Last month, Xeni blogged about the photoshop disaster that is this Ralph Lauren advertisement, in which a model's proportions appear to have been altered to give her an impossibly skinny body ("Dude, her head's bigger than her pelvis"). Naturally, Xeni reproduced the ad in question. This is classic fair use: a reproduction "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting," etc.
However, Ralph Lauren's marketing arm and its law firm don't see it that way. According to them, this is an "infringing image," and they thoughtfully took the time to send a DMCA takedown notice to our awesome ISP, Canada's Priority Colo. One of the things that makes Priority Colo so awesome is that they don't automatically act on DMCA takedowns. Instead, they pass them on to us and we talk about whether they pass the giggle-test.
This one doesn't.
So, instead of responding to their legal threat by suppressing our criticism of their marketing images, we're gonna mock them. Hence this post.
As Wendy Seltzer from the Chilling Effects project said, "Sounds like a pretty solid fair use case to me. If criticism diminishes its effectiveness, that's different from the market substitution copyright protects against. And I've rarely seen a thinner DMCA form-letter."
So, to Ralph Lauren, GreenbergTraurig, and PRL Holdings, Inc: sue and be damned. Copyright law doesn't give you the right to threaten your critics for pointing out the problems with your offerings. You should know better. And every time you threaten to sue us over stuff like this, we will:
a) Reproduce the original criticism, making damned sure that all our readers get a good, long look at it, and;
b) Publish your spurious legal threat along with copious mockery, so that it becomes highly ranked in search engines where other people you threaten can find it and take heart; and
c) Offer nourishing soup and sandwiches to your models.
Update: Looks like Photoshop Disaster's ISP caved to a similar notice.
DMCA Infringement Notification
Update:: Ralph Lauren accepts responsibility for the dodgy 'shop, but no word on its DMCA takedown.
Well done all. Congrats to both Boing Boing and your ISP.
coop
Huzzah!
Forget the soup and sandwiches, I'm pretty sure she needs corrective surgery because her spine is not so much broken, as stolen by a witchdoctor.
Did Photoshop Disasters, the blog who originally ran this, get the same notice? Did they take action?
Hi Ralph Lauren, before I didn't have an opinion of your brand and could have been converted into a paying customer.
Guess what! Now I hope your company fails. Bit strong perhaps, but every time Boing Boing republish your legal threats, there will be more and more like me.
kudos.
c) Offer nourishing soup and sandwiches to your models and your digital imaging staff.
'Cause that's a lot of Photoshop...
If that were a real and un-Photoshopped person, she should be in a hospital - not a magazine ad.
I have to say that is a really cute outfit, though.
Fight the couture powers!
Oy god. Who knew Ralph was such a delicate little flower?
This is a great, and well-deserved endorsement for your ISP too!
Good job all around!
At my college newspaper we ran an article and pic from a local art show that featured a painting or Bert and Ernie engaged in "adult acts". The Children's Television Workshop sent us a threatening letter. Our lawyers politely told them to go pound sand. That was the last we heard of it. Good for you for standing up to this ridiculous attempt at legal strongarmory.
Look how angry that girl is. Clearly, she needs a sandwich.
I mean, right now.
RIGHT
@#$%ING
NOW.
OR I'LL EAT YOUR SOUL INSTEAD.
Um. Four things:
-abuse of process
-abuse of copyright, see Online Policy Group v. Diebold, 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2004 (though since fair use is a defense, maybe not).
-perjury
-malpractice (if not legal, at least PR)
Good for your ISP.
The DMCA take down notices are like no other threat facing the freedom of speech. The ability to threaten an individual with the loss of access based solely on allegation of wrong doing is no different than disconnecting an individual's home phone line because a particular conversation was overheard and deemed objectionable to a marketing department. We have the right to offend and the right to be offended. We do not however have the right to silence criticism.
Note to Ralph Lauren: you will hear our criticism here, or at the bank. You decide.
Oh and you suck. Sue me.
Possibly the classiest STFU ever. This is the kind of thing that really makes me love you guys.
Is that photo the reflection in a funhouse mirror? NO human being has those physical proportions.
heheh - suck it ralph : )
"Reproduce the original criticism, making damned sure that all our readers get a good, long look at it, and; "
Yup, nice one!
Be careful, Boingers. What if Ralph Lauren decides to unleash their army of gene-spliced preying mantis/runway model hybrids on you?
Nicely done -- the kudos to your ISP, the giggle test, and especially the notice on the DMCA. If someone's gonna throw the DMCA around, they better learn to duck when it's thrown back at them -- and especially when it's quite well-earned. For purposes of comment and criticism, indeed.
I think it's really nice of Boing Boing to give all those bored Ralph Lauren attorneys something to do while they fritter away their retainers.
I'm so glad that Photoshop Disasters picked up on this and thank you Xeni for writing about this. You rock!
Wow, this might be the first C&D directed *at* BB that I've ever seen! How many have there been? Also, yay for having courage and convictions!
To me this picture has two major fails -- other than the obvious 'trimming to the bone' of her body, the head and arms clearly come from a picture of a radically different scale!
That ISP isn't located in the country of sucky ISPs? I'm on TekSavvy now myself, but Bell and Rogers also like money from their customers better than MAFIAA trolls in my experience -- sure they threaten to cut people off, but in the end they (almost) never do, and even then only for a few days.
I'm not sure it's a photoshop. It looks like bad panoramic distortion with wide angle camera lens. So while it's a fair use the accusation of photoshoping still could be a libel.
You mean that's fake? Does that mean I can stop purging now?
How would the DMCA take down notice even be enforceable? It's a US law. Not a Canadian law.
Disney should issue a DMCA claim to Ralph Lauren for unauthorized use of the Jack Skellington character.
I got a good, long look at it. And man, these models do need a mile long sandwich.
Well played BB and Priority Colo, feels good seeing that the big firms don't ALWAYS get what they want.
They acted so stupid it looks like they did it on purpose... Maybe they love seeing the boomerang effect in motion?
http://www.flickr.com/groups/ralphlaurenfail/
If that's their fall denim line, they've got more problems than you...
And there is no "Fair Use" in Canada, there is a somewhat similar but weaker, IMO, "Fair Dealing".
I just don't see how any of this would have played out... other than a strong arming tactic.
Well done!! Go ahead!!!
BTW, may I join the soup ans sanwiches session? ;-)
I never thought the original post could get any funnier, but put it in context of an ultra-serious legalese poorly-scanned fax and boy, yes, that's funny.
Massive props to BB staff and Priority Colo for keepin' it reasonable.
Well played, Cory! This post has really made my day.
Yep, I agree with the article. Threatening legal action is dumb on the part of RL. The models proportions are actually comical. However, she could be the sister of Giada De Laurentiis on FoodNetwork. Very similar proportions. All that said, I lurve Ralph Lauren and will NEVER stop buying his clothes and now I need to go buy that blouse.
Golf claps all around. Good job BoingBoing for holding your ground.
Ha Ha! Well done. I boycott Ralph Lauren and his crappy country club rags.
signing off... neoprene 98
Do you think the lawyer who sent the note, Ms. Roxanne Elings (bio here: http://gtlaw.com/People/GRoxanneElings) realized how weak her DMCA take down notices. I realize that her client MADE her do it, but doesn't it reflect poorly on the law firm for not pushing back on the client and telling them what people legally can and cannot do?
