Posts
It seems that Ralph Lauren is not too keen on art criticism these days and lashed out with a rather questionable DMCA takedown against this blog.
Evidently they haven't heard of the Streisand Effect. Boing Boing comes to the rescue.
Edit: Huffington Post joins in!
Edit: I didn't take the post down - Blogspot automatically takes down posts in a DMCA. (In their defence, most ISPs do the same thing.)
Edit: Thanks for the Yahoo! link!
Edit: Also The Register and Jezebel! (Thanks to everyone who sent these links in!)
Edit: ABC News jumps on!
Edit: According to Extra, on Thursday, Polo Ralph Lauren released the following statement about the retouched ad:
Edit: Also The Register and Jezebel! (Thanks to everyone who sent these links in!)
Edit: ABC News jumps on!
Edit: According to Extra, on Thursday, Polo Ralph Lauren released the following statement about the retouched ad:
"For over 42 years we have built a brand based on quality and integrity. After further investigation, we have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman's body. We have addressed the problem and going forward will take every precaution to ensure that the caliber of our artwork represents our brand appropriately."
139 comments:
Nice. I thought law dumbasses who don't really understand what internet and freedom of speech are lived only here in Brazil.
It's good (ah?) to know that The Moronic Empire has got it's tentacles in lots of countries.
Fight the DMCA notice and file a countersuit for false advertisement.
- Their clothing does not make people look that thin.
- They falsely represent a photoshopped model as if it were real.
- They filed a frivolous lawsuit and you must recoup damages to your reputation and legal fees.
Did you take down the post? Don't give in to these fools! Having said that, the image is all over the place now so it doesn't really matter either way. Ralph Lauren have made themselves look even more ridiculous than that advert did.
Good news. I hope Ralph Lauren gets the hint.
Three cheers for your ISP.
Seems like the original post is gone from psd.. did you actually remove it? Why on earth would you do that?
Fools! You can never take down the bloggers! It's not like you stole their image without say it was theirs... oh wait, the image being there's is the problem. Oh well, next time they'll hire someone better perhaps? You're doing a service to the public not putting yourself in a position to be sued. Screw them. Win.
Wait, you DID take it down. Now I'm disappointed in you.
You should be able to send a counter claim and your ISP needs to put it back up. If PRL has further issue they need to file a suit against you directly at which point i'm sure the EFF would love to represent you in a counter misuse of the DMCA suit.
REPOST!
RL is upset that we are mocking a super emacipated looking model which they created via photoshop.
but we should be upset at RL for the message that they are sending to impressionable teenage girls who may starve themselves to look like an unrealistic model
clearly, what should be more important here?
You can add a great Mother Jones post about the whole fiasco with, yes, a copy of the image in question. http://tinyurl.com/ye97rsq
Seems the DCMA notice has only served to blow up the blogosphere with even more ridicule of such a stupid looking ad. Good move RL, good move.
Ralph Lauren says it "owns all right, title, and interest in the original images..." I wouldn't own up to that mess if I were them!
Maybe if you draw a curly mustache on the model, you can post the image under the protection of Fair Use and parody.
Not that this blog's re-post wasn't already protected. Way to go, Huffington Post and BoingBoing! :D
So Ralph Lauren doesn't like consumers with opinions and brains then, huh?
Well then I suppose it's a good thing I don't buy their overpriced crap anyway.
Looks like the Huffington Post thought that Boing Boing did the critique. Umm, reading comprehension?
Pshaw! I see no reason the cool criticism should ever be forgot.
sooooooooooo tragic!
If there wasn't a problem and they had no need to be ashamed, why demand your post be removed?
Sigh...
I wanted to thank you for being a part of a huge stride forward for the common man against corporations abusing the DMCA to get past fair use laws.
Usually, in cases of cease and desist, people freak out and delete whatever content is in question, but a select few recognize their rights, and fight it. Fair use is in place to protect things like this, so it's important to use it.
