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.'"
kudos (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Well, not really... (Score:4, Interesting)
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...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Canadian's
Somebody shoot me.
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually DMCA takedown notice is a benign part of that act, unlike anti-circumvention provisions.
So what? It is NOT the law in Canada. We have laws guaranteeing public access to healthcare which are benign - does that mean that the US should be required to follow Canadian law? The correct response from the Canadian ISP should be to mail back an elementary school book explaining about how countries are different with a suggestion that they read it and learn something.
I would also dispute how benign it actually is because it can be used to intimidate people into taking down material that they are legally entitled to show such as the case here.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope - culture, publishing, etc. was specifically EXEMPTED in NAFTA.
And if you want to end NAFTA, be our guest. We'd love to see the provisions that guarantee you access to our specific percentages of our water and energy lifted, now that the auto makers aren't keeping up with keeping a proportionate share of production in Canada (I'm looking at you, Ford!).
Don't forget - we're your #1 supplier of petroleum products - more than Saudi Arabia. If NAFTA goes, we can charge less for oil in our domestic markets, and grab a significant chunk of what's left of US manufacturing. And what you don't want to buy, China will be happy to take.
Re:Well, not really... (Score:5, Informative)
Just to clarify... Boing Boing's ISP is Priority Colo. They did not cave.
On the other hand, Photoshop Disaster's ISP, Blogspot, did cave in to the DMCA takedown notice. Needlessly, as it turned out.
I'm grateful (Score:5, Funny)
That Boing Boing was able to get us the skinny on this.
Re:I'm grateful (Score:5, Funny)
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)
P.S.
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)
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)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have fun clicking that link in print. :P
Because, you can't, you know... type it into a web browser. They could also implement a QR barcode you could take a picture with using your phone. Seems like a semi-reasonable idea to me.
Re:I'm grateful (Score:5, Funny)
or, hey, a bar code you can swipe with a cat-shaped thing, and make another company go bankrupt!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, where can I get the original source? I mean the model. I'd like to do some code checking. :P
Re:I'm grateful (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm grateful (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
While they're at it... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#In_USA [wikipedia.org]
Re:While they're at it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm grateful (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm grateful (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
[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).
Re:I'm grateful (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Hideously disproportionate. Lauren's response was a pumpkin on a fencepost. Jack Skellington after lent. Comet Hyatuke.
A mushroom-shaped tantrum, one may say.
Re:I'm grateful (Score:5, Funny)
They are just starved for attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:pa-ra-pum (Score:5, Funny)
In a few years, when this is forgotten, Ralphy will remember this as one of the skeletons in his closet.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm glad Doctorow had the spine to stand up to this. I really couldn't stomach another battle of talking heads.
The Streisand Effect (Score:2)
Ralph, I'd like you to meet Barbara...
NOT The Streisand Effect (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm grateful (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't come to slashdot for the bleeding edge news, I come for the insightful (well, sometimes) discussion of the interesting news stories that might be a day old.
Not me (Score:3, Funny)
I didn't even read the article; I just came to this discussion because someone said there would be soup and sandwiches.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually /. is ahead of the curve, but lately they've been behind it.
Wait.. what? When was this?
This exact complaint has been going on since before 2000.
Re: (Score:2)
its a model of internet humor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is kind of sad to think (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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" [slashdot.org] 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
Re: (Score:2)
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:2)
They are like rare freaks of nature.
Or of Science [wikipedia.org] (NSFW pics)
Re:It is kind of sad to think (Score:4, Funny)
Although it's typical for thin women to have little cleavage, sometimes you see the rare thin woman with large breasts.
I know a woman like that, and hers are silicone. Hint to any young females out there who are thinking about breast augmentation -- silicone gets hard as it ages. When you hit forty, your tits will be hard as rocks. Hers are.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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
Re:Too open for abuse... (Score:5, Informative)
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.)
Re:Too open for abuse... (Score:4, Insightful)
You own the copyright and they are representing themselves as your agent under penalty of perjury?
It sounds like they should be in trouble. The question is who it is up to to sue them.
wth (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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, Informative)
Re:wth (Score:5, Informative)
Please mod my parent post down - as the other replies point out, events have moved on:
http://extratv.warnerbros.com/2009/10/blog_and_ralph_lauren_fight_over_skinny_model_ad.php [warnerbros.com]
"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."
Re:wth (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
One of these days... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I don't know. Seems more like free advertising to me. The clothes looked pretty even if the model was modded.
WTF kind of ad is that? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF kind of ad is that? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that if my healthy, athletic, 13yo daughter saw that picture you would get a Duane Johnson-esque eyebrow and a lifelong aversion to anything with the Ralph Lauren label.
Send 'em a nastygram back. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Anorexia won't make your head bigger than your pelvis.
The real WTF is that they're making fun of people with macroencephaly!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real WTF is that they're making fun of people with macroencephaly!
Hey! I'm a foetus, you insensitive clod!
I do not want to see how you run your network/power cables...
Re: (Score:2)
I do.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, we have nothing like the ASA in the US. And the first amendment to the Constitution says you can publish damned near anything that isn't covered by somebody else's copyright.
IANAL, question for real lawcritter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IANAL, question for real lawcritter (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
The ISP is in Canada? Why should they comply with a US law?
Re: (Score:2)
Is that you, Michale Geist [michaelgeist.ca]?
What's advertising again? (Score:2)
Of course the really funny is that is the image is *advertisement* which presumably means Ralph Lauren *pays* people to display that image.
heroin chic is back? (Score:5, Funny)
Someone page Sir Mix-a-Lot.
Baby Got Jack (Score:3, Funny)
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)
blind obedience to words written by the social elite only keeps the populace oppressed.
I don't want an apology for Heroes Reborn. (Score:3, Funny)
I was, however, surprised to find that Rob Liefeld [progressiveboink.com] 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.
Another shot of the model, more realistic (Score:5, Informative)
Found the link in a BoingBoing comment
http://www.ralphlauren.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3558821&camp=affiliate_k108283 [ralphlauren.com]
She looks more human here.
I work where they do a lot of these photoshoots (Score:4, Informative)
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
Re:I work where they do a lot of these photoshoots (Score:5, Funny)
Schindler's List 2: This time, he's checking it twice
Terrible Photoshop work (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a horrible Photoshop paste job. Does that head even go with that body?
There's a wry New Yorker article [newyorker.com] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There is a better way to avoid law suits (Score:2)
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.
I'm confused. (Score:2)
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.
Hey - a new Ask Slashdot idea is born! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hey - a new Ask Slashdot idea is born! (Score:5, Insightful)
You might as well ask why peacocks display their plumage.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
To attract peacunts, of course.
Looking for the Streisand effect (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
It's not even as if they had to bother... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let me be the first to say (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd tap it, photoshopped or not!
Word of warning: you break it, you bought it. And judging by the look of that pelvis, a tap would shatter it. She looks so top heavy a gust of wind would bring 'er down. I wonder when they'll get around to advertisements for Ralph Lauren hip casts? What, not chic enough?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, she looks anorexic. And those girls won't put anything in their mouths, so really, what's the point?
Re:Let me be the first to say (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here's one of her in another RL ad where she doesn't hover so close to the uncanny valley. [blogherbaldiet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2. If your Photoshop guru has glasses thicker than a quarter inch, smells of last night's alcohol or has blood-shot eyes ... get someone else to double check his work.
This was likely the work of a PHB, not a Photoshop artist.