Paff, DMCA notices are both good and bad- here, they're obviously being misused to the n-th degree, but at the same time, I've had to send them out myself to eBay and other sites that my own artwork was being used for profit. So please don't blanket all DMCAs as horrible things- sometimes they're the only way for artists to be able to see returns of their work.
Lets see: this has been up for an hour, and already has 20+ comments, 250+ retweets, and admin knows how many page views.
It sounds like Ralph Lauren has successfully activated the Streisand effect. Good for them. I think that should earn an Achievement or Badge of some sort.
My hat's off to BB and the ISP for bringing this to my attention. Free speech on the internet's is constantly being threatened and it's good to know you guys are sticking up for your content. I can't believe I haven't seen this ad yet.....disturbing. :\
I agree that this is a terrible Photoshop job, and you're clearly in the realm of fair use to post it. But I'm really surprised that nobody has called shenanigans on this image. Considering all the layers of approval a *good* photo goes through before making it out Polo's corporate doors, I find it hard to believe this obviously awful manipulation made it through without someone calling it out. At least 50 people who are all good at their jobs would have seen this photo before it got final approval. Someone would have said something.
I'd guess this is either a manipulation by whoever uploaded it to PS Disasters in the first place, or somebody's idea of a joke. But I'd bet money that this isn't a case of Polo putting this out there believing it looked good.
Thanks Cory.
From where he is, I'm certain Anakata (http://thepiratebay.org/legal) is smiling.
advertising should use "real" images
All hail ThePirateBoingBoing.net
:)
"You should know better. And every time you threaten to sue us over stuff like this, we will:
a) Reproduce the original criticism, making damned sure that all our readers get a good, long look at it, and;
b) Publish your spurious legal threat along with copious mockery, so that it becomes highly ranked in search engines where other people you threaten can find it and take heart; and
c) Offer nourishing soup and sandwiches to your models. "
LOLOLOL
i've written longer blog post then that DMCA lololol
I'm having second thoughts about my earlier post saying that RL is dumb to have sued. It's f'ing brilliant because the controversy has RL on people's minds. People on here can say they will boycott those $498 jeans or that $198 blouse but I kinda figure you weren't going to buy them anyway. After spending a few minutes on the RL web site I'm even beginning to wonder if the pic is truly shopped because many of the models look like that. The one thing people should know (and nobody commenting seems to) is that RL is one of the only premier designers to offer women's sizes up to 22 and 3X and they show plus size models on the RL website. Others max out at a size 12 if they even get that large. Additionally, RL has clothing lines in a wide range of prices all made with the highest quality. Even some of the people on here who say they are boycotting (though they have never worn a Ralph Lauren outfit in their lives), could actually afford to buy one. Now, I need to switch windows and complete the RL checkout. My ass is going to look steamin' hot in those jeans.
I love how Exhibit A includes the first comment about her thick ankles. Fantastic.
Complete lawyer bully BS. Keep up the good fight BB!
PS> When this story first made the rounds on BB I thought it was an intentional piece of satire on the use of of Photoshop in fashion advertisements. RTFA on my part, holy crap on the part of the ad agency. Who gave the final stamp of approval on that?
Suggested Soup: Spicy Italian Sausage and Potato in a heavy cream sauce with kale. Yum!
Good for you!
I now boycott Ralph Lauren, and will not buy their suits.
Can't afford them.
Would voting this up on Digg further twist Ralph Lauren's knickers?
-- MrJM
Has anyone seen the original?? Now THAT would be an interesting find- Especially if they were placed side by side. I'm sure the original model was already scarily thin but it's be interesting to see what they thought need more thinning down.
Too bad it wouldn't fit you or anyone with bones.
dou you know what traurig means in German ? It means sad , it sums up the whole matter i guess
Get that girl a sandwich, indeed. http://gtgas.blogspot.com/
Ralph Lauren's new brand marketing model:
1. Make yourself look stupid.
2. Make yourself look stupider trying to stop people from saying you looked stupid.
3. ??????
4. FAIL.
Does boingboing still have that linking policy?
Did the link in the notice comply with boingboing's linking policy?
Heh, I wouldn't have ever seen this on BoingBoing if Ralph Lauren et al, hadn't kicked up a fuss.
Numptyheads!
Ralph Lauren... honestly, do people actually BUY that crap anymore?
I've actually purchased Ralph Lauren clothing and home products, such as their paint line, before. But I guess I'll think twice about lining the pockets of a corporation who would try to dance on my right to criticize and critique.
You've got it all wrong--this is just the granddaughter of one of Giacometti's models. The whole family's built this way.
There is no way that is 'shopped guys. Ralph Lauren is simply getting their models from planets with very small gravitational fields.
On the other hand, RL lawyers seem to come from some place very DENSE.
The real problem here is that there's zero evidence that this is a real Ralph Lauren ad, or, rather, that it's not a real ad that someone has shopped before submitting it to Photoshop Disasters. That's what the comments on PD say, and I can't find this image anywhere else. Has anyone seen it in a magazine? Most tellingly, this is the wrong proportion for a full-page magazine ad, but is otherwise in the same format as one would be.
Looking at it, I think the person has taken an 8 1/2 x 11 Ralph Lauren ad, stretched it by about a third, and then done a perspective transformation (you can see this by looking at the way the edges of the background go inward). I'm not saying that the model wasn't ludicrously retouched in the original, but this is a spoof.
So yes, if this is a real RL ad, then bully for you for standing up to them. But if you and PD have both been had, then, well, not so much.
Your methodology is not dissimilar to that of Something Awful. Might I suggest that you engage the services of the legendary Attorney At Internet Law, Leonard J. Crabs? He once ate a bathful of pinto beans to demonstrate the paternity of Timecube.
Silly, Boing Boing, making me laugh out loud at work. Very embarrassing. But honestly, this is why I love you guys. I hope heads are rolling at Ralph Lauren's legal department right now. I'm pretty sure this can't be good for them.
Way to go, B.B.!
I don't think BoingBoing is always right, but you guys nailed it here. Nice.
After a glance at the RL lawyer's bio, I am guessing that she doesn't know much about the DMCA. She is a member of the Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition (aka the fashion police) and the word "brand" pops up frequently in her list of accomplishments.
So here's what I think: RL asked their favorite lawyer to do something about the Bad Picture and, not wanting to say that she knows nothing about it, digs up a template of a DMCA letter and sends it off. Tsk-tsk....
"And I've rarely seen a thinner DMCA form-letter."
Let's not let that one sneak past.
Honestly, it's times like this when I love you guys.
Just noting that, as of this comment post, Photoshop Disasters has still not taken down the image, either. (http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/2009/09/ralph-lauren-we-are-determined-to-outdo.html)
I'm wondering, along with Quiet Noises, if they were even ever served.
Well there goes the Ralph Lauren's being ironic argument. Way to fail RL.
Interesting how BB is so willing to fight the good fight for 'fair use' and 'lawful criticism' concerning the material of others, any yet is so thin-skinned when it comes to critiques of their own postings-many of my posts, all as (hopefully) articulate and no more mean spirited than this one, have been either removed or rejected.
Just....interesting.
If your second post is, indeed, not astroturf and you're seriously considering purchasing one of the above featured garments, I will say just one thing. Money does not buy taste.
Cheers! (And don't be acting all indignantly surprised when your best buds turn you in to the What Not To Wear people.)
Doesn't the DMCA have provisions for legal remedy against those who try to use takedown notices in this way?
I personally have to say, Good for you Boing Boing! Step on our toes Ralph Lauren, we will break your freaky little spined models with our fingertips. HA!
