Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Media The Courts

Photoshop Disaster Draws DMCA Notice For Boing Boing 391

Pickens writes: "Cory Doctorow writes that Ralph Lauren issued a DMCA takedown notice after Boing Boing republished the Photoshop disaster contained in a Ralph Lauren advertisement in which a model's proportions appear to have been altered to give her an impossibly skinny body with the model's head larger than her pelvis. Doctorow says that one of the things that makes their ISP Priority Colo so awesome is that they don't automatically act on DMCA takedowns and proceeded to dare Lauren to sue. 'This is classic fair use: a reproduction "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting," etc,' writes Doctorow. 'Copyright law doesn't give you the right to threaten your critics for pointing out the problems with your offerings.' Doctorow adds that every time Lauren threatens to sue he will 'reproduce the original criticism, making damned sure that all our readers get a good, long look at it,' 'publish your spurious legal threat along with copious mockery,' and 'offer nourishing soup and sandwiches to your models.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Photoshop Disaster Draws DMCA Notice For Boing Boing

Comments Filter:
  • kudos (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hydrolyzer ( 1637811 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:04PM (#29683653)
    to their ISP, all the comments on that article mean something, but its the people with at least a fair amount of money behind them (such as mid-size ISP's, in fact) that can make a real difference. Not only in hilarious copyright battles such as this, but pretty much everything. Good on them for actually making a difference
    • by schon ( 31600 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @03:28PM (#29684611)

      The ISP in question is Canadian.

      I attended a talk by Michael Geist, where he said that 30% of Canadian ISPs comply with DMCA takedowns. This figure was presented by some pro-copyright lobby as "shocking" evidence that Canada is a lawless place where copyright isn't respected.

      Geist agreed that it was shocking - but for a different reason. He said it was shocking that 30% of our ISPs caved to a law from a foreign country, and complied with a request they had no legal requirement or authority to obey.

      • by jo42 ( 227475 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @04:11PM (#29685175) Homepage

        Some 'Canadian' ISPs, such as PEER1, are actually based out of the US.

        Throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the caving in to a law from a foreign country...

  • by ErikTheRed ( 162431 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:04PM (#29683655) Homepage

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

    • by A. B3ttik ( 1344591 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:10PM (#29683705)
      Ralph Lauren's Legal Case is kinda thin.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        (bkspc) (bkspc) (bkspc)

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

        • Re:I'm grateful (Score:4, Insightful)

          by commodore64_love ( 1445365 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:19PM (#29683841) Journal


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

          • Re:I'm grateful (Score:5, Insightful)

            by mcsqueak ( 1043736 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:39PM (#29684059)

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

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

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

            • Re:I'm grateful (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @03:07PM (#29684369) Journal

              I have an idea, how about making sure that the ORIGINAL unedited version is available upon request, with a link in the advertisement to the source of the original.

              Kind of like, Open Source for Photography?

            • Re:I'm grateful (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Whorhay ( 1319089 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @03:28PM (#29684609)
              And if we were to ban photoshopping in advertisements what would be next, banning makeup? It's just not going to happen and if it did it wouldn't be worth the trouble. Just push for honesty in advertising in general and hope for the best.
            • Re:I'm grateful (Score:5, Insightful)

              by roc97007 ( 608802 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @04:04PM (#29685093) Journal

              Agreed, banning photoshop is nonsensical. It's not the tool, it's the use to which it is put.

              This sounds like a job for the swarm. There's a lot more people out there with photoshop experience, able to spot these kinds of manipulations, than these companies could hope to pursue. Let's not leave it just to Photoshop Disaster. If a few thousand geeks pursue them relentlessly, we could see real results.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by CherniyVolk ( 513591 )

              I worked in a Print Shop for several years. Don't give me any of that dark room crap please. On one hand, you are right but you are intentionally blind to the exploitation that *will* take place giving *any* leniency to those in marketing and advertising. Their habitual lies resemble that of a heroin addiction in that, only a fool would suggest they might have any restraint.

              I'm tired of looking at advertisements. Of all the hamburgers I have ever eaten, not on has every looked remotely close to any of t

              • Re:I'm grateful (Score:4, Interesting)

                by mcsqueak ( 1043736 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @05:03PM (#29685927)

                I worked in a Print Shop for several years. Don't give me any of that dark room crap please.

