Mayfair wrote:C'mon you guys! You are splitting hairs because you like bands and hate advertising and big corporations. If it was an ad for something you LIKED (ie Coles microphones, Hot Doug's, pornography) and it borrowed imagery from a Nike or Coke ad, you would probably think it was funny and say things to yourself like "You go Girl!" and the like. You know you would.

I disagree.

There's a few different things about this that are objectionable.

- Consent - Nike did not ask for permission to rip off Dischord. If Hot Dougs used the cover of Goat as an ad to sell hot dogs and the Jesus Lizard was unhappy about this use, it would still be wrong. They would be forcing an association that the artist did not give consent to and was clearly unhappy about.

- Power - There's a difference between a small independent business and a major company like Nike. They are both entities that operate inside capitalism. But Hot Dougs or Electrical Audio or Hydra Head Records use financial gain as a means to an end. In this respect, they are all different from Nike in three ways -
1. Nike's primary mission is to provide the most favorable investment return to its shareholders
2. Nike engages in business practices that are unethical and significant enough in impact to fuck up people's lives
3. Nike's size means it carries considerable political weight

- Aesthetics/Politics - It's fucking gross to see Nike pimping a willfully countercultural band like Minor Threat. Minor Threat made music fueled by an anger at social injustice and a hope for change. That meant something important to the band and their audience. Nike's attempt to co-opt this says - "Those things aren't important, just the typeface and the guy sitting on the steps and the scary sound coming out of the speakers." It would be funny if it weren't so gross.

The worst part of all this - I remember whiny ex-hippies on the news bitching about the use of the song "Revolution" on a Nike ad about 20 years ago. I thought - what a bunch of whiny ex-hippies. Now I know: I was wrong.

= Justin

Justin from Queens wrote: The worst part of all this - I remember whiny ex-hippies on the news bitching about the use of the song "Revolution" on a Nike ad about 20 years ago. I thought - what a bunch of whiny ex-hippies. Now I know: I was wrong.

= Justin

...but that leads back to your first point about consent. I'm sure at least the individual who onwed the rights to that work gave approval (even if they didn'yt accually write the song). Here there was no such oppurtunity.

Brent -

You're right. There were some grumblings about "John would never have let this happen", but it was a different story for the reasons you mention. The Minor Threat bit sucks harder.

= Justin

Mayfair wrote:
C'mon you guys! You are splitting hairs because you like bands and hate advertising and big corporations.

Er...art vs. greed?

Hair-splitting?

CRAP.

Mayfair wrote:C'mon you guys! You are splitting hairs because you like bands and hate advertising and big corporations. If it was an ad for something you LIKED (ie Coles microphones, Hot Doug's, pornography) and it borrowed imagery from a Nike or Coke ad, you would probably think it was funny and say things to yourself like "You go Girl!" and the like. You know you would.

There's no hair-splitting going on. An album cover is not an advertisment.

An ad borrowing from an ad is also an entirely different kettle of fish.

Hey, what about those Old Navy ads where they have the people singing a song with the lyrics changed to be about pants or some shit, and you want to up and kill the people who came up with the idea for the ad? That would be a more accurate analogy - it's OK if they have permission and pay for the music, it would be illegal and even more disgusting if they didn't.

Champion Rabbit wrote:

Mayfair wrote:
C'mon you guys! You are splitting hairs because you like bands and hate advertising and big corporations.

Er...art vs. greed?

Hair-splitting?

CRAP.

OK, we should make one thing straight.... making money or being a business is not by definition equivalent with greed. YOU make money I bet (unless you have some sort of trust fund). You pay bills, yes? Rent/mortgage? Were those shoes on your feet free? How bout that guitar amplifier? Do you consider yourself greedy? Businesses are in business to make money. That is not an inherent bad thing. I will name a few successful business that charge money for their services and do not do it to just break even.... Audio Technica, Electrical Audio, Nike, Coke, the family owned market on your corner. I am not republican but I certainly do not see business as an evil. Yes, some businesses can act evil. Sure, Nike may be one of them. So is it Nike you all have a problem with or the practice of appropriating the image? Again, I give you the example of the Fluid adopting Coke's logo to make their own. You gotta moral problem with that?