Write to the sharks at Ralph Lauren: http://www.ralphlauren.com/helpdesk/index.jsp?display=store&subdisplay=contact&ab=footer_emailus
They must be out of their mind. Keep up the great work. We're all supporting you :)
I always knew that these so called Designers & wannabe Fashion-Tsars (in Germany we call them Mode-Zar) are slightly Megalomanic & tend to live in their own Reality... D:
Right then, those overpriced jeans I wasn't going to buy - I'm definitely not buying them now!
What kind of name is Ralph Lauren anyway? Sounds like somebody goosed somebody.
HUZZZAAAAAHHHH
Keep up the good work, if Ralph Lauren want to defend their advert then they deserve everything they get.
great! now we're gonna have some real action on this blog!
it's awesome, that you guys can stand up for yourselves. we had a story when court prohibited to criticize our Ukrainian Prime-minister even if the criticizm is not mentioning her name, position, does not give any reference to her whatsoever. And nothing happened here. People kinda discuss it, but seem to have swallowed.
more here: http://www.finchannel.com/Main_News/Ukraine/47802_Court_Prohibits_Anti-Tymoshenko_Ads_On_Outside_Advertising_Media/
Now PLEASE file a counter-notice, and then sue THEM for breach of DMCA. This is fair use, they know it, they misused the DMCA, and there are legal ramifications for wrongfully claiming that something violates your copyright.
Also, after filing the counter-notice, I would definitely put that image back up.
Don't cave in to these wannabe-lawyers.
Ahah go Rulf! Nice backfire...
Apparently they haven't heard of the Streisand Effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
COME ON BLOGGER.COM GET A LAWYER WITH SOME BALLS!!!!!!!!!
Who in their right mind would defend that image anyway? Only the blind I think! I've asked this question loads of times on this blog - What fuckwit employs a cocksucker who does work like that? If anything, Ralph Lauren should be sacking the prat who commissioned the retoucher, told them what to do, signed the image off and paid for it!
Ralph, you suck!
As stupid as this all is, it's not Blogger's (Google's) fault that the post was removed, either. The way the law is written, Google is required by law to remove the post as soon as it gets a complaint that seems legit (i.e., not written in crayon on a paper towel). It is the latest piece of American justice where one presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Google/Blogger did what is required by the law. The next step is up to PhotoshopDisasters to either fight the complaint, or just let it go. That's just how it works.
Don't like it? Then complaint to and then vote out your local congresscritters. If you don't vote -- then you don't get to complain about this or pretty much any other injustice.
The best thing is that the comment "Golly, look at her thick ankels" managed to get into the lawyer's letter :)
Yeah cause people won't notice it's one of the crappiest PS'd images ever now -eyeroll-
Just accept that you spent a ridiculously high amount of money on an artist who didn't have a clue about anatomy, RL!
Okay, so there's gonna be my tiny little absolutely inconspicuous boycott of anything carrying the logo of Ralph Lauren. Anybody joins in?
yeah.. if I deal with NYSE:RL in the near future, I'll only short-sell it to add some bearish pressure on their stock :)
Absolutely Awesome!!! I love when the big guys get put in their place.
wv: vious
Wait a second, people !
Before ranting against Ralph Lauren's lawyers and beauty standards, is there ANY proof that this pic was an original RL ad ?
How come there wasn't any "Original is here!"-URL, usually posted on this Blog?
It could very well be a fake, and that would kind of justify RL being so upset...
Seems to me that Ralph Lauren might be taking this a LITTLE too far...
AHAHAH!!! ....AHAHAHAH...wait, sorry, I was laughing at RL thinking he can stop the internet!
Exactly Philippe! I think this is a anonymous intentional PSD. None of the pics on the RL site even look remotely similar. If I was RL I'd be pissed and want it down as well.
Always with you! Some people have real problems, especially if they fight for something so disgusting.
Funny thing was this evening I was discussing with my partner how when someone builds a lifelike robotic system, catwalk models will be the first out of the job as I doubt there will be movements made against emaciated looking robots modelling the clothes.
Put that thought up and one wonders how they expect to sell any clothing that almost no people could actually wear!
