×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Photoshop Disaster Draws DMCA Notice For Boing Boing

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the need-to-fatten-that-one-a-bit dept.

Media 391

Pickens writes: "Cory Doctorow writes that Ralph Lauren issued a DMCA takedown notice after Boing Boing republished the Photoshop disaster contained in a Ralph Lauren advertisement in which a model's proportions appear to have been altered to give her an impossibly skinny body with the model's head larger than her pelvis. Doctorow says that one of the things that makes their ISP Priority Colo so awesome is that they don't automatically act on DMCA takedowns and proceeded to dare Lauren to sue. 'This is classic fair use: a reproduction "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting," etc,' writes Doctorow. 'Copyright law doesn't give you the right to threaten your critics for pointing out the problems with your offerings.' Doctorow adds that every time Lauren threatens to sue he will 'reproduce the original criticism, making damned sure that all our readers get a good, long look at it,' 'publish your spurious legal threat along with copious mockery,' and 'offer nourishing soup and sandwiches to your models.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

391 comments

kudos (4, Interesting)

hydrolyzer (1637811) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683653)

to their ISP, all the comments on that article mean something, but its the people with at least a fair amount of money behind them (such as mid-size ISP's, in fact) that can make a real difference. Not only in hilarious copyright battles such as this, but pretty much everything. Good on them for actually making a difference

I'm grateful (5, Funny)

ErikTheRed (162431) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683655)

That Boing Boing was able to get us the skinny on this.

Re:I'm grateful (5, Funny)

A. B3ttik (1344591) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683705)

Ralph Lauren's Legal Case is kinda thin.

Re:I'm grateful (1, Funny)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683795)

(bkspc) (bkspc) (bkspc)

I was going to say something about the impartiality of the judges and legislating from the bench, but I've reconsidered. I'm not touching this skeleton with a size 0 dress.

Re:I'm grateful (3, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683841)

P.S.

The U.S. Congress should ban the use of Photoshop and other digital manipulation for photos used in advertising. In fact all they really need to do is amend the "truth in advertising" laws.

Re:I'm grateful (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29684019)

In France they recently passed such a law if I'm not mistaken. Just wait a few decades for it to blow over.

Re:I'm grateful (5, Insightful)

mcsqueak (1043736) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684059)

The U.S. Congress should ban the use of Photoshop and other digital manipulation for photos used in advertising.

I don't know how easy it would be to do. You shouldn't just have a blanket banning of Photoshop, because it can be used to reproduce a lot of valid darkroom techniques, such as color adjustments, contrast, levels, dodge and burn, etc... things that are legitimate and need to be done to most photos.

It is awful the digital manipulation like this is used, however... and it just looks flat out FAKE. You can tell when someone has been over-Photoshopped because they just look "off" somehow.

Re:I'm grateful (3, Insightful)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684061)

You couldn't ban digital manipulation of photos used in advertising.

Advertising speech gets first amendment protection, albeit not as much protection as policical speech, for example. But it does get protection.

One obvious First Amendment problem that you run into is overbreadth.

There are a lot of good uses for Photoshop in advertising--like making really cool surrealistic advertising videos, for example. Such videos are not misleading and there is no legitimate interest in regulating them. Any law that would bar their production merely because they were digitally created would violate the First Amendment.

Re:I'm grateful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29684115)

Why?

Re:I'm grateful (5, Funny)

vmxeo (173325) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684009)

Ralph Lauren's response was also obviously disproportionate

Re:I'm grateful (1)

skuzzlebutt (177224) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684189)

Hideously disproportionate. Lauren's response was a pumpkin on a fencepost. Jack Skellington after lent. Comet Hyatuke.

A mushroom-shaped tantrum, one may say.

Re:I'm grateful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29683723)

That Boing Boing was able to get us the skinny on this.

You walk on a thin line when you make jokes like that.

Re:I'm grateful (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683749)

Some of us might even say that Ralph Lauren was walking a thin line between "ideal" beauty and pedophilia after seeing that awful picture.

Re:I'm grateful (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683933)

Pedophilia? No. Necrophilia, maybe. That body isn't compatible with life-as-we-know-it for very long. You have to wonder WTF the Ralph Lauren editor was thinking when they approved that photoshop. It's just bad - both artistically and technically.

Re:I'm grateful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29684045)

maybe the artist was an Ex who wanted to get back at the model!