                Good for you. My late father owned his own commercial photo studio and print lab for about 23 years, in which I spent a great deal of time. I have also shot photography professionally, so I know good and well about "darkroom crap" as well as clever tricks that can be pulled off during the photo shoot itself, without any after-manipulation.

                Here is how I see it: yes, it's gross and dishonest when advertisers try and use these tricks to pull a fast one on consumers. However, I think the problem is that we need to redefine what a photograph is.

                Only in print journalist (and not even there sometimes) is a photograph a literal slice of a moment in time. Most every other photograph needs to not be look upon as literal truth, but as an idealized version of reality.

                Think of all those photos of friends and family smiling, posing for a photograph. Is that how life is all the time? No, it's a posed photo, an idealized version of that point in time. I personally see photography much the same way, and try not to take it personally when a hamburger in an ad looks different than the one on my plate. It's fucked up, but that's how it is, in my view.

            • Re:I'm grateful (Score:4, Insightful)

              by interkin3tic ( 1469267 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @07:16PM (#29687271)

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

              It is pretty sickening that Madison avenue has so distorted our view of how women should look that they're starting to move INTO the uncanny valley.

          • Re:I'm grateful (Score:4, Insightful)

            by MarkvW ( 1037596 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:39PM (#29684061)

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

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

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

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

          • by denis-The-menace ( 471988 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:53PM (#29684249)

            While they're at it, how about creating a "truth in News reporting" law. .. no obligation to report truthfully, and the First Amendment protects their right to lie.


            • by civilizedINTENSITY ( 45686 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @05:31PM (#29686259)
              "The court held that Fox News had no obligation to report truthfully, and the First Amendment protects their right to lie. Therefore, the court held that firing a reporter for refusing to lie is not actionable under the whistleblower statute. The story can be seen in the feature length documentary film The Corporation." The Corporation is where I first heard of this. Journalistic Ethics is becoming a contradiction in terms. Activities should be categorized as "entertainment", or "journalism", or "advertising", and obviously different legal standards need to be applied to each. An informed public being necessary to the workings of a democracy, this is beyond stupid and well into a dangerous zone. As the law currently stands, behavior approaching that of treason is not actionable. In a democracy we've really only ourselves to blame for letting this happen to us, too.
          • Re:I'm grateful (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Old97 ( 1341297 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @03:30PM (#29684635)
            The U.S. Congress should ban the use of Slashdot to propose unconstitutional laws.
          • Re:I'm grateful (Score:5, Interesting)

            by MaWeiTao ( 908546 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @03:38PM (#29684757)

            I work in design and have done more Photoshop work than I care to recall. It certainly is an extremely useful tool and can't be banned outright, however, they could impose very clear limits on retouching photos of people.

            I personally see two problems. The first is covering up imperfections, freckles, beauty marks, lumps, etc. The second is thinning out individual body parts and in some extreme cases taking the entire person and making them more narrow.

            There's a big drawback here, however. This wont address the use of heavy makeup, creative lighting or photography. And movies have always used all sorts of techniques to make actors look amazing. Celebrities are sometimes virtually unrecognizable in person because of how heavily they're done up for movies. And agencies will likely push models to lose even more weight. Photoshop ultimately is one small part of the larger problem of creating very unrealistic expectations of how people should look.

            I've had friends who couldn't be with a girl if she didn't have the perfect complexion and body type depicted in the media. I've also known many girls who lament how terrible they supposedly look compared to celebrities. But how the hell do you change these attitudes in a culture so addicted to celebrity culture? And it's not a problem unique to the US either. It's bad enough in Europe, and probably even worse than the US in Asia.

            • Re:I'm grateful (Score:5, Insightful)

              by mamer-retrogamer ( 556651 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @04:30PM (#29685465)

              [Photoshop] certainly is an extremely useful tool and can't be banned outright, however, they could impose very clear limits on retouching photos of people.

              Who is "they" and how would they impose these arbitrary limits on photo retouching?

              The problem isn't necessarily with the advertising agencies who are trying their best to fool us that their client/product is "better" than they actually are. That's what they've always done and that is what they will continue to do.

              The problem is with the increasing number of people in our society who lack critical thinking skills and don't question what is presented to them.

              What's nefarious about this particular DMCA take down notice is that its only purpose is to squelch critical opinion on advertising techniques. (It is also just another example of how the DMCA has little to do with copyright protection and is more about handing over control of our culture to the media companies).