Please, Please, Please Cite Arkell V Pressdram in your response. Just do.
geez, it would be one thing if she were 'shopped to appear more attractive - shallow to be sure, but at least they'd be going with a time tested advertising strategy. but this is, well, gross to look at. what is that, the head of a 25 year old model on the body of an anorexic 11 year old who was raised in moon gravity?
sad thing is, i've SEEN girls with bodies like that, legs as skinny as arms - and they go out of their way to 'show off' by wearing stretchy skinny jeans. gross.
is it irony when a picture like this makes ME want to go force myself to throw up?
For those asking whether it's a real RL ad, just look at the takedown request: RL's attorney says it's a real RL ad.
It's ironic to me that a company does not want someone to reproduce their advertisements.
True Story:
A friend of mine used to work directly for Ralph. They were working on an industry hommage to Raplph which was to be a lifetime achievement video shown at a big fashion awards show. All the employees worked for hours straight at a table with Ralph. Lunch time rolls around and Ralph's assistant brings in a full meal for Ralph, who calmly eats while his starving minions seethe. Ralph Lipshutz (his real name) has no shame and certainly no empathy. But he is a billionaire because he convinced me a second rate polo shirt with a pony on it was something I really needed.
I certainly agree that money doesn't buy taste. Neither does disagreeing with other posters equate to astroturfing. I buy Ralph Lauren clothing all the time and get nothing but compliments. My RL clothes will also hold up well enough to come back out of my closet 10 years from now as styles change while your Wal-Mart rags might make it through a season. You get what you pay for.
I do take issue with designers use of wisp thin models but that's an industry problem which RL is only partly guilty of, they also use plus size models. I don't wear anything approaching the minimal size of the model in the pic but even if I were huge I could buy Ralph Lauren clothes. That's the destinction that needs to be made.
I also think that in order to say that this photo is even produced by Ralph Lauren someone needs to cite where it was found. The only place I can find it is on snark sites. What mag was it originally published in? What's the name of the model? Those questions need answers before blaming RL for anything but the legal action they took.
@Chinny Racoon
Thank you very much, I now have a very good stock answer for several annoyances in my life, simply:
Very sweet indeed!
Looks like PSD have taken it down
I realize that her client MADE her do it, but doesn't it reflect poorly on the law firm for not pushing back on the client and telling them what people legally can and cannot do?
Reflect poorly on Greenberg Traurig? Surely they're going to have to try harder than by sending a measly lame DMCA Takedown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenberg_Traurig#Controversies
Good on you, for taking the time to publicize this.
In Germany, the well-known women's magazine "Brigitte" decided days ago to stop using conventional fashion models and go with "real people". The problem was that professional models were so thin (23% thinner than the population mean, apparently) that they have had to photoshop the models /thicker/ to not disgust their audience. I mean, get this.
Kudos, this is almost enough to make me not get real pissy about their new format. GRANDMA doesn't like change.
This story more than makes up for the PS disaster that I was thinking the front page at BB has become.
Xeni and the unicorn will handle them.
well done and more power to you!
I just emailed Ralph Lauren and let them know that they're wrong, both for false accusations of copyright infringement, and for that advertisement itself. I let them know that I won't be buying anymore Ralph Lauren products if they keep threatening bloggers or doctoring their models' photos to extreme levels. I often buy Ralph Lauren clothes and cologne for my husband. But if they keep this silliness up, I'm not going to be able to keep supporting them.
I love photoshop. I'm all for using it glam things up a bit. I'm fine with models with a little airbrushing instead of pimples. I'm fine with a few tweeks here and there. I expect advertisers to do a little retouching. However, that wasn't just a little cosmetic touch up. That was ridiculous. She didn't even look human anymore! Girls and women have a hard enough time with comparing their bodies to models without having to strive for an absolutely unachievable anatomical structure.
On Photoshop disasters (like this one): France is considering putting warning labels on airbrushed photos:
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1927227,00.html
According to London Times' Charles Bremner, "A parliamentarian from President Sarkozy's party has tabled a bill that would require a 'photo retouched' label on every improved picture that appears in advertising, the media or product-wrapping. Failure to signal Photoshopping or other enhancement would be punished with a 37,500€ fine." The argument being that "These pictures can lead people to believe in [fake/fatal] realities which often do not exist."
http://timescorrespondents.typepad.com/charles_bremner/2009/09/my-entry-1.html
Sic.
Dear Ralph Lauren Staff:
Perhaps this is a good opportunity to look at yourselves in the mirror and realize that you have a chance to mend yourselves. Non fact based copyright take downs is the wrong way to do it. If I may suggest, take a look at who approved that ad because someone with enough signature power sent that to print.
Whoever approved that , representing the views of the company, probably thought that the image would appeal to the intended target audience because it conveys "beauty".
It didn't.
So, take the opportunity to grow up, learn how to take criticism, after all, you are in the fashion industry.
Learn more about what your consumers identify as beautiful and design inspiring fashion for them with anatomically proportioned and unphotoshoped models that resemble a healthy human being.
Kudos to you!I'm sure that her body was fine before they used the eraser tool. It's crazy that they'd want to show an image of an altered figure (which is the norm) and then have it turn out looking disfigured. THe graphic designer probably hasn't seen an add with a real looking woman (or model even) in a long time so his eye couldn't tell how weird this picture looks.
Good for them. So many people are trying to achieve a look that no one has.
To be fair, the original version wasn't very marketable
Thanks for standing up to this. Maybe this could be the start of a soup and sandwich competition at BB? Or a "beautiful women eating food" Flickr pool? Because seriously, if Lauren wanted anime characters to model his clothes, he should have just hired some.
If this hasn't been mentioned yet. This made Hufff Post! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/emboing-boingem-and-ralph_n_311593.html
i first saw this image on photoshopdistasters.blogspot.com and after seeing this post went to chck if it wasstill there, sadly they have taken it down, this picture is disgusting though...i dont think we need models anymore we can just photoshop the clothes onto mannequins and put some facial features on them
The profile page appears to have been moved since you posted that. Here's where I found it, though it may move again:
http://gtlaw.com/People/GRoxanneElings
wonderful and thank you!
Just right. Bullseye. Dead on.
Here's Google's cached version of the original PhotoShopDisasters post..
Well done. Kudos to BB and Priority Colo. sign me, Against Big Corporations' Intimidation of Free Speech
Wow....the first thing you see is her head and Photoshop. Lots and lots of Photoshop...DMCA is supposed to deter piracy, how the heck is criticizing considered piracy? Eat some soup and sandwich maybe Ralph Lauren and his marketing and law firm will think more clearly.
One needs only look at their site to find other examples of horrible editing. They have severely dwarfed this woman's legs. http://www.ralphlauren.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3577217
http://www.ralphlauren.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3571028 has her torso shrunken and her thighs elongated. Normal human beings have torsos that are give or take a third, about as long as their legs. Her thighs are as long as her torso.
http://www.ralphlauren.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3760060 has a ginormous head and shrunken body that makes no sense whatsoever unless the model has a weird hybrid dwarfism gene.
Whether this one is real or not, they are clearly in the practice of badly proportioning photos through one method or another.
