shed it's corporate image, cause they make cool shoes and have good riders and whatnot. They did a Prince thing too called Purple Reign and they do this stuff all the time. They absolutely have their finger on the pulse in terms of maintaining their image, and marketting wise have done a pretty unbelievable job at it too, going from absolutely despised to completely sought after in a few years.

But stealing a Minor Threat image without even having consent? LAME.

SKATERS DOING FLIPS TO "DIRTY MIND" = AWESUM!

I hope they wear the special underwear.

as, presumably, do execs at a lot of "alternative" record labels. ad execs and music bizzers and, to a large extent, music fans are EXACTLY THE SAME PEOPLE. they're young. they're trying to be creative. sometimes they are. sometimes they fall flat on their face.

as for the ad itself, it actually WOULD have been funny if nike had created an ad that looks exactly like the photo layout on top of the pitchfork story: with the actual minor threat album cover on the left and the "major threat" homage on the right, which would make explicit what is only sort of hinted at in the actual ad: "punk-rock black boots? merely a minor threat. nikes? major threat!" i would have given the ad company credit for both humor and balls if they did that. and then, if i were dischord, i'd have sued them, because that would be clearly illegal.

the ad is it is, which references rather than copies an iconic album cover, seems to me reasonably safe from a legal standpoint in the same way that the clash's london calling album cover is reasonably safe, as someone else noted way above. but i'm not exactly a lawyer.

Well, you have to admit that Dischord's response upon asking permission would be kinda predictable, wouldn't it?

I'm most offended by the execution of zero originality, and doing it badly! Otherwise... *looks at sky*

but if you disagree, don't bitch here. call them on their bullshit. http://swoosh.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/swoosh.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php

ILM AND PITCHFORK ARE TAKING THIS WAY OUT OF CONTEXT......

CHANCE FOR KIDEES TO MEET THEIR HEROS.

NEXT UP

SUPER NIKÆ

but they're, um, advertising something. they're advertising the skate demos. which are in turn promoting nike products.

What about the font?

they should still ask permission to "reference" an image that heavily.

but i agree that this is overblown.

and i wouldn't know about michael jackson being found innocent if we all weren't having a slow news year. but that's kind of how things work, isn't it?

What about the font?

well, now you're testing my nonexistent legal skills. but, yeah, obviously they're referencing something in a very specific and obvious way.

ILM AND PITCHFORK ARE TAKING THIS WAY OUT OF CONTEXT......"

Come to think about it I never thought about this. Yeah, Really, this defenietlely is just overblown.

What's overblown about it? A huge corporation appropriates images it has no right nor permission to use for the purposes of marketing their products. I don't think lives will be lost over it, but it's certainly a justified grievance on Dischord's part. The fact that the images in question are associated with artists with convictions that are diameterically opposed to this sort've thing just adds a nice patina of irony.

In terms of people getting hot under the collar about it, while it may seem silly, juvenile, petty and meaningless to some, these images might actually mean something to certain individuals who don't like seeing them sullied in this manner.

Unfortunately the design of a font itself isn't even copyrightable! Only the name is. So for example you have different companies selling the exact same design under different names like Swiss, Helvetica (latin for swiss), Arial, etc. The use of a certain font is absolutely in no way even remotely copyrightable, nor should it be. The only possible issue would be if the Minor Threat logotype was trademarked which is very unlikely. Even so, they changed it to "Major" making it an obvious parody. I hate to sound like I'm coming to Nike's defense in all of this but I just think the outrage here is pretty overblown.

it is galling, because corporations sue at will when their properties are parodied or appropriated, but nothing stops them from doing the same thing themselves. the difference between artists and corporations: resources & power.

'oh it's just a poster, kind of a tribute, we're kind of even doing you a favor'
'yes but we hate you'

they're the same guys who offered Negativland a commission for the Miller Genuine Draft account: 'no problem dudes, we fuckin' love your stuff, we're totally trying to subvert the system with our ads'

1. You can't copyright the idea of a dude sitting on the steps resting his head on his folded arms. Copyright protects expressions, not ideas.

2. The owner of a copyright doesn't have unlimited powers to protect the copyright. For example, the owner can prevent reproduction (which isn't the case here, since it's obviously a different photograph) and the creation of derivative works (i.e., works substantially based on the copyrighted work).