Re:I'm grateful (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684151)

It indeed reminds me of my grandfather when he had terminal cancer. But actually, one can live with a body like that: it's called polio. Ever heard of the Goddess Bunny? [encycloped...matica.com]

Re:I'm grateful (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684219)

It's life, Jim,
but not as we know it
not as we know it
not as we know it.
It's life, Jim,
but not as we know it, Captain!

Re:I'm grateful (1)

skuzzlebutt (177224) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684221)

This is funny: go back and look at the picture, and imagine it as a Don Berg fold-up from the last page of Mad Magazine. It totally works.

Re:I'm grateful (-1, Redundant)

eggoeater (704775) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683813)

Yup, and it's also why I rarely check slashdot anymore:
Yahoo actually had this story on their front page this morning and /. is only getting around to posting it now.
(I read about it on photoshop disasters via reddit days ago.) Usually /. is ahead of the curve, but lately they've been behind it.
Sorry for the winy bitchy post. Just had to get it out of my system.

Re:I'm grateful (5, Insightful)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683897)

Have you been discussing this on Yahoo or reddit?

I don't come to slashdot for the bleeding edge news, I come for the insightful (well, sometimes) discussion of the interesting news stories that might be a day old.

Re:I'm grateful (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684037)

Usually /. is ahead of the curve, but lately they've been behind it.

Wait.. what? When was this?

This exact complaint has been going on since before 2000.

The Streisand Effect (1)

sxltrex (198448) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683913)

Ralph, I'd like you to meet Barbara...

NOT The Streisand Effect (1)

Etrias (1121031) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684201)

Okay, seriously. Not everything is the fucking Streisand Effect. In fact, this appears to be even the opposite. Streisand wanted to preserve her privacy and it backfired by drawing attention to her house and the photo. There's no way you can tell me that people talking about an advertisement isn't publicity for the brand.

We may be mocking them, but you know how the saying goes...any publicity is good publicity.

I don't know know what it is about /. but a lot of people are too quick to pull the trigger on labeling something as the Streisand Effect.

It is kind of sad to think (3, Insightful)

rimugu (701444) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683667)

It is kind of sad to think that some people will think she looks perfectly normal. Event though they have never seen someone like that, just other adds, tv, etc.

Re:It is kind of sad to think (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29683697)

Can't you just feel the thinspiration [wikipedia.org] wash over you?

Re:It is kind of sad to think (1, Offtopic)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683821)

That would have been my ideal woman when I was young. These days I like 'em a bit softer. Notice how she looks like a Barbie doll? I'm surprised Mattell hasn't sued Ralph Lauren. Maybe that's why they want to keep the picture secret?

I loved this quote: "Dude, her head's bigger than her pelvis"

There's a hooker here I called "Bighead" [slashdot.org] in one of my journals. She looks a lot like the model in the photoshopped photo, except that a woman that skinny has no shape. Actually, the model's arms and legs aren't as skinny as Snake's ("Snake" is my new neckname for her).

Re:It is kind of sad to think (0, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683993)

>>>a woman that skinny has no shape.

You'd be surprised. Although it's typical for thin women to have little cleavage, sometimes you see the rare thin woman with large breasts. They are like rare freaks of nature.

Re:It is kind of sad to think (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684097)

Skinny is one thing, but there's not enough room in her lower torso to hold a spinal column, much less a stomach, liver, kidneys and other assorted gizzards. If someone really looked like that, they'd be long dead...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against skinny (although heroin chic is kinda spooky), but this picture takes spooky to a whole other level. This is less of a "Schindlers List" and more of a "someone cut my belly open, removed all of the contents, wrapped my spinal column in pressure tape, then covered the whole thing with a tight shirt".

Re:It is kind of sad to think (0, Offtopic)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683947)

I think most models look disgusting. I don't like fat chicks, but super-crazy skinny is almost as gross. Give me an athletic chick any day of the week over that "skinny" nonsense.

Re:It is kind of sad to think (2, Funny)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684133)

Well, she looks perfectly normal for an Ethereal. I think that X-COM sould pay that advertisement company a visit and investigate a possible infiltration.

Re:It is kind of sad to think (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684171)

I don't see where the head is wider than her pelvis; it might look like that, but her pevlis is also turned about 45 degrees, making it look narrower. Not that they didn't photoshop it, but there are other tricks to be done before you even get the photo onto a computer (Myspace voodoo).