Dude I can't believe how big her wrists and elbows are. What is she thinking? She looks so damn fat. She needs long sleeves with arms like that. Now the legs, those are great - I really something new to floss with. But, her waist, seriously, she could hide behind a 2x4. It's supposed to be 36-24-36, not 34/13/22. But why is Boing Boing pushing this issue, making such a big deal about it, and letting even more girls see this horrible picture? I don't want my girls seeing it. Shame on Ralph Lauren for making this ad, and shame on BoingBoing for making it Viral. BLUR OUT HER NON EXISTANT WAIST LIKE IT WAS PORN IF YOU ARE GOING TO DISPLAY THIS TRASH!!! Please don't censor me because I criticized you, just take my advice and don't be THAT site.
Hey, am I not getting a comment posted on here because I don't agree with your perception of the model on the magazine? Or is it a technical glitch?
Here, I'll try again. I think something's funky with comments technically. Anyway, my comment was:
Fantastic! What humorless nitwits over at Ralph Lauren. I want to reproduce the picture too! It's cool. I like her. She's amazing. Look at her! Lovely. Nice pants. Patches. She's a bit haughty. Mmmmm.
Do you have her phone number?
DropWise.. huh?
Perhaps you should look at the picture with your daughters, as a lesson in the dangers of corporate-driven, hyper-stylized body image.
I imagine they are intelligent enough to understand the issue, if given the head-start of a clear explanation.
Allesandro,
There are some hiccups with the change-over. Try logging out, deleting your BB-related cookies, and logging in again.
Your girls see (or undoubtedly will see) much worse in the everyday world, mostly delivered without comments or context. Here, at least, they can also see this sort of advertisement trashed, mocked and condemned. I'd think it would be a positive for them to see both sides of the coin.
Sadly it appears to have been removed from Photoshop disasters.
"..if given the head-start of a clear explanation."
*and with the aid of the sterling example, provided above, by Ralph Lauren*
Unfortunately, it appears that the original posting at Photoshop disasters was taken down. Someone should really contact them and set them straight.
It still makes perfect sense to blur the waist (or put a big black box over it) like you would if it was an ad showing porn or worse...you could still deconstruct the photo and ad with a visible statement of how wrong it is. Why should RL get the free advertizing? IT IS FREE ADVERTISING - the rule is ANY PRESS IS GOOD PRESS. Politicians know it and so do advertisers. That's marketing 101. Sure you've made people like me mad at RL, and hopefully there is enough backlash that they lose money, but I don't think that will happen. Let’s keep blowing this thing up until it's on every news channel and blog, and see if RL's stock goes up or down. In two months most people will have forgotten this nasty ad, but they will have RL in the back of their mind as they are walking through the mall.
And sadly, the image is actually very enticing, as it is the Barbie body we grew up never getting to have. I’m just not sure I (or anyone) could fit in her (outfit).
Sadly their threats do work against some because the original post on PhotoshopDisasters.com is gone.
Whats wrong with this picture?
Woudl make a great dating site piccy.
Seriously, is there any way we can get a second opinion on this? I'd like to see another scan/photo of this original ad. Where did it run? During what period? Is it outdoors? Magazine?
I am somewhat skeptical that RL would hire agencies that screw up this bad when it comes to post processing images used for ads. I am a buyer/art director myself and I would get fired (and never work in the industry again) if I approved of such shoddy work.
So before we all give our RL merchandise to the local charities shop, could we please get a second opinion on this? In this case, in the interest of fairness to all involved (the agency, the photographer, the brand, the model herself etc) I don't think someone's iPhone photo is enough to shoot down an entire company. It's an ad. They're supposed to be run all over the place. Very visible.
Jess: I should have said, the abuse of DMCA take down notices are like no other threat facing the freedom of speech.
It's just to effing easily abused.
However, I am 100% opposed to a company having the ability (at all) to cut off someone's connection to the internet or take down free speech *without a trial*.
Interestingly enough, she's one of *less* anorexic models out there, which makes this doubly sickening: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20080914/000802ab80180a3702b020.jpg
Notice that she actually has curves (well, for a model, anyway). I still think she needs a cheeseburger.
"And sadly, the image is actually very enticing.."
Are you eff'ing insane? Nobody could look at that image and think it wasn't altered, or that the model wasn't physically deformed somehow. It isn't even remotely attractive, beyond those with a fetish for holocaust survivors.
This isn't Size Zero, it's Size Negative. Size Cuckooland.
"I’m just not sure I (or anyone) could fit in her (outfit)."
Ok, +1 for open-mindedness-in-the-face-of-overwhelming-obviousness, but *cough cough* IT'S PHOTOSHOPPED!
Missoularedhead,
Are you sure that's her? I thought it was Filipa Hamilton..
though your point still stands
I don't know if this has been said yet but I'm sure that any legal defence fund BB sets up on this or a similar issue will get crazy donations from the readership. You can count on my microdonation.
Why do law firms send "DMCA Notifications" to Canada? I'm assuming they are aware we are not actually subject to the laws of the USA, and hence have no DMCA. Perhaps so they can more easily intimidate and bully small ISPs?
Does anyone know who the model in the advertisement is? I think it might be Filippa Hamilton (who Ralph Lauren use a lot) but can't confirm. Trying to find other (non photo-shopped) photos of the model to compare.
Thanks!
I just clicked through from a tweet by matttbastard and I thought that image was a joke. Like, RL was threatening y'all over fair use based on -parody-, not criticism.
Yeesh, that thing gives me the shivers.
EXCELLENT!
Can't wait to see this on failblog.
*fist bump*
Really??? The next thing you know we are gonna have to lose a demention to be fashionable.
Two dimentional and voiceless, Im sure they will sell that as sexy someday real soon.
When did it become sexy to be a genitic mutant???
Kudos for standing up for your opinions, rights and for fighting for your freedom of speech!
@yish
Lil' Orphan Anorexic?
Serously, though, Ralph Lauren must be stopped. Sometime back, a friend was having a house repainted. They wanted the walls to match the nice, warm tannish colour in the living room, so they took a chip to the local big box hardware store. They used a scanner to see what pigment needed to be mixed to match. Suddenly, the computer spits back a copyrighted match.
Ralph Lauren Camel.
Which, of course, is pricey.
So, they ask if the paint can simply be mixed to match, and the manager of the department won't budge; copyrighted, can't do it.
They just painted all the walls off white...
Almost as painful as photoshop disasters and DMCA idiocy are spelling implosions by people typing on a computer wired to the internet...
Hooray to preaching to the choir. Does anyone here love Ralph Lauren to begin with? Is a boycott (as many have suggested) by the readers here needed?
Maybe if that picture inspires a tiny fraction of the Biggest Loser sect to drop a few pounds, then maybe we need MORE phtotshopping like this, not less.
I'm not suggesting that anorexia isn't a big problem but obesity is a frickin epidemic.
I agree with Alison Scott and with Robert -- I'd like to know where the original ad came from. Can anyone track down the citation?
Of course, Greenberg Traurig is as good as claiming that the picture *did* run as reproduced here, since they're claiming infringement. If someone had altered the ad, you'd think they'd object on other grounds. Not that there's any logic to these things.
What a poorly written letter.
PsD speaks: http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/2009/10/ralph-lauren-how-to-turn-photoshop.html
It's Brooke Shields, isn't it?
Did anyone see that the header on the second page says "Legal Assistant - Register.com"
Sloppy.
I just gave them a piece of my mind at their website feedback form.
http://www.ralphlauren.com/helpdesk/index.jsp?display=store&subdisplay=contact&ab=footer_emailus
I let them know that, in fact, I tried on a CK sport jacket just last week, but I surely would not purchase any products from them until the retract the DMCA and issue an apology.
Her neck is her center of gravity.
I'm down. Ralph Lauren blacklisted because of attempts at censorship.