The Nike ad is, debatably, a derivative work. The photograph itself is pretty close, but the layout, monochromatic color scheme, and slogan definitely seal the deal for me. There's no way the Nike ad was created without a substantial reliance on the Minor Threat image.

3. I don't think a parody defense would hold up. Fair Use is a four-element analysis, and I don't think any of the elements go Nike's way:

i. the purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is commercial or for nonprofit educational purposes;
ii. the nature of the copyrighted work;
iii. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
iv. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

So we have a (i) commercial derivative use of (ii) a published, well-known copyrighted work (iii) where the whole image is appropriated and (iv) it arguably could limit demand for shirts with the Dischord image. I don't see this qualifying as fair use. Not a lot of incisive social commentary.

However:

4. Is it clear that Dischord owns the copyright to that image? For example, if the photographer or designer who worked on that cover art was an independent contractor (i.e., non-Dischord employee) who did not assign the copyright to Dischord but rather licensed Dischord to reproduce the image on records, CDs, T-Shirts, and other crap, he or she would be perfectly free (barring a restriction in their license to Dischord) to turn around and license the image to Nike for the creation of derivative works.

All in all, I would be shocked if Nike hadn't found a way to license what they're doing. Righteous indignation blah blah blah, the whole debate is really sort of absurd.

Finally:

5. Does anyone really believe that a beer company offered to pay Negativeland to make music for a beer commercial? Have you guys seen beer commercials?

SMASH PALACE MUST DIE...or COVER CONNECTIONS LATE JUNE 2005 ....or SMASH PALACE vs. YOU KNOW WHO!

iwww.dischord.com/ images/010.jpg

Also used on many a Minor Threat T-shirt.

http://www.wweek.com/html/cover_story_070997.html

"We love you guys," Kling told Hosler over the phone after barraging him with e-mails and faxes requesting his help on the Miller campaign.

"I asked them," Hosler later told WW, "'Do you really listen to what we do? Can't you tell that we're in opposition to the world you're creating?'"

"It was depressing," Hosler says. "What we do is about tearing that world down. [Wieden & Kennedy] are the blob that we are shooting arrows into. Here they were, trying to absorb us. I was depressed that they even thought to call me."

http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/14/leslie_text.html

http://www.google.com/search?biw=826&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Wieden+%26+Kennedy+negativland

i'd assume the legal ramifications are no different than they'd be with the two elvis cover ripoffs mentioned upthread, or the hundreds of obvious cover rip-offs which have been spotlighted over the years in your cover connections threads. which is to say: no legal ramifications at all. as long as you're not actually using someone else's photograph -- you clearly need permission to do that in pretty much all commercial uses -- you're in the clear.

though i don't have a problem with using other images as a springbroad for reintrepretation, i do have to laugh at a question like "what makes one set of convictions better than another's?", the Raggett meme ridiculous as always and the ultimate cop-out and fence sitting. people unwilling to have any conviction about anything are pointless from the get go and radical subjectivity is the biggest cop out of all. to answer the question is that though Nike has every right to screw around with the Minor Threat imagery, in the end it's crass and probably effective ploy to tap in to the skateboard community's love of the band. (that said, don't get the idea that buy into any of ian mackaye's crap ideology at all, though i always support his right to be an idiot and find it questionable Nike's attempt to corrupt that naive set of beliefs by using it for its skateboard advertising -- still i prefer someone like ian than any subjectivist -- people who have a set of beliefs are always more interesting than those who have none at all).

I fail to see what's wrong with arguing from that stance. If that's copping out, then what do you want me to say? THE AD IS DISGUSTING. Well, I already said that.. several times during the thread. I have my own convictions, too. I just don't want them to corrupt my sense of being able to argue with the issues at hand here... or what's literally at stake. I figure it's pointless to repeat my opinion after a while, step back, and look at this from another angle, at the risk of refuting myself or making a misjudgement.

What exactly do you mean by the "Raggett meme" anyway? How did he enter the argument all of a sudden?

Serious rephrasing here...

I figure it's pointless to repeat my opinion after a while. And I should step back and look at this from another angle, at the risk of refuting myself or making a misjudgement.