What's really odd about that photo is that they've used her before, without the ridiculous shoppery. Here name is Filippa Hamilton-Palmstierna and she's normally quite attractive.
Examples:
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_H-Mq3iuJSAc/SJbtVJppJQI/AAAAAAAAACA/LMuomUmOLXA/FilippaHamiltonPalmstierna4.jpg
http://www.blogherbaldiet.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/ralph-lauren.jpg
Your use of the image is not a violation of copyright, they are breaking the law by abusing the DMCA.
I say everyone with a blog repost the image, repost the image with copy regarding RL's asshat lawyers (i.e. bloodsucking undead, or at least un-conscience and non-soul-having-carbon-wastes), post it every corner of the bloggosphere until Ralph Lauren runs out of cease and desist letters or money for their legal and folds into a hole in the cesspool of "fashion" [sic] that they are... and good friggin riddance to those purveyors of self-image mindfoggery!
Hey, anyone suspecting a fake/intentional PSD, check out the BoingBoing site (see link at the top of this page). They have a pdf copy of the infringement notification they got from RL lawyers. The image, rib-less as it is on the PSD site, is attached as a proof. So apparently it's all 100% real.
I'm sorry that isn't a defense. While they might be in the wrong, they still got your post removed while people are looking for it.
The eff is fighting this effect.
http://www.eff.org/issues/ip-and-free-speech
I always find the concept of unauthorized reproduction of an ad to be quite humorous. Sure, legally speaking, it can hold (except fair use, as in this situation), but seriously, you'd figure its an ad, you want people to see it, right? I guess not if it sucks :)
The authenticity of the ad is interesting, though the takedown notice does not assert it is false and in fact lends it credence.
You shouldn't be hosted by blogger ! I published the image on my own blog.
what happened to the original? you should be able to counterdmca it pretty easily.
@Usage may vary : blogger/blogspot has the power to delete the content they want to. Last year, several music bands had the surprise to see their blogs modified by blogspot : the music they spreaded was under copyright... It was, also, their own music.
i think (in answer to philippe & lisa) that the image on PSD was a picture taken from a billboard, that's why there wasn't an original-link... or wasn't it? in that case, wouldn't the right for the image be with the person who took that picture?! i mean, it's not the eiffel tower or sth. that's protected by more elaborate rights...
and then, maybe what we saw was not the image RL wanted to promote, maybe it was some billboard-stocker's fault... dunno. either way, it's strange that RL should take this so tensely. i mean, if they put it out there and someone - or even a lot of someones - thinks it looks like crap, well then maybe they should change their ad (if that's their original picture) because it's not having the right effect or shrug it off (if it was just this one billboard that looked freakish).
also, there's the saying: if your ad goes unnoticed, everthing else is academic...
if they don't want to be criticized all over the entire web, perhaps they shouldn't destroy the female form in photoshop.
I wonder what that model actually looks like without being shopped to impossible proportions. They should be sued for misleading advertising and promoting eating disorders in their young clients.
Time for a new ISP.
Marketing guy: "Listen to this one guys! I just found this hilarious blog called photoshop disaster"
"Ted, have your graphics guys put out some horribly photoshopped disfigured model"
"George, get the photo from Ted's guys and make sure it ends up in one of our more obscure campaigns. somewhere no real customer is going to see it but that can be reachable from within the site. I'll be the one who sends this guy the link and then all we have to do is sit and wait"
"Roger, after they publish the thing, its time for your legal department to step it. Yours is the most compicated part. you need to make them truely believe that you're dead serious about it and that you lack total and any sense of humor. can you pull it off? good."
Ralph: "This is brilliang marketing guy. this is the perfect ploy to advertisement with absolutly no cost. plus, the blogger also enjoys it because now he's a martyr! you're a genious. please expect a nice bonus by the end of the month"
Ah, I misunderstood the Boing Boing article. ('Scuse me.) *Their* ISP is willing to deal with it if Ralph Lauren pulls this on them.