/passes copies of Naomi Klein's "No Logo" around.
kudos to boing and their mighty isp.
Bravo, RL marketing team, aka all of us here.
I feel like I'm missing something here. I don't think anyone at BoingBoing is criticizing RL's products or the designer's name; rather, it's the ad that's a complete disaster. Responding to the criticism with threats of litigation only makes them vulnerable to others. Simply removing or correcting the ad image in question would be the reaction I'd expect from the House of Ralph.
As an aside, I still really like those round tortoiseshell sunglasses they offer. I keep telling myself I'll get a pair, but not until after the holidays.
What about :
d) pay your graphic designers so that they don't starve (like your models) and can focus on creating better PS disasters :)
I never liked RL ... but now I even have a more negative feeling towards them ... they either starve their models or graphic designers ... and besides a pair of jammies I really liked, i never saw anything I would by from them ...
Man, Ralph Lauren so deserved that one! With so many teenage girls suffering from anorexia, they are still trying to glorify skinny girls with these photoshopped images!
Got here from Photoshop disasters. Can't believe their's got taken down. Anyway, kudos to you guy for for doing this. Don't mind me saying this but this almost reminds me of PirateBay. Only, you guys are (clearly) on the right side of the law. ;-)
I'm hungry for a sandwich.
Just one thing. The links to pics on the RL site do show weird proportions but it could be argued that it is the result of the lens the photog used and at which height he took the pics (two steps up a ladder, kneeling, etc) hence the distortions. The stuff BB is talking about here, on this post, is shitty photoshop and crap legal action. Different thing.
-G.
+ 1 to Tom Davenport - my opinion of RL has just nose-dived.
I would never have found this news or the blog if they hadn't launched this frivolous action - it's now being tweeted and retweeted around the world...
That image is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen - seriously.
TDMJ.
Change your ISP, I know a lot of them who answer an DCMA with WTF? This is the best way to force fascistic countries (like the USA) to refrain from such methods.
This should not be a discussion about the shape of women. This should be a discussion about free speech.
Free speech is one of the most important parts of a democracy. Copyright is NOT! How can someone (the former government of the USA) pervert this principle? And did they get away with this?
I work for Polo Ralph Lauren, one should also remember all the good Ralph Lauren does such as Pink Pony and charity events.
Nothing is black or white, nor are the commentators in this field, you have probably lied, cheated or did other things that are frowned upon.
definitely agreed! :)
Your response is exactly what I wish for everyone to do in a circumstance such as this. Inspiring. Stay strong. Keep the faith.
@alison scott et all
If you read the title of the original blog it might give it away. I don't believe it's a magazine ad - it's a display stand (probably a 6 x 2 ft). Hence the reason for seeing the curl at the sides - as it'll be a free standing roller banner.
This is the kind of thing that dept stores put up at the doors and the likes, or besides their boutiques.
Might explain why you can't find it in magazines, as they are quite often separate from any magazine ad runs.
I can't say this is definate - don't get me wrong. But I used to work in the industry of making the stands, and I'd assumed that's what it was from the get go.
Sorry, don't follow what this is all about. So you guys are all into fat chicks, is that it..?
Well done Boing Biong, and Photoshop Disasters, as usual providing a welcome does of sanity to fling in the face of idiots like Ralph Lauren et al who repeatedly rape and pillage our eyes and minds with their deranged claptrap.
Keep up the good copyfight Boing Boing & Priority Colo! You guys are doing important work. Also RL = blech.
Boing Boing, this is why we love you. Please continue to be awesome.
I stand by what I said earlier.
This is a real ad (itself heavily retouched; I'm not suggesting RL are innocent victims here) which has been subsequently photoshopped, mostly by stretching and by doing a perspective transformation to bring the lower edges in, before sending to Photoshop Disasters with the intention of duping them. And now also others.
Even just reversing the perspective crop makes an enormous difference to the plausibility of the model, though I think it very likely that the hoaxer did other shopping as well.
If it's a display stand, free standing roller banner, or any similar thing, then I refer to what I said earlier -- produce another example of it being used, or a photo of this one in visible context, please.
I've returned to Photoshop to demonstrate what I mean, and the result is now on Flickr. You've been had, guys.
If I were a dangerously underweight fashion model, I'd totally take up Cory for the offer of nourishing soup and sandwiches. A meal with the BoingBoing gang sounds pretty good!
ha ha ha ha nice work guys! her head is really bigger than her pelvis!
The news is not on examiner.com, where they say they got most of the story's details wrong. But the funniest thing they wrote is this: "celebrity news review source Boing Boing"
Note to examiner.com: Cory Doctorow != Perez Hilton
The Holocaust victim look is now in!
Alison's theory does, in fact, explain why the black edges widen towards the bottom of the image -- why the entire image is a trapezoid, in fact. In Alison's re-touching, the image is rectangular.
It's not unlikely that someone would photoshop this before submitting it to Photoshop Disasters.
Anyway, that aside, this is about RL's take-down notice.
Alison,
Even with your 'proof', the model is still seriously shopped. Seriously. She isn't that thin in reality, and her head and pelvis are still way out of proportion in the picture. The only thing really affected by your transform is the feet.
And while you are certain this must mean a hoax is afoot, could the distortion you mention not just be the result of a slightly-below-eye-level photo-target?
Your earnestness is cute, though :)
There's no DCMA either. Contact your MP to make sure it stays that way. DCMA does not protect the rights of people just infringes on them.
Their takedown notice has new meaning if this is not the ad as RL produced it themselves and are being accused of doing so.
Alison's probably right. This likely began life as a real RL ad, and then was altered by whoever sent this to Photoshopdisasters. This alteration was probably by photoshop, rather than off-angle photography, as arkizzle suggests, as the submitter intended to create a ridiculous looking image, altho either is possible.
RL then foolishly attempted to combat the posting with a DMCA notice. This explains why the image looks so bad (unlikely from RL marketing) but also why a DMCA notice could be sent (the image was based on a real RL ad, albeit altered, so the lawyers figured they could claim copyright).
Needless to say, this is poor lawyering. The better option would have been to 1) ignore the issue, or 2) for a marketing person to post the original ad and point out the alteration in the version submitted to PSD. Hard for lawyers to spot good marketing responses, though.
YAY to the ISP! BOOOO to the 1980's homage to "Fashion" giant hair and head with a $500 peasant styled blouse paired with the "My daddy is rich enough for me to buy pre destroyed post Grateful Dead following patchouli soaked pants" makes me retch. Give the woman a make over and a god damn sandwich!
OK, granted I live in middle America (that area between the coasts). But, taking this ad as what it is: an advertisement - I cannot see the appeal of making your model look deformed and more starved than a third-world orphan. Who would look at this and say, "I want to look just like that?"
Oh, wait, that would be one of the 8 million Americans suffering from anorexia nervosa. Our daughters thank you, Ralph & co., for adding to the epidemic.
Veeeery good! Keep on fighting, folks!
When I first saw that cover, I honestly thought it was a hoax - that RL couldn't be so daft as to publish something so ludicrous. WRONG....
I'm sure they're working on a way to sue people who hold the actual hard copy print edition up to ridicule...
Oh, Rob Liefield, NO! Mutilating women in comics is bad enough. Doing it to real women via photoshop (and being paid for it!) is horrific.
*adds Ralph Lauren to list of brands to avoid*
This is great - RL obviously failed on QC, and should just blame "an intern" for this grotesque (as a noun, eh!). Them trying to fight their corner is just hilarity - obviously, they're also failing on QC of their lawyers, who are simply billing RL for the time spent.
