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.

"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.