But the London Calling sleeve was an appropriation that parodied/commented on the original Elvis sleeve. There's legal precedent for that sort of thing. The Nike ad isn't commenting on anything; it's merely stealing Dischord's intellectual property for financial purposes.

But I don't think Dischord should sue; Nike surely has deeper pockets and could spend Ian and Jeff into the ground if they wanted to. I am not sure there are actually grounds for a lawsuit anyway, unless Dischord trademarked the MT logos or the phrase "Minor Threat." Can you copyright an image of a bald guy with his head down? I know Nickelodeon trademarked its orange couch, so anything's possible...

Anyway, the bad publicity Nike's getting from this fiasco might well be equivilent to legal damages. I agree with whomever above said it's "just lame." Nike's doing one of its Major Threat events in DC, for Christ's sake: did they really think no one at Dischord would hear about it, and that the guy who won't even print Dischord or Fugazi t-shirt would approve? I can't believe no one at Nike thought this through.

But that's what makes this campaign extra-lame. No one who knows anything about Minor Threat would assume that they'd endorse a Nike-affiliated event. Almost everyone knows their lead singer as the guy who coined the term "straight edge," won't charge more than $5 or $6 for his shows, and writes songs like "Merchandise" and "Five Corporations" that explicitly attack big business practices. Who thought this would be good for street cred??

Hahaha "iconic"!

http://pitchforkmedia.com/adfiles/kungfunation_2.gif

Jack's ripping off my image! I'm suing.

I would say that this Nike ad is more of a parody and comment on the original than the London Calling cover which is just the Elvis design with a swapped-out image. You really don't see the parodic intent in taking the piss out of a smugly self-righteous band by slapping Nikes on the picture and saying essentially "we're a bigger threat than you ha ha"?

If you're talking about that stance from a strictly ILM/music standpoint, that's bullshit too.. as there's a different between saying "no music is better than another" while stating musical opinions left and right, and saying the same thing WITHOUT having musical opinions.

(Besides, I already used the ultimate Raggett meme as a joke to supplant DDB's point above... ("HEAVENS! ;-)"))

I'll admit my question was highly rhetorical and Momus-ian... but I wasn't trying to argue a greater point, nor was I trying to cause any amoral discourse just for the hell of it. I honestly want to see a Dischord fan dissect why Dischord convictions are better than Nike convictions *strictly* from the context of this issue, as i happen to SHARE those convictions *generally* speaking, but don't share them as enthusiasticly in this specific issue. I want to be schooled on the major points I'm missing out here. (Milton, Mark R., and Alex in SF in the meantime have argued the best points so far.)

-- ddb

"Supporting" the scene, or just buying a piece of it at an opportune boom-moment upon realising that there were MEGABUCKS to be made via lending some of their technology & research expertise to the more established companies?

Why are they even pushing the NIKE brand still? It didn't work first time, so they launched another range (smarter, more credibly designed, better market research or just more skater involvement?) under the Savier name and that seemed to be pretty successful. What good will this do them, and why does NIKE still matter? Do they honestly give a shit about skating? I have doubts.

a) They're using a different photograph, so there's no infringement there.
b) You can't copyright a layout.
c) It's unlikely the font is protected, so that's bang out the window too.
d) The only thing left is the Minor Threat logo as a trademark, and it's highly unlikely that's been registered.

So yes. You can argue the legal ramifications all you want, but an album cover is just as much a commercial use as advertising, and just because you think advertising shouldn't be allowed the same protections or freedoms as (commercial) art doesn't mean the law does (with certain exceptions).

My favorite bit:

In terms of people getting hot under the collar about it, while it may seem silly, juvenile, petty and meaningless to some, these images might actually mean something to certain individuals who don't like seeing them sullied in this manner.

Yes, and I'm sure the Christians don't like death metal bands talking about Satan, but so it goes, eh?

http://inet.paterson.k12.nj.us/~torch/torch/dec97/Nike.html

Maybe not in your little candy-colored world, Dan, but the image in question is legitimately iconic to a whole generation of people.