But Blogger just pulled without checking--which, no, is NOT required by the DMCA. Example: my name *is* Galadriel, and Tolkien's estate has tried to get my stuff yanked from Cafepress because it "infringes"...they checked, saw that my stuff is legit because IT'S MY NAME, and did not yank. (Go Cafepress!)
Automatic yanking is not required by DMCA. Shame on Blogger. Shame.
I tried to fix her but failed. :(
This whole thing is pretty lame and being blown out of proportion.
I really am finding it distasteful that Boing Boing and their ISP is being heralded as heroic copy-fighters in this, frankly, dumb mess.
The facts.
Boing Boing is hosted in a country called Canada.
The DMCA is a law was created and is enforceable in the United States of America.
Freedom of Speech protections are not applicable in Canada.
In Canada the closest legal "Free Speech" protection is "Freedom of Expression".
Fair Use is _not_ a concept that applies in Canada.
In Canada the closest legal "Fair Use" protection is "Fair Dealing".
None of the legal hooey in the Boing Boing post matters or applies.
The entire Boing Boing post is just as ridiculous as the legal firm who thought that it would make any sense to send the letter in the first place.
Fair freakin' use.
There are no "Fair Use" protections in Canada.
"In Canada, fair dealing as defined by the Copyright Act is more restrictive than the fair use provisions in the United States, particularly in regards to education and teaching."
"It is important to note, however; that unlike the fair use doctrine, fair dealing in Canada does not contain exceptions for parody and satire."
Sreens and sex toys 4 men
http://tengauk.blogspot.com/
What's your point, Chris ? Do you think it's nice in a moral way that Ralf Lauren uses copyright laws to hide its own images ? They would never have thought of it if a more ordinary ad had been reproduced, isn't it true ? It's important to resist corporate censorship.
My point: None of the legal hooey in the Boing Boing post matters or applies.
The entire Boing Boing post is just as ridiculous as the legal firm who thought that it would make any sense to send the letter in the first place.
"Do you think it's nice in a moral way that Ralf Lauren uses copyright laws to hide its own images"
Nice in a moral way? What copyright laws did they use?
"They would never have thought of it if a more ordinary ad had been reproduced, isn't it true."
Thought of what? What is a more ordinary ad? Isn't what true?
"It's important to resist corporate censorship"
It's important to resist any censorship.
In this case it's a dumb company, with a dumb ad and a dumb legal response followed by a dumb response.
The entire debacle is nonsensical.
I propose to offer nourishing soup and sandwiches to all the models in the world :)
wv: dompe = dontmakemypelvis...biggerthanmyhead
Yahoo News picked it up too.
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/image-of-ultra-thin-ralph-lauren-model-sparks-outrage-521480/
The DMCA is constantly being abused to silence or control things the corporations don't like.
Check out this Slashdot thread about an artist not allowed to stream his own music.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/07/1517239/Artist-Not-Allowed-To-Stream-His-Own-Music
Good for you Photoshop Disasters!!! I just heard about this site from Yahoo! News and now I will start to follow this site. Shame on Ralph! If he has the freedom to show stupid images then ANYONE has the freedom to state their opinion about Ralph Lauren ads!
Yeah I saw the pic on Yahoo news...horrible...Ralph is just pretty much ridiculous...and as a result I started following this blog...because I love mistakes.
Dudes! Yahoo posted the story. Looks like its going viral in record time: http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/image-of-ultra-thin-ralph-lauren-model-sparks-outrage-521480/
why is PLAID even a fad anyway? its so ugly!
i'd would have liked to have been in the board meeting when they approved that ad.
Austria's most visited site joins in:
http://www.orf.at/091007-43394/index.html
it appears that you all have just a little too much time on your hands. get a job, go volunteer for someone that needs help, jeez, lighten up. it was supposed to be cartoonish.......
Austrian newspage publishes the issue: http://www.orf.at/091007-43394/index.html
And the Dutch newspaper joins in too:http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/5024683/__Rel_rond_graatmager_model__.html?p=5,2
That's why you host your own blog. On an intelligent ISP like BoingBoing's. Really, installing Wordpress is so easy a box of rocks can do it.
