David at AdFreak covered Virgin’s lawsuit involving AdRants. All I can say is that AdRants has been blogging for a long time, and as I found out first-hand, they get a TON of shit submitted to them daily. So at this point, after how many years of sorting through countless releases that are checked for accuracy, to then have one ad come under fire, is ree-dick-u-lous. Even after skeptiscism regarding its origins was voiced in the original post.Forgetting the Flickr fun Virgin had last year, if they can attempt something like this, couldn’t you argue that adsoftheworld might also be sued for posting DDB Lego ads without saying if they’re real or not? Ads that appeared to be taken from a photographer’s portfolio site from what one person said. At the very least, if real, they would do far more harm to the Lego brand than Virgin might suffer.
Wait, wouldn’t US Airways be the one to sue since the ad makes them look far worse than Virgin?
Based on this twisted ad-lawsuit logic then, Lego should be pissed. Because what’s next, suing me for even mentioning it? When words like ‘appear to be’ and ‘might be’ are the same thing as libeling someone on purpose, things are messed up.
Of course, if the Lego ads are real and not spec? Then DDB sure ‘appears to’ have chosen a pretty disturbing way of promoting a brand, ‘possibly’ hurting Lego’s image in the process, far more than that Virgin ad. What’s real, what’s not anymore, and does it matter? (If the ad is real and I’m wrong? Then someone needs to prove it. Email me with credits and the pubs they actually ran in and I’ll shout it out here about how “edgy” Lego advertising has become.)
Finally, all blogs have disclaimers of some sort. (Mine is actually tucked away on the lower right in the sidebar.) Given what I said earlier about sorting through all the submissions, AdRants’ disclaimer is very clear about the times when something like this might happen. Realizing that anything is litigious now, it still makes you wonder what’s the point of having a disclaimer if lawyers decide they can sue over anything?
(Btw, if you can, send a note to Steve and Angela. Not to be preachy, but it would be a nice move from anyone who benefited from the link love they’ve thrown out over the years.)
7 comments:
The original shots with the pixellated 3-d women are a photography project by Jean-Yves Lemoigne for the French magazine Amusement. The ones with the guns and the heroin weren't part of the original set, though, and didn't pop up until after I saw the first Lego logo placed on the women, so the idea seems to have taken on a life of its own. The Virgin ad seems to fall into a similar category -- more Flight 1549 than Virgin -- but what ever happened to "there's no such thing as bad press?" Whoever made the spoof ad could have taken any airline other than US Airways, but chose Virgin presumably because they wanted to promote Virgin. The worst injury done to the brand in this mess was collateral damage from lawyers stampeding to cover their collective ass. I liked Virgin better when I thought they had a sense of humor.
I tried to digg this story, but TMZ already has 472 diggs on it. In the interest of congregating our outrage, probably best to go with the flow:
Click here to add your digg.
AdRants ad rates are going to skyrocket... esp now that adweek + ad age are picking this up..... meanwhile some poor PR/legal team combo at virgin is wondering if they'll have to file for unemployment soon.....
Their claim is the equivalent of suing SNL because you took their "weekend update" segments to be completely factual + accurate
I got dibs on Steve's office chair.
@Hj - C’mon, please. A little respect.
I called it first.
I'm a huge fan of Angela and Adrants, but also see Virgin America's point. The headline and several copy lines in the original article did insinuate Virgin was behind the campaign.
I suspect this whole thing is a simple ploy not to shake down Adrants but rather to get the 1,000 blogs who link to popular Adrants scared enough to take down their related posts on Virgin, thus removing the broader thorn in the airline's side.
What I *did not* like in Virgin's complaint was the claim of trademark infringement -- does this mean we can't mention any branded spoof ads at all, even with caveats, because the ads include a trademarked term? Reporting on someone else's use of an icon seems fair game. When BusinessWeek uses the Xerox logo in a report about a Xerox controversy, it doesn't need permission.
Sadly we'll all have to be more careful.
Ben,
you have got to be kidding. even if angela did insinuate virgin was behind the campaign, she ultimately realized she was wrong. plus, adrants pulled down the post, indicating they knew it was wrong. crisis over.
there is no way anyone could prove adrants deliberately sought to harm virgin. and only an idiot would think adrants deliberately sought to harm virgin. you could not even prove that adrants profited in any way from the post, as it was completely in keeping with all their posts. lawsuits are about damages, and adrants did not damage virgin in any way, shape or form.
if anything, the person who sent the piece to adrants could be liable, provided they knew the ad was fake. or adrants could be liable if it was proven that angela knew the ad was fake - but we all know that isn't the case, as she and steve are quick to spank idiots who send fake work (or even lame work).arnned
i think it would be cool if bob garfield wrote a critique of the fake ad and scenario, as he and steve are occasional adversaries. that would also piss off virgin even more. it's a win-win for the public.
Post a Comment