I'm wondering now about Apple's *Think Different* campagin from a few years ago, where they used the iconic black and white photos of John Lennon, Einstein, etc. Did they have to get permission from those people for those images? That seems in a simlar vein.

To me, looking at the original image, the boots are a big part of its impact, in fact probably the single most important part. They look like they're from another age. They absolutely give it a feeling that the guy in the pic (I've had the album for years but didn't know before now it was Ian in the photo) is living some other different lifestyle to the norm, like he's living in a basement on scraps, like he's living what it says in the music.

With Nike trainers on he's just another kid.

What I'm saying is that simply by putting Nike trainers on the character they've totally robbed him of all his power, his uniqueness, his ability to do things differently.

Why would anyone want to buy shoes that do that to you?

(xpost to myself)

OUR LAWYERS ARE BIGGER THAN YOUR LAWYERS HAW HAW

Although it would be fun to have one of those in every town, and he's required to go to all hardcore shows.

xp

It's kind of great how self-important people are about Minor Threat/Fugazi; it's like watching the "like calls to like" theory in motion.

The front cover of Minor Threat is just as iconic as any image associated with the Cure. Gargle on that, funboy.

BURNED
http://www.omelete.com.br/imagens/musica/artigos/michael_jackson/pepsi_acidente.jpg

Yay, ILM!

Well, being that I'm frothing at you, so be it.

I know, I know. The thing is, this world has already given me too many scrapes with the unbelievable (LOOK AT OUR ADMINISTRATION HA HA) that it's sometimes hard not to believe the utterly absurd at first glance. Which is to say that if Ian et al. wants to argue in a legal setting that the Nike ad has the potential to mislead folks into thinking Dischord's somehow cosy with the company, I won't dismiss such an argument out of hand.

In a perfect world everyone would hate Minor Threat and Dave Matthews Band equally.

Oh come on. You're really going to tell me that you noticed the small Nike logo before you noticed that it says "Major" threat rather than Minor?

(xpost: Ha! Touche.)

In other words, I SAW the ad but a lot of the relevant details upon which this thread's been arguing over didn't immediately register until I read the posts on the thread. If I didn't do that (which is not a likely scenario, honestly), God knows what I'd be thinking now.

It's a matter of proportion. If it was a record label ripping off a MT cover for a Punk Planet ad instead of Nike, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Yeah, but aren't the shoes/t-shirts/etc still made in sweatshops? That's a big part of my problem with nike.

I think the best point raised so far is Mike's; namely, the audience of people for whom the appropriated image will have any impact are likely to already be vehemently opposed to Nike. How can this possibly generate positive interest in an already hostile population?

And Dan pretty OTM, most other skateboarders I know won't go anywhere near Nike.

137. er, 138.

I'm curious what you guys think of Negativland's "U2" where a 'small' artist was appropriating from a 'big' artist not a corporation (though maybe U2 is close to being a corporation). Also, I'm interested in the hard-and-fast distinction being made between advertising (purely financial motives) and art. I think that's questionable.

All that said, I do believe in principle that big corporations, particularly ones that may have questionable environmental and/or labour records (don't know if Nike still does), should be held in check re what they can appropriate. I have no problem with artists wanting to protect themselves and/or their work from association with corporations like that.

Branding, new markets (skateboarders that wouldnt go anywhere near Nike)

Also, Nike's just dumb if they thought they could get away with this without Discord going nuts. If they're trying to appeal to skateboarding Minor Threat fans, pissing them off isn't the way to do it.

2xpost good point walter.

(hahaha walter MY FLARES ARE BOILING)

Exactly, it's ridiculous. Are album covers, book covers, posters and music videos pieces of creative art or simply advertising? Are movies and cartoons art or commercials for toys and other merchandising? How about a song that's used as a jingle or movie theme but also played on the radio?

All that said, I do believe in principle that big corporations, particularly ones that may have questionable environmental and/or labour records (don't know if Nike still does), should be held in check re what they can appropriate.

I would rather see energy focused on getting those environmental and labor problems regulated rather than creating new copyright restrictions that will affect legitimate artists.

In November 1988 Waits sued Frito-Lay Inc. and its advertising agency Tracy-Locke Inc., alleging a claim of false endorsement (under the Lanham (Federal trademark) Act. This act prohibits the use of false designations of origin, false descriptions, and false representations in the advertising and sale of goods and services).