Looks like this isn't the first time Roxanne G. Elings and Greenberg Traurig, LLC have used questionable DMCA cease and desist orders on behalf of Ralph Lauren to bully try and bully someone -
http://www.owenandemma.com/ralph/ralph.html
Well, I can't see what's illegal in commenting a public picture. Have you consulted someone who knows the law about freedom of speech? You know, it's in the UN's universal declaration of human rights, so I think one company can't just walk over it...
To me the fuzz and the bigbrotherism indicates that Ralph Lauren itself can't handle the image of their own. A financial healthy company can afford the critisism, even takes it as free marketing.
Doesn't really surprise me, if they are in a financial trouble: when the products are made for the kind of bodies there was in the picture (pelvisless, thinniest, somehow sick looking people), they will attract about 0.000001% of the people who have the money to buy their products.
IS picked up by the standaard.be also.
Belgian journal site
http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=DMF20091007_085
I'd also like to add that last week PhotoshopDisasters.blogspot.com was featured in a quite a few publications, notably the UK's newspaper 'The Independent', featuring this PSD.
...Which is probably what brought this whole thing about, I should think :/
Good luck with your legal battle, I'd rather like to see Ralph Lauren take on all these blogs as well as the Indy (who probably got flawless legal advice...)
you may be just playing there game with the Streisand effect.now a lot more poeple seeing the picture ad.thing of that.
The model is Filippa Hamilton.
She's thin.
She's not that thin.
http://nymag.com/fashion/models/fhamilton/filippahamilton/
If we were talking about skinny models and this picture was posted as part of the discussion, then maybeeeee RL would have a case for their cease, desist, stop, take down, crush and melt position.
But we are commenting about the photo specifically.
Fair use.
I just saw this article, thanks for taking a stand against RL. The photoshopping was sooo ridiculous.
Fillipa ought to sue Ralph Lauren for ruining her image. Such a gorgeous model should not have been defaced by RL that way. It is really sad that someone didn't object to that processing getting published.
Those folks over at Ralph Lauren seem so computer illiterate, they wouldn't even realize the damage they caused. Ignorance is a bliss...
saw it on Drudge Report! WIN.
CNN (TV) just had a preview of upcoming stories for the next hour. One story is about Ralph Lauren and included the picture of the photoshopped chicken-legged model. :-)
I put it on my social marketing blog as well, after reading the Shine post:
http://workthatmatters.blogspot.com/2009/10/fashion-ad-that-makes-people-want-to.html
"in blogspot's defense, they do this on any DMCA?" That's a defense?
No, but it is an excellent thing to know - just gin up a fake DMCA notice against any content I don't like on any blogspot hosted site and send it out.
Story Slashdotted!! epic WIN!!!!!!!!
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/08/1749256/Photoshop-Disaster-Draws-DMCA-Notice-For-Boing-Boing?from=rss
No mustache needed. Parody isn't the only form of fair use; criticism is fair use, too. The examples of fair use written in the law, such as parody and criticism, were selected because they are uses that are beneficial to the public but unwanted by copyright holders; i.e., if a copyright holder were happy to give permission, there wouldn't need to be a fair use exception.
Google, this site's owner, is well aware that section 512(f) of the DMCA requires a good faith claim of copyright infringement when sending a takedown notice. In Lenz v. UMG, concerning a video on another Google site, YouTube, it was ruled that fair use must be considered before sending DMCA takedown notices, so targeting an obvious case of fair use would violate 512(f).
Meanwhile, section 512(g) of the DMCA gives you, the poster of the content in question, the right to give Google a DMCA counter-notice, if you believe in good faith that the material is non-infringing for any reason, including fair use. A web form at Chilling Effects can assist you in preparing the counter-notice. Upon receipt of your counter-notice, Google is obligated under 512(g) to restore the deleted material. The copyright holder must then take you to court and win, if they want it taken down.
http://worldofwonder.net/2009/10/07/Getting_Big_Headed/
So, you think the Photoshop artist responsible got fired, or beaten to death and then fired?