Times are hard. Lawyers are down at heel, and models can't get any good treatment. And I can't stop laughing. That's starting to hurt.
Blogged here: http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2009/10/07/dear_ralph_lauren_choose_your_targets_carefully.php
@alison: Can you then explain how someone's head can be bigger then the pelvis? Or are you an insider working for RL?
[this is so good]
Here is a link from another person who also received a bogus DMCA order rom G. Roxanne Elings of Greenberg Traurig on behalf of Ralph Lauren -
http://www.owenandemma.com/ralph/ralph.html
Looks like Roxanne and Greenberg Traurig like to try and bully people.
Canada FTW.
Are moderators on boingboing in the habit of calling male commentors earnestness "cute" also? I completely agree with Alison's assessment, and I found arkizzle's summation of what she had to say as "cute" a bit "sexist".
I love this stuff, at what point did the most important part of our selves "instinct and the ingrained need to survive" swap our brains from thinking that a healthy chick was beautiful to idolizing the deathly looking twigs?
I have no sympathy for the models, the world population needs thinning...pun f'ing intended.
PS. love the idea of labeling shopped images, go france.
Jaime,
Vaguely patronising maybe, but definitely not sexist. I can't check right now, because the profiles are a little screwy with the change-over, but I've definitely described people's attitudes (about whatever) as 'cute' before.. again in a vaguely patronising way, but without referencing their gender.
Should I have made the eyes on my smiley a wink instead, or would that have been sexual harrasment?
Brokep of TPB linked you on his blog :)
http://blog.brokep.com/2009/10/06/boing-boing-ftw/
Bravo! Will be tweeting, linking, and writing about this.
That huge head just gets me.
“"And sadly, the image is actually very enticing.."
Are you eff'ing insane? Nobody could look at that image and think it wasn't altered, or that the model wasn't physically deformed somehow. It isn't even remotely attractive, beyond those with a fetish for holocaust survivors.
This isn't Size Zero, it's Size Negative. Size Cuckooland.
"I’m just not sure I could fit in her (outfit)"
Arkizzle:
I’m not insane for getting a little turned on by that skinny waist, arms and legs. Personally, the unphotoshopped photo up on the site now is much more,( how did you say it as a mod? Oh yeah,) eff’able, because who really wants to chance breaking a girl that is that skinny. But, the unnaturally skinny waist is not new, nor is the male attraction to it.
Women had to wear corsets to make themselves ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE THAT (or worse) by slowly shifting where their internal organ sit over time. Women were doing this centuries before the holocaust. I’m certainly not advocating this unhealthy practice, or defending RL from being very irresponsible, I am just saying that as a man, the photoshopped image would be enticing, if it weren’t so obviously fake (hence why I suggested it be blurred in the first place.) And I did get my joke through, even if I hid it a little too well, (just remove the parenthetical additions to my statement about fitting in her).
so, does this apply to students who have to cut out pictures and paste them on poster board for class projects on say...I don't know, anorexia? bulimia?
This is mad - whoever did the retouching of the photo needs glasses in a big way. the shape of the model is laughable. Has anyone ever seen any human being that looked like that? Obviously those fashion folk at RL have lost perspective if they think they are clothing humans that don't exist in real life - it is actually kind of offensive if they assume we won't notice
Interesting page showing how corsets work and the damage they cause....not a happy thing for women to do. Just search corset on google and you will see things far worse and sicker than the RL picture (still not defending those basterds).
http://haabet.dk/patent/The_corset/index.html
soup and sandwiches, nice
This gives me a very clear idea of how dirty, low, prepotent and cheap Ralph Lauren and its b**ches really are. Thanks for letting us know.
OK, I'll play along. My result is crude, but more normal looking than the original:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eris404/3989826431/
Oh, but you've made a less defensible assumptions about your fellow commenter, din't you? You know nothing about me, but you've told all Boingers where you shop and have practically provided advertising for that producer in two consecutive posts. Did I state where I shop in my post? No. You jumped a conclusion about where I MUST shop because I find the clothing in the photo to be hideous. The shirt and jeans in the featured PS disaster ARE hideous. Please re-read your second post. The tone is that of a sales pitch.
You DO generally get what you pay for and that's why I don't buy RL. Overpriced and not particularly well made. There are better values to be had. Especially if you dollar-cost average your purchases. A smart consumer doesn't overspend on trendy crap meant to only last one season. A smart consumer also doesn't underspend on foundational wardrobe pieces with classic styling that will still be fashionable in several years time.
A quick image search reveals this:
http://www.blogherbaldiet.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/ralph-lauren.jpg
Sure looks like Filippa Hamilton-Palmstierna in the contentious photoshop disaster at the top of the page.
I'm confused about why this is a DMCA issue - this seems to me like a garden variety copyright infringement allegation. The DMCA is about circumventing DRM, which does not seem to be the case here. As I understand it, the DMCA does not have any provision for fair use - this is part of the reason copyright holders prefer to issue takedown notices under DMCA, but this only seems like a plausible strategy if the allegation involves de-encryption. What am I missing here? Has DMCA simply become a Kleenex term for copyright violation?
Without photshop what would women strive for?
I think the real solution here is for the lovely Xeni to model for RL and show the world what real woman look like. She could even donate her modeling fee to the EFF legal defense fund to continue the fight.
IronMan,
"In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
Here's a link to the model-Hilary Rhoda-long-time Ralph Lauren model. I think she's a bit (a bit) healthier than that photoshopped image conveys--
http://www.listown.com/images/celebrity/200902/Hilary-Rhoda-20090223041802.jpg
btw-who knows if the linked images is photoshopped as well...sigh
Sorry DropWise, I still don't get it. I can't even begin to see the model (as pictured, above) as anything other than distorted and disfigured. You have your own opinion and sexual-cues though, so I can't argue with you.
And, IMO, psychological corsets (based on hyper-stylized societal norms) are only marginally less dangerous than the physical ones.
This is a GREAT example why Marketing people need to STAY OUT OF THE DESIGNER's BUSINESS!!!! This is the kind of disaster that happens when the graphic artist is enslaved to the ego-ridden overpaid moronic marketing people in this industry. (I worked for Calvin Klein as a graphic artist - it was HELL!!!) If a company wants to wise up - cut the marketing budget to pay for advertising NOT overdressed insane otherwise unemployable people who create crap like this. Seriously - anyone with any sense and who understand the basic laws of physics and actually know HOW to use photoshop responsibly would never do this!
Ahhhh -spleen much vented!
@ IronEdithKidd - sorry your "proof" just proves that BOTH images have been manipulated. If you look at her arms they are completely out of proportion to her body in either photo. In the one above, her upper arms are much longer than the photo you linked to. The photo you linked to shows her arms only being long enough to reach her hips - the photo above they would well reach to halfway down her thighs. What's so sad about these manipulations is they are distorting the figure of an undeniably lovely woman and making her look much worse.
As a graphic artist I can tell you 100% this is the work of micromanaging ego ridden vain marketing people NOT the photoshop artist!! I've worked for Calvin Klein and the horror show that goes on in the graphics departments in the fashion industry would make coal miners thrilled with their jobs. It's an ugly ugly ugly business.
Check out the disparity between the DCMA letter's addresse (Priority Colo Legal Department) and the letter's second page head (Legal Asst. - Register.com). Nice form letter Ms. Attorney....