A false endorsement claim based on the unauthorized use of a celebrity's identity is a type of false association claim, for it alleges the misuse of a trademark, i.e., a symbol or device such as a visual likeness, vocal imitation, or other uniquely distinguishing characteristic, which is likely to confuse consumers as to the plaintiff's sponsorship or approval of the product.

otm, it's the implied endorsement or at least association with the nike brand that bothers me, still...although, to be honest, I've pretty much been reacting as a fan to this whole thing - although hopefully not one of Dan's facist or impotent one! Tons of smarter people than I have made great points on this thread....but yeah the implied association thing still sticks in my craw.

I'm not so sure that a mere .01% of skaters are Minor Threat fans.

anyway why else would Nike do this if not to associate themselves with the ideals or image that Minor Threat stands for? and how, givin the shitstorm this is going to stir up amongst those that take those ideals seriously, is this not going to backfire?

Moreover, given the fact that I don't have access to lions -- let alone a goodly amount of molasses -- suggests that I wouldn't have expected that you'd read my comment involving same as a "threat" to "kill you." It only points out that in your frothing ire that you've misplaced your sense of humor and appreciation of the flatly absurd.

The law don't care shit for "iconic." Nor does the first amendment.

The ill-fated hardcore band, LIFE Sentence --- blink and you missed'em -- used the logo of Time Warner's LIFE magazine.

I wasn't referring to the individual efforts of you and I but the implication that some sort of new legislation needs to be put in place. I question the idea that any ILMers would really want to see more copyright restrictions put in place. But in terms of whatever limited energy is expended posting crap here: yes I feel that arguing in favor of public education or public broadcasting over on an ILE thread is more important and productive than lamenting the inevitable and ongoing co-opting of countercultural movements by corporate advertising.

However, one benefit of this thread is that time I've spent posting here has kept me away from the (advertising related) work I'm supposed to be doing! And yes, I take some of the more rabid anti-advertising stuff a bit personally though it's mildly amusing coming from a site that's full of music writers. What's a review (good or bad) if not an ad?

The first thing I thought when I saw the re-appropriated image was "OUCH!"--Anti-corporate band maybe be "minor threat" but we, as Nike, are MAJOR THREAT. What a huge fuck you, no?

The target audience in my post was the full 100%, ie everyone, including skaters. I was positing that 1% of everyone would be people who would recognize the image.

-- The Ghost of Dan Perry (djperr...), June 24th, 2005.

Dan, have a look at the music coverage in the back pages of something like Thrasher* magazine sometime... Minor Threat, Fugazi, Dischord & other punka's are held in HUGE amounts of reverence. Whether this is still a relevant thing to skateboarding now, or just a lingering affectation for a niche-marketed magazine is a different issue. But I assure you that to American skateboarding at least, US 80's punk/hardcore is virtually seen as the official, historical soundtrack of the era!

Even if it's just a flyer for a skate demo, it's something of a fuck-up because it suggests a crass, commercial appropriation of a culture they don't really understand. Which is why (to return to my point above) I think they would do best to remain selling NIKE shoes under a different name!!

*I prefer SLAP mag myself of US 'zines :)

x-post Because Nike's convictions are anything but. They're a bottom-line company whose goal (right or wrong) is to maximize profit at nearly any cost, even if that means jettisoning whatever select convictions they may or may not espouse at any given moment. Whereas Dischord has demonstrated time and again an allegiance to its convictions so secure that they've repeatedly *turned down* money to maintain them. That's counter-intuitive, from an economic standpoint, so obviously it's the principle of the thing that supercedes any other of Dischord’s motives.

Wait Dan, are you saying that suburban teenage boys aren't the center of the universe?

It's a radical position to take, I know.

How exactly are they "maximizing profit" by putting on this dopey little skate tour?

Its a pretty effective way of promoting their shoes and clothing. Ask Vans and DC Shoes.

you people are so fucking clueless. nike has a skate shoe team that has some of the best pros out there. you see all the people wearing dunks again? you know how that started? with gino iannuci and the fucking nike skateboard division. fucking ignoramuses.