"and going forward will take every precaution to ensure that the caliber of our artwork represents our brand appropriately."
I thought that was what they were doing! They must mean it in a different "appropriate" way, eh?
Hey, I've discovered this site thanks to Ralph Lauren.
Good boy Ralphie. :)
Funny that they didn't think to include an apology for filing bogus claims of copyright violation in an attempt to silence their critics. So much for their so-called integrity.
funny pictures is really
Well as for the firing. As long as the person responsible got reprimanded then it's a positive. The artist might have been told to do this, but may still have taken the blame but most offices I've seen do actually stick to the chain of command.
One just can't tell how sincere the apology is.
Perhaps the infringement on freedom of speech should be taken more seriously.
It's working!
One of the major papers in Norway is running an article on it now: http://www.kjendis.no/2009/10/08/kjendis/mote/cory_doctorow/8493041/
Just a little bit more of this, and Ralph Lauren's pathetic attempt at censorship have backfired completely. Instead of "This picture is a Photoshop disaster" we will say "you have Ralph Laurened this picture!"
In this way, Photoshop Disaster made its way into Wikipedia, at "The Straisand Effect"! :)
bwhahahaha
"will take every precaution to ensure that the caliber of our artwork represents our brand appropriately."
daily mail has posted it:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1219046/Ralph-Lauren-digitally-retouches-slender-model-make-look-THINNER.html
Australian Yahoo News has another article, as well.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/6189157/ralph-lauren-under-fire-over-photo/
Hungary's joining in - one of our top websites features the story:
http://velvet.hu/blogok/tejbenvajban/2009/10/09/ralph_lauren_felelos_a_durvan_anorexiassa_slankitott_modell_ugyeben/
Oops, seems like i fcked the link up. Here's the correct one:
http://velvet.hu/blogok/tejbenvajban/2009/10/09/ralph_lauren_felelos_a_durvan_anorexiassa_slankitott_modell_ugyeben/
Now what? Does the blog engine cut the end of the link?
Times online and the Daily Telegraph too. Go go PSD!
But yeah, the Daily Mail outrage takes the biscuit, as they clearly never 'shop images for their own ends.... /whistle /ruffles hair
The Swedish news paper Aftonblade.se have taken up the story as well. Though they attribute the original copyright breach to BoingBoing.
Please see Vogue Paris Hommes RL Black Label ad. Not as severe, but similar PS work. Look Ma, no ribs!
I worked for Ralph Lauren many years ago and even their merchandising in their upscale stores was like this - the "lifelike" mannequins were over 6' tall, but merchandisers literally had to pin BUNCHES of fabric on the smallest size Ralph Lauren made in order for the clothing to even stay on the mannequin. And no, the clothing did not run big - I weigh 95 lbs and am 5'4" and the smallest size was on occasion too small for me, and I'm medically underweight. This would mean that if the mannequin were actually real, she would weigh about 90 lbs at 6' tall. I don't think ANY woman could exist at those proportions, yet RL thought they were representative of an ideal.
BTW - if you put a black bar over the model's eyes in the original image, the first amendment protects that image because it's a parody. Just sayin', in case you want to repost without fear of repercussion...
The DMCA needs to be repealed.
So, who saw this show up on Dateline tonight? This thing has really gotten some legs on it...
don't blame the retucher
blame the art director that was directing her/him
but what i really want to know is, who did it?
should be easy to find out?
Nucleus Imaging?
It's "ART", people. Just artistic expression.
What next? Do we have to go through the museums of the world and take down the paintings of men and women, who were purposely made more beautiful/handsome than they truly were?
In the REAL world, women are getting plastic surgery, breast implants, lip enhancements, hair extensions, fake nails. They use toxic cosmetics. They are taking drugs to grow eyelashes, etc. Come on. Get real.
Just in case one more was needed, ping from the biggest Italian newspaper's website: http://www.corriere.it/cronache/09_ottobre_10/ralph-lauren-modella-photoshop-polemica_1248bff0-b587-11de-8656-00144f02aabc.shtml
This is a hell of a Streisand effect!
