Non-Threatening
Yeah, I think it’s bullshit that Nike is trying to co-opt the album cover art of Minor Threat, but…
…after taking a second look, I’m with Kottke on this one. Just like I doubt the Grey Album would have gotten the cred it had if it were Eminem sampling an indie band, this whole Minor Threat/Nike controversy would be written off as homage by the “copyleft” crusaders if it were a starving artist stealing from a giant corporation instead of the other way around. At what point do you become rich and powerful enough that you’re no longer allowed to pay tribute to a copyrighted image?
19 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
This isn’t paying homage - it’s co-opting. There is a difference when the dynamics are this skewed, and this particular instance just follows in a fairly long line of egregious advertising efforts by Nike.
And, if we want to take the “starving artist stealing from a giant corporation instead of the other way around” argument, I’d point out that most examples of this , at least the ones that apply in terms of recontextualizing iconography (see http://illegal-art.org) are critiques of either those corporations’ massive influences and poor use of them, are other, for lack of a better term and longer argument, abuses of the system.
Sure, you could argue that an artist makes a name for themselves by drawing fire (and subsequent press) with appropriated imagery, but considering the context of this, I’d say it’s a wholly irrelevant argument. Nike had an image and some ideas it wanted to convey, and whatever ad exec dreamed this up knew that Ian Mackaye wouldn’t sell. So Nike takes it, because they know they can afford the end result of any possible lawsuit, if it comes to that.
Comment by star — June 28, 2005 @ 12:29 am
Wait a minute. When I copy other people’s stuff (music, film, photos, etc) , it’s “piracy” and a violation of copyright, and they’d sic their lawyers on me. But when Nike does it, it’s “homage”? Your logic is skewed.
Comment by Matthias — June 28, 2005 @ 2:30 am
The only upside I see to this is the possibility that some new people will discover Minor Threat.
Comment by Rudicus — June 28, 2005 @ 7:20 am
Co-option pure and simple. Nike has no intention of giving Dischord a dime or an ounce of credit. They are just hoping that they can outspend Ian McKaye, and they almost certainly can.
Comment by Amanda Marcotte — June 28, 2005 @ 7:29 am
Aesthetic appropriation has always been a ‘weapon of the weak’ - reinterpreting imagery from pop / mass / dominant culture in order to reveal or develop a critique of the underlying ideology. You can’t equate the actions of appropration without talking about ‘power’. Nike has power. People who spraypaint billboards usually don’t. Teenage punkers in the early 80’s didn’t.
I’m sure there have been 10 other small punk bands that have spun this Minor Threat imagery (who can forget Poison Idea’s Ian Mackaye ‘Asshole’ cover art). Dischord didn’t get upset about that stuff cuz of the power relations aspect. I would be pissed if I were dischord. Kottke is off on this one…
Comment by Loudawg — June 28, 2005 @ 7:40 am
Dischord is pissed. May it please the court:
Comment by Brian Emmett — June 28, 2005 @ 8:21 am
Kottke’s an idiot… he’s wrong about this case. He doesn’t understand Dischord’s stance.
for one thing- it’s unlikely that the “designers working on this campaign for Nike” understood what they were doing. It’s more likely that somebody said “let’s use a lot of punk imagery to get the kids to buy our product” so these designers did some gooling and started co-opting imagery. i havne’t seen the campaign (other than the minor threat theft) but there’s no way anyone who knows anything about Minor Threat or Dischord would EVER consider using a corporate marketing campaign to pay “homage” to them. That’s just bullshit.
“Isn’t punk all about taking without permission?” uh… i don’t even know where to begin with this bit of idiocy.
The issue here is not really with the “sampling” or the “homage” or whatever you want to call it. Ian MacEye, and Dischord, have built his entire career out of a stance against big corporate money/influence. He’s not pissed off that someone paid “homage” to Minor Threat. He’s pissed off that a heartless corporation stole his imagery to sell a product that represents EVERYTHING that he stands against. He has every right to be pissed off and he has every right to sue the bastards. But if he did sue them, it wouldn’t be for the money- it’s for the principals that Ian and Dischord stand for.
Comment by tomN! — June 28, 2005 @ 8:23 am
This is amusing. First of all, there are two separate photos used above (look at the shoes), so all the talk of “stealing” and “piracy” doesn’t apply here. The imagery itself is completely meaningless outside the context of Minor Threat, which is why Nike is using it as a way to score some punk cred. But like I mentioned earlier, how does this differ from the “homage” defense that artists always use to defend themselves against big, evil corporations like Nike?
Let’s say that the Major Threat ad was from a tiny skate company instead of Nike. Would it be okay then under the power dynamics mentioned above? It would still be an issue of “co-opting, not homage” and it would still be a company using punk imagery in the hopes of getting punk cred and making a profit. If it’s okay for the little guy but not for Nike, then it’s clear that the arguments have less to do with the specifics of this case and are more about how awful big corporations are under this intangible idea of power.