While I'm not suggesting that Minor Threat are more prominent that Patti Smith, I do think you're grossly underestimating Minor Threat's impact/influence/popularity.

You may call me reductive if you want, but I think the term "iconic" should apply to things that a significant proportion of the population knows about.

Well, fair enough, then. I have the same position with the term "genius," which I think is thrown around with a deplorable lack of respect for its actual definition.

it all happened at the same time. but to claim that skateboarders won't touch nike branded products is absurd.

"There are approximately eight million of those, Nigel."

I know, Ned. I'm just trying to think of particularly iconic examples. Can anyone think of anything with the Nike logo in particular?

See the thing is that I know what the difference is, and everyone here knows what the difference is, and I made attempts to talk about it up top; we want to give actual pieces of art and culture the ability to reference the world at will, and we'd like advertising not to have that ability, because we don't trust that it's intended to offer us anything substantial. But see, that's some awfully hard shit to encode into intellectual property laws, and there's no very good reason we can strip Nike advertising of the same right to parody and pay homage and just generally appropriate that we want to offer to everyone else.

So maybe instead of getting mega-upset about the thing itself, our role here is just to not buy it -- it's been said above that a lot of the people who'd follow the reference here would be left with actively bad feelings about Nike as a result. There's a level on which Dischord et al should be pretty flattered by that -- their tiny camp has a meaning and brand loyalty for people that beats Nike hands down.

1% of everyone is a lot of fucking people. even if you are being generous.

-- cutty

It's not absurd.

Most people don't boycott any particular brand of anything for moral, ethical, political reasons.
But there will always be percentages (however miniscule) of markets who do. Consider me one of those people!

Once again, though, the Rancid cover merely mimics the pose....not the font, nor the color scheme nor any other elements of the original sleeve. Moreover, Rancid are not a huge corporate conglomerate but rather a seemingly like-minded outfit as Minor Threat with arguably parallel ideals. Not sure if that makes any difference to you, but it think it's worth pointing out. By comparison, the cover of ..And Out Come the Wolves is pretty damn subtle.

....so it was only kind of a minor threat, then.......

PENCILS DOWN, STUDENTS, WE HAVE A WINNER! LOCK THREAD, PLEASE!

since '88. I'm sure I can find pics if you like :-P

Am I allowed to have an opinion on this now?

-- Josh in Chicago (Vitesse9...), June 24th, 2005.

OK, and I agree with you.. but does this mean Dischord should be granted legal immunity and be untouched from icon/image appropriation, legal or not? Because that's what some people here have been seriously suggesting.

Again, nabisco in another OTM moment...

See the thing is that I know what the difference is, and everyone here knows what the difference is, and I made attempts to talk about it up top; we want to give actual pieces of art and culture the ability to reference the world at will, and we'd like advertising not to have that ability, because we don't trust that it's intended to offer us anything substantial. But see, that's some awfully hard shit to encode into intellectual property laws, and there's no very good reason we can strip Nike advertising of the same right to parody and pay homage and just generally appropriate that we want to offer to everyone else.

So maybe instead of getting mega-upset about the thing itself, our role here is just to not buy it -- it's been said above that a lot of the people who'd follow the reference here would be left with actively bad feelings about Nike as a result. There's a level on which Dischord et al should be pretty flattered by that -- their tiny camp has a meaning and brand loyalty for people that beats Nike hands down.

THANK YOU.

Can we please avoid the "you only have the right to have an opinion of X skateboarding topic if you can do X trick" thing? Do I really need to explain why this is dumb?

PENCILS DOWN, STUDENTS, WE HAVE A WINNER! LOCK THREAD, PLEASE!
Ok, yes, lock the thread now please.

Nike-clad pro skater Gino Iannucci comes with 3 pairs of Nike Skateshoes and designer board. Each pair of inter-changeable Nikes comes with own mini shoe box. By Medicom. Approx. 8", with armspan of 8".

no, we can't when people are making ignorant statements that most skateboarders would not "touch" nike products. it's just not accurate.

Yes, the line between art and advertising is one of those "I know it when I see it things" just like the line between art and non-art or the legal definition of obscenity. Drawing these lines for ourselves is one thing but if you stop and think about the issues for more than 10 seconds you realise that there are no easy-to-legislate boundaries.