      • by vmxeo ( 173325 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:33PM (#29684009) Homepage Journal
        Ralph Lauren's response was also obviously disproportionate
        • Hideously disproportionate. Lauren's response was a pumpkin on a fencepost. Jack Skellington after lent. Comet Hyatuke.

          A mushroom-shaped tantrum, one may say.

      • by Hoi Polloi ( 522990 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @03:11PM (#29684393) Journal

        They are just starved for attention.

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

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

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

        I don't know know what it is about /. but a lot of people are too quick to pull the trig
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          It is the Streisand Effect because Ralph Lauren doesn't want anyone drawing attention to the fact that they photoshop the living crap out of their models to make them into non-human images.(The real reason for the takedown notice. You really don't think it was because they thought their actual copyrights were being violated did you? Why would they care if someone just ran their ad as is and gave them for free what they would normally need to pay someone to display?) Seeing as now even I, someone who has ze
  • by rimugu ( 701444 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:05PM (#29683667)

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

    • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

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

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

      There's a hooker here I called "Bighead" [] in one of my journals. She looks a lot like the model in the photoshopped photo, except that a woman that skinny has no shape. Actually, the model's arms and legs aren't as skin

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

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Jesus_666 ( 702802 )
      Well, she looks perfectly normal for an Ethereal. I think that X-COM sould pay that advertisement company a visit and investigate a possible infiltration.
  • by MikeRT ( 947531 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:05PM (#29683669)

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

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

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

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

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

      There are cases where the law punishes negligence

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

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Eil ( 82413 )

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

      Your instinct isn't wrong. Courts have long upheld judgements that ignorance of the law is not a shield from it. Lawyers know this better than anyone but they make routine (ab)use of the fact that non-lawyers frequently aren't aware of their own rights and responsibilities.

      Additionally, you *can* go after someone who makes a false DMCA takedown claim. The problem is, the DMCA does not allo

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        The problem is, the DMCA does not allow you to dispute the takedown notice until after the "infringing" material has been removed.

        This is not true. The DMCA sets no limits on when you can dispute a takedown notice. It just doesn't require the service provider to notify the user until after (though "promptly" after) the material has been taken down, in order to remain in the safe harbor against liability to the user. Provided that it didn't interfer with the providers ability to "expeditiously" disable acces

    • by bcrowell ( 177657 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @05:16PM (#29686111) Homepage

      Publishers are often extremely careless about sending out scattershot DMCA notices. For example, I'm the author of a free and open-source calculus textbook. My book is available on my own web site, and also on some other sites such as lulu and scribd. I got an email today from one of the folks at scribd saying they'd received the DMCA takedown notice below. The takedown notice is so vague and sloppy that it's hard to tell what they're even claiming. Are they claiming that scribd is violating my (Ben Crowell's) copyright? If so, then what business of it is theirs? (Macmillan isn't my publisher, and I've never heard of Attributor, Inc., until today.) Or are they claiming that my book contains content that infringes Macmillan's copyrights? (It would seem not, since they list "Original Work: Calculus," as if it's the entire book whose copyright is being infringed.)

      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      From: <>
      Date: Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:14 PM
      Subject: Unauthorized Use of Macmillan Publishers Material

      *** Sent via Email - DMCA Notice of Copyright Infringement ***

      Dear Sir/Madam,

      I certify under penalty of perjury, that I am an agent authorized to act on
      behalf of the owner of the intellectual property rights and that the
      information contained in this notice is accurate.

      I have a good faith belief that the page or material listed below is not
      authorized by law for use by the individual(s) associated with the
      identified page listed below or their agents and therefore infringes the
      copyright owner's rights.


      This notice is sent pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA),
      the European Union's Directive on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of
      Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society (2001/29/EC), and/or
      other laws and regulations relevant in European Union member states or other

      My contact information is as follows:

      Organization name: Attributor Corporation As Agent for Macmillan Publishers
      Phone: (650) 306 9474
      Mailing address:
      Attributor, Inc.
      1775 Woodside Road, Ste 100
      Redwood City, CA 94061

      Infringing page/material that I demand be disabled or removed in
      consideration of the above:

      Original Work: Calculus
      Infringing URL:
      Infringing URL:

      My electronic signature follows:
      Attributor, Inc.