The Rachel Maddow Show(of MSNBC) has jumped on the bandwagon! http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/09/xeni-on-rachel-maddo.html
http://www.freakingnews.com/Ralph-Lauren-Pictures-71730.asp
The first italian's newspaper write here
http://www.corriere.it/cronache/09_ottobre_10/ralph-lauren-modella-photoshop-polemica_1248bff0-b587-11de-8656-00144f02aabc.shtml
sorry for my little english
One of the main spanish newspaper, El País, also takes the history today:
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/tecnologia/Ralph/Lauren/pide/disculpas/adelgazar/modelo/Photoshop/elpeputec/20091012elpeputec_1/Tes
From the AltaVista translation of the above Italian link:
"pinched from the situated web Photoshop thrown again Disasters and from blog the Boing Boing, l' advertising image - sighted in a store of Tokyo"
Aside from the funny translation, has the 'Tokyo' part of this been confirmed?
From the BabelFish translation of the Italian site listed above:
"pinched from the situated web Photoshop thrown again Disasters and from blog the Boing Boing, l' advertising image - sighted in a store of Tokyo"
Funny translation aside, any proof to the "Tokyo" part???
The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC was on this too:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/33250063#33250063
This was also covered by the Spanish-speaking W radio network.
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2009/10/14/2009-10-14_model_fired_for_being_too_fat.html
interesting how they forgot to mention photoshop disasters as the origin of the story. that's the dinosaur media for you: thinking they can get away with dismissing internet bloggers and journalists, then try to steal their stories.
But ironically enough, they stole the screen grab from this site. look at the watermark.
And now they fired the model.
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/14/ralph-lauren-fires-p.html
I linked you and the whole story in my blog.
The story and you are appearing everywhere in Spain. BTW, the model from the ad has said that RL fired her for being too fat, and she says she feels sorry for all the american people that feel betrayed. She says nothing about the rest of the world.
There are news everywhere about this case!!!
THE STREISSAND EFFECT WINS!
The model is now claiming she was fired for being "too fat"
http://www.dailypress.com/news/newsletter/wpix-photoshopped-model-fired,0,7693550.story
Ralph Lauren obviously is suffering from a serious case of rectal-cranial inversion.
I just saw that this model, Filippa Hamilton, got fired a little bit before this photo got published and criticized, according to her they told her agency that she no longer fit in the clothes. I really don't think that they meant she was fat, but most probably her body changed from her teens to her 23 that she is now and it's no longer what they look for. Now I totally agree with her that this photo makes her angry, I mean this goes to the point of humilliation. Here's a link to a youtube video where she talks about it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsVm-s3hPpg
German news:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/,tt7m1/leben/855/491225/text/
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,26214827-26397,00.html Apparently the model was fired too :)
After you can no longer stifle the mind of models with their ideology of thinness ridiculous, ridiculous these designers are doing this in fotos.Where we get? How ridiculous!
After you can no longer stifle the mind of models with their ideology of thinness ridiculous, ridiculous these designers are doing this in fotos.Where we get? How ridiculous!
After you can no longer stifle the mind of models with their ideology of thinness ridiculous, ridiculous these designers are doing this in fotos.Where we get? How ridiculous!
At this point there are 2.684 comments at http://shine.yahoo.com/event/fallbeauty/image-of-ultra-thin-ralph-lauren-model-sparks-outrage-521480/. You should take this to the EFF www.eff.org and do something about this DMCA abuse. We have this same problem in Argentina with youtube and blogspot, however the protection here is much more thin (all of this is at the judges' discression).
Blogs are so informative where we get lots of information on any topic. Nice job keep it up!!
_____________________________
Law Dissertation
HOLY WALKING DEADWOMAN, BATMAN...
This site's posts are 100% covered by "Fair Use" rules, and no DMCA request would succeed in court.
Counter-suit should be filed immediately. Could pay for your next holiday.
Post a Comment