From www.mp3.com

The only official album Minor Threat ever released was a mere eight songs -- but that was enough. Building on the promise and fire of the band's earlier singles, Out of Step instantly became iconic for American hardcore, not to mention for the D.C. scene, for years to come, as well as any number of bands who conflated personal and social politics. That any number of restrained...

From www.Answers.Com...

Minor Threat
Minor Threat was a short-lived hardcore punk band from Washington DC. They have been hugely influential: Critics have called them and their work "iconic", [1] (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:3hvsa93gb23a) and noted their "groundbreaking" music "has held up better than most of their contemporaries." [2]

etc.

Well, to be clearer, my original comment was "most skateboarders I know" which is me + a couple friends who are also in their late 20s. My 10 year cousin also skateboards & he doesn't worry at all about Nike. In a way it's a little sad, skateboarding for kids these days seems so far removed from the "fuck you and everyone else" attitude it used to have. I guess that's progress/commercialism/etc. On the other hand, he's 10. He has better things to worry about.
</grumbly geez i'm old>

-- loggedoutofILM (jus...), June 23rd, 2005 7:18 PM. (later)

i'm more apt to say "fuck Minor Threat" as opposed to "fuck Nike" at this point.

(xpost: "Fuck Minor Threat" is always the correct choice, no matter what.)

"Oh yeah? Well, FUCK YOU TOO, DAN!"

http://www.dischord.com/news/index.shtml

6.24.05

Many people have noticed that Nike has appropriated the Minor Threat artwork and logo for a new skateboard demo / ad campaign. To set the record straight -- Nike never contacted Dischord nor Minor Threat to obtain permission to use this imagery, nor was any permission granted. Simply put, Nike stole it and we're not happy about it. We are not yet sure what actions, if any, we can take to stop this campaign but in the meantime if you would like to direct your thoughts to Nike that may be a good place to start. Thanks to the many people who have written to Dischord express their outrage and support.

DISCHORD ISN'T LISTENING TO ME I FEEL IGNORED WAH WAH WAH yes yes.

Well, they've probably been answering questions about it all day, and haven't had a chance to get legal advice yet.

http://www.apacouncil.org/state/dc/dc_flag.jpg

Which is not to excuse Nike one iota--it's just that, legally speaking, the claim of originality of the logo could be attacked.

The three-somethings-over-two-bars image is about as copyrightable as doing an American-flag design with something other than fifty stars in the upper-left-hand corner.

Which is not to say that there's no IP issue, but that a lawyer could contest it, on the grounds that the original logo design was itself an appropriation. Piggybacking on the design's preexisting recognizability, if you will.

Plus: arguing that this image is "iconic" actually takes away from this issue of implied endorsement. If an image is truly iconic, we don't get that sense of endorsement, because the image is understood as a common referent.

Plus: I kind of get the feeling that if, I dunno, someone did a radio station ad that involved posing their spokesman in a replica of the cover of Thriller, we'd all think that was just obvious referentiality, something between homage to and parody of a cultural touchstone. And in a legalistic sense there'd be pretty much no difference between that and this Nike ad.

x-post A) The Minor Threat cover is totally iconic. I honestly don't see how anyone can dispute that, even if it's iconic to just a small number of people.

x-post B) Dischord should not be immune from image/icon appropriation, from an artistic/satiric standpoint. But art (in theory) does not exist to be sold. Ads, on the other hand, by definition, exist to sell, and yes, Dischord should be immune from appropriation for commercial purposes.

Now, if Dischord promoted a pair of sneakers called, say, "Dischord Air," with a little swoosh on them, that's be questionable. If they called them the "Nike Dischord Air," even more so. But if Ian MacKaye, artist, created something just like this and put it on display with a $100 price tag, well, that's a little different.

Basically, even though intellectual property laws and freedom of expression are not mutually exclusive, the practices of multi-national corporations are generally not excused by pleading the latter.

x-post B) Dischord should not be immune from image/icon appropriation, from an artistic/satiric/parody standpoint. But the laws supporting artistic expression allow for just that. Ads, on the other hand, by definition, exist to sell and are not covered by rules governing "artistic expression," and yes, Dischord should be immune from appropriation for commercial purposes.