Too open for abuse... (5, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683669)

The DMCA needs to be updated to have two points in it:
1) Filing a claim that isn't supported by copyright law is fraudulent under the good faith premise of the filing process
2) No guilty intent on the part of the filer is necessary for it to be civilly or criminally actionable.

If you're some dumbass who files a report that is incompatible with the law, without knowing what the law says, no matter how right you thought you were, you should be guilty.

This is one of the few areas where my instinct says that a guilty mind should not be necessary at all to punish someone.

Re:Too open for abuse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29683799)

Updated? My word! The whole thing needs to be THROWN IN THE RUBBISH BIN!

Re:Too open for abuse... (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683851)

This is one of the few areas where my instinct says that a guilty mind should not be necessary at all to punish someone.

I wouldn't agree that a bad claim should in all cases be punishable. I would think, however, that there could be some level of due diligence required on the part of someone filing a DMCA claim. If they file an unsupported claim and it's later found that they didn't do anything to make sure they actually had standing to make the complaint (or whatever the correct legal terminology would be) that perhaps there should be some kind of punishment or liability.

There are cases where the law punishes negligence or recklessness, but it shouldn't punish understandable mistakes.

Re:Too open for abuse... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29683859)

Be careful not to over react. If these proposed fraud provisions for the DMCA are too punitive, they themselves risk being abused.

For example, a big corporation steals a digital asset, and then ties the small fish up in court; forcing the small fish to prove they didn't commit fraud in filing the DMCA. Good faith is a principle in law for a reason... don't discard it in haste.

Re:Too open for abuse... (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683865)

At least in the U.S., law is set by judicial precedent as much as by legislation. Therefore, if a copyright holder wins a lawsuit, even when it greatly exceeds the scope (or even makes a travesty) of written legislation, the suit is supported by law, because the judgment makes new law. And therefore, a duck. No, wait. And therefore, not fraudulent.

In other words, if you can convince a jury, all bets are off. Before the law, a douchebag who wins is not a douchebag.

What criticism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29683671)

Boing boing doesn't seem to have any criticism of the image on their site other than "Lookit the funny picture." They link to another site, which apparently has taken their criticism down.

Re:What criticism? (1)

Kemanorel (127835) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684235)

Actually, wouldn't "Lookit the funny picture" be a criticism in and of itself? The person making that statement about the image is implying that the image is not natural and deserves commenting on. The criticism on the other page is not relevant to Boing Boing's point of view.

wth (4, Interesting)

MorderVonAllem (931645) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683681)

I seriously can't understand how someone could even photoshop that and go 'Well, looks like my work is done here' or the marketing guy who ok'd the final product...sheesh

Re:wth (2, Interesting)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684031)

Well there was, in the BB thread, an opinion put forward that the ad (as it was presented to Photoshop Disasters and then to Boing Boing) is a hoax and the result of a photoshop perspective transformation. In that thread, the poster shows the result of the reversal of this and the model looks far more 'human'.

If you notice, the black bars down the side of the image in the story link become thicker at the bottom of the image.

Re:wth (5, Insightful)

vorpal22 (114901) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684035)

I propose that photoshop-skinnying models is probably analogous to heavily salting food: the more you do it, the more desensitized you become to it, until you reach a point where it still seems natural to you but ridiculously overdone to everyone else.

One of these days... (3, Insightful)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683687)

...these morons are going to figure out the whole Streisand Effect thing. Keep screwing yourselves, fellas.

Re:One of these days... (1)

lobiusmoop (305328) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683785)

Oh I don't know. Seems more like free advertising to me. The clothes looked pretty even if the model was modded.

model's head larger than her pelvis? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29683693)

I know when light refracts and such that the differing dimensions would only be apparent of the camera position and lens configuration.

I learned this truth on the recent NASA moon-landing hoax video, where asstronaughts actually thought they could fool the world of their billion dollar investment being far out of earth's orbit by bending light with a bubble-glass lens over the shuttle rear-porthole (directed at Planet Earth) to make it appear they were farther away than they actually were.

This photo shoot used the opposite. So, perhaps anyone want to come forward of photography credibility to state the obvious trivia: is the lense convex? :-)

Re:model's head larger than her pelvis? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29684173)

It would have to be a really fancy convex tilt lens with extreme DOF. The effect would work across a plane and her head would be thinned too I suspect.

WTF kind of ad is that? (2, Insightful)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683699)

The fact that anyone so much as had the idea to butcher the female form to that extent makes me want to raise any daughters I might have on some deserted island somewhere. That they actually went through with it... well, I'm speechless.