The poor girl looks like a Bratz doll. The 'model waif' look has gotten too far out of hand. Please, give them food.
Where is the DCMA reference in the supposed DCMA letter? I also like the statement on page 2, stating that the legality of the letter may be questionable.
Shame on you Ralph Lauren. You're the reason why my college athlete daughter considers herself "more to love" at 5'9.5" and 135 lbs. Your reckless misuse of the power you have to affect the way women feel about their bodies, and themselves, disgusts me. I think we all should sue you.
Biggest news there, I think is that there's an ISP that doesn't auto-remove for a DMCA.
Even knowing nothing else about "Priority Colo", they will now be the first company who's prices I check out, next time I need more servers.
Here's a copy/paste of the response they sent me to my email (minus the contact info they gave me if I still wanted to discuss it further)
"Thank you for contacting RalphLauren.com customer assistance.
We apologize for any inconvenience and concern that this situation has caused you, and we want to assure you that our main goal at Ralph Lauren is to promote a positive image to our customers. We truly appreciate that you have taken the time to bring this matter to our attention and have forwarded your concerns to Upper Management at our Contact Center.
We thank you for your past support of Ralph Lauren and do hope that we can resolve this situation so that you will consider continuing as a Ralph Lauren customer in the future."
Nice to see a quick response and that they're taking us seriously. I hope to see real action taken on it,too.
Jesus, someone give that girl a brownie. Even before she was photoshopped! Ew.
hahahaha...
very good.
i love that posture.
RL = freak show.
Keep it up...well done
I see the news has now spread to the front page of another bigg social media site.
My girlfriend was the first person I'd ever heard express the idea that free speech (or radical self-expression, as Burners like to call it) was not only about the right to offend, but the right to be offended, and that being offended by others' expression was just as important as being able to express yourself in ways that offend others.
Now you're the second.
Rock on.
Yeah, sorry, but if they're thinking the Canadian ISP has to followthier DMCA laws, they're wrong. Keep the image up - or better, put it into a satire or parody, then you're in the clear!
Streisand effect works. I found you after it made the news :)
Came to see what the fuss was about. Source = techdirt.com
Bloody DCMA is a pain in the rear.
Pretty sloppy legal drafting - the attorney left the wrong header on page 2 of the takedown letter. That's why they teach associates not to copy old documents and edit them, but rather to create shiny new documents. Otherwise you embarrass yourself and your firm with your crappy cut-and-paste lawyering.
The model, Filippa Hamilton-Palmstierna, really does have hips!
http://www.bwgreyscale.com/edits07/poolsideclassics_bwccddfhp01.JPG
May I add another reponse to your list of actions you will take in the future? It appears that the person who signed the DMCA Infringement notice is a lawyer who had to affirm "under penalty of perjury" and upon a "good faith belief" that use of the image was not lawful. As a lawyer, we are bound by an ethical code not to misrepresent the truth. Put an equal amount of "hurt" and nuisance back upon that bad lawyer Elings as she put on you. Please see my addition of "d)" below:
a) Reproduce the original criticism, making damned sure that all our readers get a good, long look at it, and;
b) Publish your spurious legal threat along with copious mockery, so that it becomes highly ranked in search engines where other people you threaten can find it and take heart; and
c) Offer nourishing soup and sandwiches to your models.
d) File an ethical complaint with the State Bar against the lawyer who signed the frivolous DCMA letter for false pleading and misrepresentation. (Believe me, it will hurt!)
We're here to applaud your efforts, but ask that you reconsider your use of the phrase:
"Offer nourishing soup and sandwiches to your models."
I was absolutely impressed by your gusto and confidence... until I read that sentence. I still shared your piece with RRW's ALLIES™ because I felt it was important, but being a body image activist AND an eating disorders awareness advocate means I must spread the word on the seriousness of eating disorders. Merely suggesting that someone "go eat a sandwich" is one of the most overused, counterproductive statements out there in regards to models and the issue of their weight. ED's are very serious and the issue is so VERY much more complicated than the likes of suggesting to feed models.
Thank you! Otherwise, keep up the great work.
REVOLUTION OF REAL WOMEN.com™ (goes live 10.30.09!)
I love this ad because it's so awesomely stupid. You have to wonder who looked at this photoshop job and thought, "yeah... yeah that looks good.". Someone got paid to produce this. I seriously hope they've been fired since then.
I won't buy RL brands commonly available to plebes like me because the quality just isn't there for me (the Black and Purple labels are a completely different matter). Looks like the quality of Lauren's legal work has sunk to the same level. Maybe their lawyers have a sweatshop in China too ...
Absolutely, ricdaw--that "good faith" bit is a transparent lie.
Kudos!!
(wait, is RL going to sue me over this comment?)
Arkizzle and Dario -- no, I have absolutely no idea why the original picture was a bobblehead (and having seen other RL advertising images, I can well believe it was -- a quick web search turns up this creature, for example). I just think someone decided to improve on it before submitting it to PD, and as such it's a bit of a non-event.
I'm not normally noted for earnestness, and I'm not an RL insider -- I'm a reasonably well-known SF fan. I don't know any of the boingboingers well, though Cory cuddled one of my Hugos once. I am very interested in the uses of Photoshop in advertising.
(I hope I haven't just left this same comment three times... Oy!)
For fun, look up:
Greenberg Traurig (the law firm on the DMCA Infringement notification)
Jack Abramoff
Guam.
Here's a start: http://www.abajournal.com/news/greenberg_traurig_indicted_in_guam
Greenberg Traurig Indicted in Guam
Posted Mar 12, 2008, 03:41 pm CDT
By Martha Neil
"Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the firm for which he formerly worked have been indicted in Guam for allegedly making improper billings to the U.S. territory's superior court."
The notice states, "under penalty of perjury...information in this notice to be accurate."
It's obvious to anybody (even lawyers and judges), that the fair use clause applies here. Can you push back and charge them with perjury? If they assumed responsibility for their actions, they may think twice before trying to intimidate smaller companies and indivuals without deep pockets.
Just a thought,
Eugene
P.S. I hope I don't get into trouble for quoting the notice.
Just send an appropriate counter-notice to your ISP that the picture is not, in fact, a copyright infringement. If Ralph Lauren doesn't sue in 14 days (which they won't) your ISP will be legally obliged to put it back up. You may also claim damages if the take-down notice was a fraud like this one.
I just noticed the the Lawyer's page on the Greenberg Traurig site has been taken down /file not found. either she got fired, or got so much hassling for an obviously inept DCMA letter Somehow I think that BB Readers may have been involved WTG! (BTW Whats Astroturf in the context of posting?"
Alison, I think it looks a lot like a photograph of a point-of-sale poster. Which explains the perspective distortion and vignetting.
This conversation is continued in the newer thread, here.
Ralph Lauren has just lost a customer, me.
I have to think that this is not the work of RL (too insanely thin), and that RL's lawyers sent the letter just to pull the bad press. But it shows that our tolerance for photo-chicanery is diminishing, and that's all good.
Just from Ralph Lauren's heinous reaction to this piece of art, I will never purchase one of their products again.
Obviously the Ralph Lauren label has an inferiority complex and who wants to be associated with a corporate inferiority complex?
hahaha...respond to them that steve madden could sue them for knocking off their ad campaign from a few years back... http://www.seventeen.com.my/userfiles/image/Steve%20Madden%20ad.JPG
FYI: This picture was taken in Japan, Tokyo, Odaiba, in a maul called Venus Fort, in front of the RL Flag Store, and actually few months old.