Now, if Dischord promoted a pair of sneakers called, say, "Dischord Air," with a little swoosh on them, that's be questionable. If they called them the "Nike Dischord Air," even more so. But if Ian MacKaye, artist, created something just like this and put it on display with a $100 price tag, well, that's a little different.

Basically, even though intellectual property laws and freedom of expression are not mutually exclusive, the practices of multi-national corporations are generally not excused by pleading the latter.

for those keeping score at home

(good joke btw even though i had to work for it!)

It may be within his rights to sue but that doesn't mean he would have a leg to stand on legally. Suing doesn't automatically equal winning.

yes, Dischord should be immune from appropriation for commercial purposes.

Dischord only? Or anyone? So in your opinion, parody should never be allowed if the end result is a commercial product? How about songs, films, TV shows, Mad Magazine, even paintings sold in galleries? None of these should be allowed to exist if they parody well known pieces of art?

Basically, even though intellectual property laws and freedom of expression are not mutually exclusive, the practices of multi-national corporations are generally not excused by pleading the latter.

What do you mean by generally not excused? You mean you personally don't approve of it? Or the law generally doesn't rule in the corporation's favor? Because it seems to me that corporations are generally excused by the law no matter what they do.

I still see it up there.

I was responding to an above post, asking whether Dischord should be innured from this kind of thing. That's why I was specific.

As for the second part, about Nike not being "excused" based on freedom of expression laws, at least in the States I've never heard of a case of a big company (rather than an artist or individual) successfully using freedom of expression as a defense of their ad campaign. I may be wrong, though.

Dan, when you hate on Minor Threat/Fugazi, it makes Baby Jesus cry.

Of course, it could also be the tiny nails holding him onto the baby crucifix, I suppose.

just to note: anybody who finds this "preachy" or whatever has gotta be not actually reading it. Hating on Minor Threat, fine, whatever, buncha 17-year-olds trying to find an ethical path through the world who get pretty intense about it, fine, whatever, but to imagine that MacKaye's entire subsequent career = the content of the songs he wrote (which resonated, deeply, with a lot of people, not all of even most of whom are assholes, I'd like to point out) during a very brief window of his late adolescence is to let one's biases cloud one's reason. Which is a subject about which I know quite a bit. GAME RECOGNIZE GAME BAY-BAY

Of course, it could also be the tiny nails holding him onto the baby crucifix, I suppose.

-- John Justen (johnjuste...), June 25th, 2005.

straght edge x = stigmata

http://www.30underdc.com/discogs/images/dischord001a.jpg

http://www.knockoffproject.com/

Interesting website that sort of relates to this, I saw another one with the Fall/ Evlis comparison.

(Haha John, when have you ever known to not try to make the Baby Jesus cry? Am I making little cuts in Ian McKaye's heart that just bleed and bleed and never stop? Besides, I'm certain the topic of How I Can't Stand Minor Threat Or Fugazi Even A Little Bit has come up at some point in the past.)

But then, i'm a capitali$t who likes Minor Threat/hardcore and wears Nikes.

I think Nike should pay Dischord a sum of money for it's appropriation, though, for reasons already stated many times over in the thread. Or perhaps Nike could donate a sum of money to a D.C homeless charity on behalf of Dischord and scrap the ad.

http://nothingnice.com/comics/20050624.gif

Has anyone heard the Scharpling & Wurster bit where Michael Jackson changes his name to 'Mike Jackal - the King of Punk' and buys Dischord for a million dollars? Classic.

Some of you Nike apologists really argue your point poorly.

Er.

On that thread, mark s made this point: "this entire panic is about the inability to grant to music the power you're claiming it has: basically it argues that the ad is the only art form with any force"

totally OTM.

http://murphy.blogs.com/deadly_tango/2005/06/minor_threat_of.html

excellent rundown of the legal issues at hand.

http://epicurious.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/07/minorthreat.jpg

"When it came to making this muted hot sauce that was less threatening than something like Inner Beauty, 'Minor Threat' sort of rolled off the tongue," Orren said. "But being a Minor Threat fan, I knew how staunchly anti-commercial they are."

This was such a non-story.