Re:WTF kind of ad is that? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29683791)

An ad made by the faggot-infested fashion industry.

Re:WTF kind of ad is that? (3, Insightful)

dickens (31040) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683835)

I think that if my healthy, athletic, 13yo daughter saw that picture you would get a Duane Johnson-esque eyebrow and a lifelong aversion to anything with the Ralph Lauren label.

Alot better faces out there than *cthahaha* D.J. (0)

NRAdude (166969) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684069)

Ith was my cold stare [myspace.com] that scared the television Off when Duane Johnson started prying through with his kind of advice. You'ld think a human that wore underwear and touched other men in a ring for a living would've wore a mask like the smarter ones do in Mexico *wink.

Send 'em a nastygram back. (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683711)

I'm sure there's some medical/advertising standards authority that'd like to rip them a new orifice for popularising morbid anorexia in this way.

Re:Send 'em a nastygram back. (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683751)

I'm sure there's some medical/advertising standards authority that'd like to rip them a new orifice for popularising morbid anorexia in this way.

Anorexia won't make your head bigger than your pelvis.

The real WTF is that they're making fun of people with macroencephaly!

Re:Send 'em a nastygram back. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29683831)

The real WTF is that they're making fun of people with macroencephaly!

Hey! I'm a foetus, you insensitive clod!

Re:Send 'em a nastygram back. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683905)

Unfortunately, we have nothing like the ASA in the US. And the first amendment to the Constitution says you can publish damned near anything that isn't covered by somebody else's copyright.

IANAL, question for real lawcritter (4, Insightful)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683713)

One of the BB posts, noted that falsely issuing DMCA notices might be construed as abuse of process. If any real lawyers are lurking out there, could this be used as a counter tactic? What is the likely hood that you could make such a charge stick to the plantif or their counsel?

Re:IANAL, question for real lawcritter (4, Insightful)

mpoulton (689851) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683951)

One of the BB posts, noted that falsely issuing DMCA notices might be construed as abuse of process. If any real lawyers are lurking out there, could this be used as a counter tactic? What is the likely hood that you could make such a charge stick to the plantif or their counsel?

The DMCA itself provides for penalties, both civil and criminal, for false takedown notices - it's perjury, and probably tortious interference with a business relationship. However, this case is not so clear-cut. They reproduced the ad in its entirety, unmodified. The fact that they subsequently ridiculed it may or may not really make this fair use. Most likely it does, but arguments exist both ways. Thus, there is enough law to make the takedown notice non-perjury.

I think they're on to something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29683717)

Maybe Ralph Lauren can shift their ad campaign to something more like this [bobbleheads.com]. The photoshop job just needs to be a little more cartoon-y.

Two Things ... (1)

abbynormal brain (1637419) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683735)

1. Who writes these Slashdot titles? Talks about damn catchy!
2. If your Photoshop guru has glasses thicker than a quarter inch, smells of last night's alcohol or has blood-shot eyes ... get someone else to double check his work.

Re:Two Things ... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684113)

2. If your Photoshop guru has glasses thicker than a quarter inch, smells of last night's alcohol or has blood-shot eyes ... get someone else to double check his work.

This was likely the work of a PHB, not a Photoshop artist.

What's advertising again? (1)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683773)

Of course the really funny is that is the image is *advertisement* which presumably means Ralph Lauren *pays* people to display that image.

fuck the law (3, Insightful)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683805)

blind obedience to words written by the social elite only keeps the populace oppressed.

Let me be the first to say (-1, Offtopic)

NaCh0 (6124) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683809)

I'd tap it, photoshopped or not!

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683919)

I'd tap it, photoshopped or not!

Word of warning: you break it, you bought it. And judging by the look of that pelvis, a tap would shatter it. She looks so top heavy a gust of wind would bring 'er down. I wonder when they'll get around to advertisements for Ralph Lauren hip casts? What, not chic enough?

Canadian ISPs are not bound by the US DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29683849)

Even if we discount "fair use", BoingBoing and it's ISP have enough reason to ignore a DMCA takedown notice: BoingBoing is "authored" by a Canadian, who uses a Canadian co-location ISP (in Toronto, Ontario, CANADA) to host his site. The DMCA is a law in the United States of America, and does not apply outside the borders of the USA and it's territories. Canada is definitely outside the borders of the USA.