Does that make any difference on the suing thing ? ^_^
I've long enjoyed BB, but I've never been prouder of you all and your stand for free expression. Keep the faith. And please feed the models.
How about that. Just got added as a cool bookmark. Death-camp thin model mockery, Carl Sagan at the top, sci-fi vids along the side? I am ashamed of my friends for not telling me about this site.
Tapping into that mighty Pedophile-at-Auschwitz/Gumby-Fetish dollar.
I must say, I have been a Ralph Lauren devotee in the past...from perfumes to sweaters. But as the mother of a teenage girl, I've just reached my limit. Mr. Ralph Lifshitz, why?
Well done!
Thank you for bringing this to attention, this is really disgusting, Ralph Lauren should be ashamed of itself. Why, why would they do this? Even in their private lives, this rich dogs have girlfriends that are toothpick thin. The eating sandwiches part was priceless, and it has nothing to do with eating disorders and one commenter proposed, these girls just want to make money being models, it's a money thing, not a starvation thing or hating their bodies as people like to claim. If models only got paid $10 bucks and hour they wouldn't even be a part of this madness. Would you say that people in poor countries who sell their kidneys have a 'kidney disorder' and must hate their kidneys? Foolish. These girls just want to be famous models and pay their bills, but these rich guys make it so hard.
Can I just say I love you guys. Not even for the fact of pointing out the awful photo but for standing up to someone who thought for sure they could bully anyone who didn't do what they want. Keep up the good work!
Should have told Lauren to shove their DMCA notice up their arses but then realized it obviously wouldn't fit with their heads already in there...
Boycott Ralph Lauren! This is a shameful legal threat.
FANTASTIC!!!
I'm done buying Ralph Lauren
it's a money thing, not a starvation thing or hating their bodies as people like to claim.
Anorexia wasn't invented by Karen Carpenter and Anna Wintour. It's been around for centuries, if not millennia. In the middle ages, it was a form of religious mortification. And BDD certainly isn't being 'practiced' for financial gain.
Congrats on making the yahoo front page! http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/image-of-ultra-thin-ralph-lauren-model-sparks-outrage-521480/
Well put, Boing Boing!! I don't think I'd ever been to your site, but news of this outrage brought be and I'm going to promote you to anyone I talk to, especially about freedom of speech and the insanity of thin-skinned idiots who think their published works are too grand too grand to be mocked. Unfortunately negative publicity will probably still benefit them, but kudos to you for standing up to them!
GO BOING BOING! You tell 'em!
Back off RL. I'm disappointed in you by this news, Ralph. You really should know better. I'm surprised :-(
@Johan: As it happens, I'm neither a liar nor a cheat, and accusing me of being one does not make me want to keep buying products from your company.
Half of my wardrobe is Ralph Lauren. After seeing this ad and the stupid threat of legal action, I am never buying another piece of Ralph Lauren clothing. Ever.
EXCELLENT JOB GUYS....KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
I feel sorry for this poor model. But worse are the beauty standars that these companies are stablishing inspite to the psychological damage to our kids and the suffering they cause!!! In Spain, the Government stablished a law prohibiting models under a certain body mass standars to be used in publicity!!! All countries should do the same! G.
Kudos to you and your ISP. Lauren needs to develop thicker skin if he is going to be social irresponsible. OR here's a novel idea --- develop respect and responsibility to society and stop trying to manipulate us in order to generate sales. It's wonderful that you stuck by your principle and not be bullied.
I'm sure you work for RL and don't want to lose your job if less and less people buy their products due to this critics. And yes lot of people have RL in their mind IN A NEGATIVE WAY after seeing this ridiculous picture and the fuzz about it.
Good for you for keeping with your convictions. I officially
Well played Canada's Priority Colo. Well played!
Great article. I think I might use the picture as a Halloween decoration ha ha. It's wrong for Ralph Lauren to threaten you for justified criticism of their photograph. Keep mocking them, it's well deserved!
Sometimes we are reminded that it is still the America it was meant to be! Good for you. Been practicing law for 30 years and wouldn't have let a client make me look like a fool when the standards are so SIMPLE and clear. Well. I'm sure she makes a lot more money that do I, but I am grateful that you and Canada's Colo. ISP didn't fold and run. Thanks.
Whoa, I also just stumbled upon the Yahoo News front page... Congrats, Boing Boing!
Really, this isn't all about Ralph Lauren. That company isn't any worse than any other fashion advertiser out there. But I think the current whirlwind (I'd say shitstorm but the policy says 'no cussing' ;)) is showing that there is a huge backlash against the shameless and blatant false imagery that has been plaguing the beauty/fashion industry.
The public is starting to demand more honest practices from companies and that is a beautiful thing.
You're awesome for rocking the boat :)
Awsome! Love what you're doing.
I WANT TO APPLAUDE YOU; THANK YOU FOR STANDING UP FOR OUR THOUGHTS ON THIS AD! This ridiculous ad makes it harder for teen girls to be themselves, especially when a WAY TOO SKINNY GIRL, is thought of as GREAT! I personally think she looks disgusting.
Whoa. I believe I may be in love with you. Nice work all around.
Very well done! Strength, courage, and humor.
Good for you.
Epic, epic win. I just wish I could have soup with models.... :(
Has anyone else noticed that Ralph Lauren polo shirts are of terrible quality now? I am an averaged sized male, 6'0 and 185 lbs. Every time I get a new "polo" shirt, it shrinks when I dry it or after wearing it it "tents" out in the front to look like a dress! The problem is SIZING. Sizing should be applied to cloth when it is manufactured to help cloth maintain its shape. The cheap cloth that overseas manufacturers use to make clothing now, is lacking in time-tested and what used to be "standard" and expected techniques. If I pay 80 bucks for a simple shirt, I have certain expectations of fit and quality. Is this too much to ask? I am going to start buying Lacoste again. Maybe their quality is better, even if their shirts are exorbitantly priced.
I am so glad that you have brought photo touching extremes to light. Children, now more than ever, want more than any thing else to be grown up and if this is what they are using as a role model, than I am very afraid for them. Ads like this only set young girls and women up for failure, if this is what they have to compare themselves to. Beauty has become more and more distorted through the years and I am ashamed this image, as well as other photo shopped images, have been used in advertisements. I hope this press coverage will highlight the dangers of photo shopping and portraying these images as being "real." I am greatly disturbed by this advertisement, but grateful because I hope it will disturb more people into realizing our idea of beauty needs to change.
wow! if you try to repost this to Facebook a different illustration shows up (not the lollipop-headed freak photo that's meant to make normal sized women feel bad about eating). I wonder what gives?
Ralph Lauren you should be ashamed of yourselves.
I am naturally very thin, and even as a thin woman I am outraged. This is so incredibly dumb that I can't even believe that somebody published this photo. (1) it's such a BAD photoshop job and (2) this is exactly what is wrong with this country. I don't think a lot of men understand how freaking hard it is to be a woman these days. Not only do we have to be EXTREMELY thin to be considered "pretty", but we have to have perfect skin, teeth, hair, nails, and everything else too. On top of that we have to raise families, hold down jobs, go to school, settle for lower salaries than men, cook, clean, shop, and smile while we do it. These women...these ad women...are not real women. They are little girls that have no responsibility and get paid for being pretty. What a great message American media sends to other countries, no wonder we're at war.
haha thanks for that, it made me smile
Way to go Boing Boing!
Love it...show this moron that he doesnt rule the world...wish there were more like you.