I got one once for ‘using a logo’ of a well known company. My logo was a different colour, rotated 90 degrees and inverted! My site was criticisng their customer services! They wrote telling me I could never use their name on anything I did and wanted me to sign an agreement.

I pointed out that the logo was not the same, fair use laws, and that if I agreed never to use their name, then I guess I never have to pay their bills again as I can’t write a cheque!

They never replied :)

You do know what the little man in the boat is? I thought that you were an expert on that sort of thing.

More than anything, what all of these ad agencies and magazines are missing is that representing a model in a real article of clothing which is going to be purchased by a real person… should not by any stretch of the imagination be ARTWORK!

Why do young women get distorted ideas about their body image?

Look at all of these magazines and advertisements and visualize how these items look on the models… on a woman who is 5’10″ and wearing a size 1. Now let the average woman at 5’5″ and a size 10 that same item into the dressing room… and see shockingly different visual results.

No. Advertising is not ‘artwork’. It should represent the item which is being sold appropriately. It should not result in a young girl seeing a circus mirror reflection of what the magazine is so sweetly tempting and promising with their inhumanly altered art.

In all honesty, it just doesn’t make good business sense in the long run. These sales ads are there to sell a company’s wares. Wouldn’t the average woman be more likely to purchase an article of clothing represented attractively on a normal sized model?

It’s a different model as well

that’s why i call the whole thing shenanigans.

Because it’s not a scan. It’s a photo.

From the outset, Ralph Lauren put its head up its own arse: a bad idea when your ears are further apart than your hips.

Bwahahaha! Well said, Mark!

Will the t-shirt be available in any sizes other than a woman’s small (or very very small)?

1) The funny thing about most issues in the world is that they have many facets. This is a bad photo-shop stemming from a particularly perverse motivation that has been ongoing for decades. This image is a symbol of a long-lasting trend, contributing to the misery of thousands. Aside from the false DMCA, it attracted attention because it presents an image as a desirable reality when it is actually beyond where even satirists would dare to venture.

2) Because extremes beget opposite extremes, and influences are not monolithic in their effects. You may as well ask “if the US is so religious, why are there so many outspoken atheists?” I think you know better than to ask your question seriously.

3) People do complain about this, and it is a legitimate problem. Some men do succumb to this, and pay for it with their health and sometimes their lives. However, both the media-portrayal of hyper-masculine males, and their actuality is less frequent than with women’s body misrepresentations. Finally, unlike women, men are not judged primarily by how they look, but by how “successful” they are. Many men fall prey to this, overworking themselves in joyless careers, and pay for it in less visible ways.

I keed! I keed!

No, the problem IS cake. Too much of it. Everyone is too fat. Not too skinny.

For the life of me, I can’t understand how this image is “appealing”. It is neither sexy, nor beautiful, nor cute, nor exciting, nor daring, nor anything that could be remotely considered attractive. What it *is* is pitifully sickening. I don’t mean that as a social commentary either or as a criticism of arguably questionable standards of an industry. It is what it is: sickening and pitiful. The only explanation I can come up with is that someone decided that women enamored of self-pity is a significant demographic.

It’s a shame that the model does not have any rights to how her own likeness can be used or manipulated. If she were free to do so, I wonder what her take on this is? Models should have some legal rights in such matters.

BB, I am thrilled that you stood your ground against these unscrupulous lawyers but I am positively miffed that you are refusing to do the right thing and file a formal complaint against them.

In the New York Courts Rules of Professional Conduct there is Rule 3.1: Non-Meritorious Claims and
Contentions

(a) A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or
assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is
a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.
A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding
or for the respondent in a proceeding that
could result in incarceration may nevertheless so
defend the proceeding as to require that every element
of the case be established.
(b) A lawyer’s conduct is “frivolous” for purposes of
this Rule if:
(1) the lawyer knowingly advances a claim or defense
that is unwarranted under existing law,
except that the lawyer may advance such claim
or defense if it can be supported by good faith
argument for an extension, modification, or reversal
of existing law;

Their DMCA takedown notice was frivolous and advocated a position which is explicitly prohibited by law. You know it. Your lawyers know it. They’re a law office so if they don’t know it then Rule 1.1 : Competence comes into play. These lawyers are going to do the same thing over and over again and they are going to get away with it because the worst thing that happens to them is a rare entity such as yours tells them to go away. If you don’t file the formal complaint about their actions then they will keep doing this and little people who are scared to death of lawyers are going to continue to be bullied into submission.

The link to the form used and the address to which the complaint should be sent is found here: http://tinyurl.com/lnxbug

PLEASE do the right thing, Boing Boing. File the formal complaint over the fraudulent DMCA takedown you received. You have a chance to stand up for the little guys here – please don’t back down.

I applaud BB for launching a search for the original image. Also for the even-handed wording of this OP vs. the previous.

Here is the same model in the same line.

Obviously its not standard practice to alter her