I don't want an apology for Heroes Reborn. (2, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683901)

I was, however, surprised to find that Rob Liefeld [progressiveboink.com] was now working for Ralph Lauren.

Look at it. Body parts which were obviously mixed and matched from several different mannequins, a spine that has to travel through another dimension to reach her pelvis, and no feet. Throw in a couple belts covered with pouches and you've got every Liefeld girl ever drawn.

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29683939)

It was all too easy for a Canadian company to ignore an American law and RL has to be careful about the dilemma of limiting the distribution of their advertisements. Are they claiming that this ad should not be seen?

I work where they do a lot of these photoshoots (3, Informative)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683965)

don't work for anything fashion related, but in the same area in NYC. i see some of the models going in and out of the building and i swear in real life it's like they are auditioning for Schindler's List 2

Wait, Hold Up, Stop the Press! (1)

lbalbalba (526209) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683967)

You actually mean that this misformed picture was used in an actual published advertisement by Ralph Lauren, and is not a 'mock-up' made up by a third party to criticize the industry ? What a fuck-up by Ralph Lauren...

fake or !real (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29683995)

there are a few comments saying the photo is fake. It certainly looks fake, and no one has found a source.

Re:fake or !real (1)

lbalbalba (526209) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684125)

Well, of course the photo is fake, I mean no real living person has body dimensions like *that*. I was merely wondering if the modified photo was an actual advertisement by Ralph Lauren or not.

Terrible Photoshop work (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683973)

That's a horrible Photoshop paste job. Does that head even go with that body?

There's a wry New Yorker article [newyorker.com] about Pascal Dangin, the leading photo retoucher for the New York fashion industry. The print version of that article has before and after pictures. He's much better than whomever did that botched Ralph Lauren ad.

Dangin is much more subtle. Although he's been criticized for slimming down Madonna's arm muscles.

Re:Terrible Photoshop work (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684177)

I'd criticize him for it, too. She's got some guns for a woman her age, that's for sure. It's awesome.

So if I want to get my product noticed (1)

Viper23 (172755) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683977)

All I have to do is produce a Photoshop disaster and then DMCA request the blogosphere when they make fun of me?

SWEET!

Viral Advertising (2, Informative)

Chruisan (1040302) | more than 4 years ago | (#29683979)

I thought it was a viral ad for the sequel to Nightmare Before Christmas, Jana Skeleton Strkes Back!

There is a better way to avoid law suits (1)

$criptah (467422) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684033)

I have always considered RL to be one of the greatest American designers and I am impartial to some of his stuff. However, this law suit makes me question my beliefs. And if you want to avoid prosecution next time, take a screen shot of the desktop that shows the ad.

Cases like this make me vomit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29684049)

Which makes me look marvelous.

I'm confused. (1)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684081)

Do propel actually find such a figure attractive?

I'm asking because I'm disgusted by it more than anything. It's right smack dab in the middle of the uncanny valley in my eyes.

This is indicative of a much larger problem (1)

dvorakkeyboardrules (1652653) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684101)

For example I went onto istockphoto last year trying to find a picture of a bikini babe to use on one of my websites. It was impossible to find any pictures of a woman who was not so skinny that ribs were showing. I felt like being a troll and posting reviews on all the pictures saying "feed your models" ... but I wimped out. So, hopefully this controversy will spur ad agencies to realize that the 10 year-old boy look is not the most attractive look to every guy. There are a lot of us out there who like the look of the normal-sized adult woman.

Hey - a new Ask Slashdot idea is born! (4, Insightful)

VoxMagis (1036530) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684181)

Yes, the DMCA is stupid.

Now, can I ask WHY people buy T-Shirts, undies, etc from big designers?

I just don't see why you would buy something for $100 from a designer label when you can buy something without a name on it for $4. I mean, the amount of marketing that has to go into this must be insane! It would be one thing if the big fancy labels used legitimate, well-paid, non-sweatshop labor to make these things, but I don't see that happening.

Valid DMCA (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29684223)

Not fair use because it is the entire ad, so DMCA notice is valid. Fair use is for selected excerpts of copyrighted material. Fair use almost never protects the copying of an entire piece of copyrighted material They could have cropped. Also, Boing Boing now admits ad is fake, so there is retransmission liability for libel and business disparagement. Boing Boing is clearly in the wrong here. It appears it is trying to embarrass and disparage Ralph Lauren.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...