  • wth (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MorderVonAllem ( 931645 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:06PM (#29683681)
    I seriously can't understand how someone could even photoshop that and go 'Well, looks like my work is done here' or the marketing guy who ok'd the final product...sheesh
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Blue Stone ( 582566 )

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

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

    • Re:wth (Score:5, Insightful)

      by vorpal22 ( 114901 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:36PM (#29684035) Homepage Journal

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

  • by Mr. Underbridge ( 666784 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:07PM (#29683687)
    ...these morons are going to figure out the whole Streisand Effect thing. Keep screwing yourselves, fellas.
    • Oh I don't know. Seems more like free advertising to me. The clothes looked pretty even if the model was modded.

  • by SoupGuru ( 723634 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:08PM (#29683699)
    The fact that anyone so much as had the idea to butcher the female form to that extent makes me want to raise any daughters I might have on some deserted island somewhere. That they actually went through with it... well, I'm speechless.
  • I'm sure there's some medical/advertising standards authority that'd like to rip them a new orifice for popularising morbid anorexia in this way.

  • by TiggertheMad ( 556308 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:10PM (#29683713) Homepage Journal
    One of the BB posts, noted that falsely issuing DMCA notices might be construed as abuse of process. If any real lawyers are lurking out there, could this be used as a counter tactic? What is the likely hood that you could make such a charge stick to the plantif or their counsel?
    • by mpoulton ( 689851 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:27PM (#29683951)

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

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

  • I'm confused... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aztektum ( 170569 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:14PM (#29683761)

    The ISP is in Canada? Why should they comply with a US law?

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

  • by Trepidity ( 597 ) <delirium-slashdo ... g ['kis' in gap]> on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:16PM (#29683797)

    Someone page Sir Mix-a-Lot.

    • Baby Got Jack

      I like small butts and I cannot lie,
      You honkies can't deny,
      When a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist
      and a big thing in your face I get Sick,
      cuz I like a toothpick
      I'll beat that booty with a stick
      Even the jeans she's wearing, her pants
      are almost tearing
      No, baby I want a flat booty,
      That's tootie fruitie, while honkies tried to warn me
      that butt you've got is, oh, so corny ooh Chicken
      smooth skin you say you wanna get my olds,
      well peck me,
      peck me, cuz you ain't that average chickadee.
      Hell with r

  • fuck the law (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LordKaT ( 619540 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:17PM (#29683805) Homepage Journal

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

  • by Minwee ( 522556 ) <> on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:24PM (#29683901) Homepage

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

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

  • by RichMan ( 8097 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:26PM (#29683937)

    Found the link in a BoingBoing comment []
    She looks more human here.

  • by alen ( 225700 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:30PM (#29683965)

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

  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:30PM (#29683973) Homepage

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

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

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

    • by Knara ( 9377 )
      I'd criticize him for it, too. She's got some guns for a woman her age, that's for sure. It's awesome.
  • Viral Advertising (Score:2, Informative)

    by Chruisan ( 1040302 )
    I thought it was a viral ad for the sequel to Nightmare Before Christmas, Jana Skeleton Strkes Back!
  • I have always considered RL to be one of the greatest American designers and I am impartial to some of his stuff. However, this law suit makes me question my beliefs. And if you want to avoid prosecution next time, take a screen shot of the desktop that shows the ad.

  • Do propel actually find such a figure attractive?

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

  • by VoxMagis ( 1036530 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @02:47PM (#29684181)

    Yes, the DMCA is stupid.

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

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

  • by ianezz ( 31449 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @03:09PM (#29684375) Homepage
    Remember, there's no such thing as "bad" advertising.
    1. Prepare an ad campaign with a so "badly" retouched photo that everyone having eyes can't avoid noticing it.
    2. Wait for some famous blogger to pick up the bait, telling his readers how bad the ad is
    3. Issue him a takedown notice, hoping that Mr. famous blogger goes doubly vocal on the issue as expected
    4. Wait some months: nobody remembers exactly the issue, but in many minds, the trademark of the advertiser is permanently associated with something shocking.

    The sad thing is that the famous blogger above has both every right to criticize the ad, and also he may gain further popularity in doing this. The only way for him to avoid being a pawn in the game is to ignore the whole argument, and that gains him nothing. It's an almost self-sustaining system, be prepared for more in the future.

  • by davebooth ( 101350 ) on Thursday October 08, 2009 @03:16PM (#29684447)
    According to her online profile, unphotoshopped that model is 5'8" and wears a size 6, measuring 33-24-35. No need to alter those proportions at all.

"I prefer the blunted cudgels of the followers of the Serpent God." -- Sean Doran the Younger