![](\"http:\/\/coffeechick.com\/images\/ps\/lauren.jpg\")
I’m jumping on a bandwagon here — hopefully early enough to get a good seat.<\/p>\n I’m jumping on a bandwagon here — hopefully early enough to get a good seat.<\/p>\n
See that image over there? It’s a Ralph Lauren ad — obviously. One that…kinda got a bit of attention, because…well, look at it. It’s ‘shopped.<\/p>\n
People noticed. And posted about it.<\/p>\n
How did the company respond? By sending out DMCA takedown notices, because fair use doesn’t exist.<\/p>\n
It’s going to work about as well as it worked for Scientology.
\n
\nNow, I know I’m just an insignificant blogger tucked away in an unnoticed corner of the internet, but, if their legal types happen to find this place, I hope they pause to read this before firing off another pointless takedown notice. I’ve got a good idea that could save them a lot of humiliation.<\/p>\n
The next time something like this happens — and it’s probably going to — instead of throwing a litigious tantrum, fire the photoshopper responsible<\/i>. Your company will look much better if you say, “Oops. Yeah, that’s our bad. We fired the guy. And, while we’re not willing to stop enhancing our models through computer manipulation, we are going to make sure that our artists have a basic grasp of human anatomy.”<\/p>\n
Yes. That’s how you should respond. Not with takedown notices over fair use. Fix the problem. Attempting to cover it up with legal threats only gets people to notice, and repost.<\/p>\n
Source.<\/a> I’d post the original<\/i> source, but Photoshop Disaster’s ISP caved<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I’m jumping on a bandwagon here — hopefully early enough to get a good seat. See that image over there? It’s a Ralph Lauren ad — obviously. One that…kinda got a bit of attention, because…well, look at it. It’s ‘shopped. … Continue reading