I do not mean to defend Nike. I just find often with these type of 'moral issues' people are often purporting to want to uphold certain common morals, when really they just don't like the perpetrator. ...just as the conservatives fight against homosexual rights in this country are vailed in preserving the 'family' as they say. If they were really interested in that, they would be more active with divorce in America, dead beat dads, wife beaters, child abuse (both in the home and in the church), etc, etc. They just do not like gays. That is the beginning and the end of it. I guess it seems easier to sell when they call it looking after the family.

So anyway, that is my stretch for the day....from Nike and Minor Threat to the conservative right and homosexuality.

My brother in law (who is a stand up guy) owns a shop specializing in gear for runners, and he's told me he never reccomends Nike shoes or clothing to his customers -- he doesn't much care about their politics (as he's pointed out to me, while Nike hires Third World labor for wages that are practically slavery, nearly every major shoe and clothing manufacturer does the same thing without the same controversy), but he says their product is simply poor value for money. According to him, there are plenty of shoe companies that make better quality product and charge less for it, largely because they don't spend as much on marketing as Nike. But at the same time, he carries Nike because too many people ask for their stuff, because they've made themselves a cultural force through their advertising image.

I'm truly baffled and appalled at the "Major Threat" ad, though -- don't the guys at Nike know that anyone who would recognize the visual reference is likely to be offended by it, or at least understand by Ian McKaye and his fellow former MT members would be offended by it? Yeesh.

Mayfair wrote:Oh, one more good one....Universal Congress of:

...and Ornette Coleman:

Mayfair wrote:

Champion Rabbit wrote:

Mayfair wrote:
C'mon you guys! You are splitting hairs because you like bands and hate advertising and big corporations.

Er...art vs. greed?

Hair-splitting?

CRAP.

OK, we should make one thing straight.... making money or being a business is not by definition equivalent with greed. YOU make money I bet (unless you have some sort of trust fund). You pay bills, yes? Rent/mortgage? Were those shoes on your feet free? How bout that guitar amplifier? Do you consider yourself greedy? Businesses are in business to make money. That is not an inherent bad thing. I will name a few successful business that charge money for their services and do not do it to just break even.... Audio Technica, Electrical Audio, Nike, Coke, the family owned market on your corner. I am not republican but I certainly do not see business as an evil. Yes, some businesses can act evil. Sure, Nike may be one of them. So is it Nike you all have a problem with or the practice of appropriating the image? Again, I give you the example of the Fluid adopting Coke's logo to make their own. You gotta moral problem with that?

I do not mean to defend Nike. I just find often with these type of 'moral issues' people are often purporting to want to uphold certain common morals, when really they just don't like the perpetrator. ...just as the conservatives fight against homosexual rights in this country are vailed in preserving the 'family' as they say. If they were really interested in that, they would be more active with divorce in America, dead beat dads, wife beaters, child abuse (both in the home and in the church), etc, etc. They just do not like gays. That is the beginning and the end of it. I guess it seems easier to sell when they call it looking after the family.

So anyway, that is my stretch for the day....from Nike and Minor Threat to the conservative right and homosexuality.

You have kids.

I have kids.

Nike uses kids to make their shoes.

I get it, why don't you?

Mayfair wrote:...retarded... Sure, Nike may be one of them. So is it Nike you all have a problem with or the practice of appropriating the image? Again, I give you the example of the Fluid adopting Coke's logo to make their own. You gotta moral problem with that?

Trademark/copyright infringement is against the law.

I'm surprised the people at Nike haven't figured this out for themselves, considering the outrageous amount of money they spend preserving their own trademarks and copyrights. You'd think they'd have some respect for the trademarks/copyrights of others. Apparently not.

I do not mean to defend Nike. I just find often with these type of 'moral issues' people are often purporting to want to uphold certain common morals, when really they just don't like the perpetrator.

There is a difference between parody and marketing. A big difference.

...just as the conservatives fight against homosexual rights in this country are vailed in preserving the 'family' as they say. If they were really interested in that, they would be more active with divorce in America, dead beat dads, wife beaters, child abuse (both in the home and in the church), etc, etc. They just do not like gays. That is the beginning and the end of it. I guess it seems easier to sell when they call it looking after the family.

There's also a big difference between a metaphor and taking a shit on your keyboard.