I don’t agree with what Nike has done here at all. If I were Minor Threat, I’d be livid. I hope they’re able to sue Nike into bankruptcy, but I can’t help but laugh at the fact that so many people who scoff at the idea of copyright law and laud artists whose only medium is appropriation are quick to pile on Nike when the shoe is on the other foot.
Comment by greg — June 28, 2005 @ 9:10 am
I think when a corporation who espouses everything you stand against appropriates an image - your image - which just happened to defined a movement, there’s more than ample reason to be upset. I’m with Dischord on this one.
For the record, Nike has apologized:
http://www.nike.com/nikeskateboarding/v2/letter/index.html
Comment by Beth — June 28, 2005 @ 9:42 am
pay tribute to a copyrighted image?
or pay homage to…
the key word is “pay”
It doesn’t matter who is the “big guy” or the “little guy” the matters are only “who owns it” and “who took it without permission” and what “it” is.
Dischord owns it.
Nike took it.
and “it” is, in this case, the composition of the image not the image itself.
Comment by sgo — June 28, 2005 @ 9:57 am
I’m a big supporter of copyleft and I believe the line is drawn as soon as you start taking something for commercial purposes. If I wanted to use the logo in a non commercial way, I should be able to. However, I shouldn’t be able to take their work and make money of it without contributing back. If Nike won’t let me make money of the swoosh, they can’t make money off this. Hell, Nike won’t let me use the swoosh for something non commercial.
Comment by Andrew — June 28, 2005 @ 2:42 pm
Perhaps if Nike let people use their images free of charge, for “homage” purposes, or to attack what they stand for (arguably what nike is doing vis-a-vis Dischord), then it would naturally follow that we should laugh at those who suddenly change their minds about Copyright law when the shoe (Ha!) is on the other foot. But Nike is attempting to appropriate imagery aimed at its own distruction to sell its products, while suing those who use its imagery in equivalent ways. Hypocrisy is upsetting with or without copyright law.
In a side note, I saw this imagry while temping for Nike earlier this year. I was a waiter at a Nike conference for its international VIPs. There were displays of the various affiliated product lines and a fashion show feaaturing very young female models who were ogled shamelessly by the male members of the audience.
Free handouts explained Nike’s marketing plan for this summer.
Anyway, one of the cases had these t-shirts, along with other appropriated imagery, and it really freaked me out. I thought Dischord had perhaps sold them the right to use the image, so I was pretty unhappy. Of course, Copyright law is in place in part to prevent just such misunderstandings.
Comment by Joe — June 28, 2005 @ 2:49 pm
my problem isn’t with the “big corporation” it’s with the meaning of an image being used against it’s original purposes. It’s disrespectful to everything that DisChord stands for, and that’s what pissed me off about it. I don’t care who it is- big corporation or small-time entrepeneur. it’s disrespectful bullshit. and i think my sentiments to this case are very similar to your feelings about “Litch”.
i think it’s really cool of Nike to end it the way they did. It was unlikely that DisChord would try to, or be able to, sue them. What would DisChord do with all that money? Probably give it all away to charity or give endless free tours and concerts for all their bands. It’s cool that Nike was smart enough, and conscientious enough to do the right thing here. points for them. i’m not one of those total Nike haters, though. I’m sure they’re still pissed.
Comment by tomN! — June 28, 2005 @ 3:07 pm
I agree, but do you feel the same way about sampling? The copyleft movement had a field day with the Grey Album despite the fact that DJ Dangermouse burned copies of the album and shipped them to stores as “promos”. He made quite a handsome profit (mostly indirectly) based on his appropriation of intellectual property.
I don’t support Nike in this case, so I totally understand the emotional reaction that this case has recieved. But at the same time, I think it’s incredibly hypocritical for anyone who spends so much energy fighting copyright laws to jump to Dischord’s defense once somebody on “our side” is threatened. Appropriation is a two-way street, but for many people, artists rights only flows in the direction of their personal tastes.
Comment by greg — June 28, 2005 @ 4:19 pm
There’s a big difference between co-option and appropriating an image to comment on the original piece. You could make an argument that Nike is commenting on Minor Threat, I suppose. They are broadcasting their contempt for authenticity, for sure. But the power differentials are exactly why people like me stand against this–the little guy does deserve protection from being ground into little pieces by huge corporations.
Comment by Amanda Marcotte — June 28, 2005 @ 4:36 pm
If that’s the case, then aren’t you just making the argument that Nike’s comment on Minor Threat lacks validity? Can something like this only be considered appropriation if you agree with the message and approve of the entity doing the co-option? Or are you making the case that commercial art doesn’t deserve the same considerations as noncommercial art? It seems that the difference between co-option and appropriation isn’t as big as you imply.
At what point does “the little guy” become one of the “huge corporations”? Is there a certain dollar amount at which a company’s profits make them cross the line between “us” and “them”? It’s pretty clear here, but what if it was a tiny punk label run by a guy in his bedroom vs. Dischord? I agree about the dynamics of this case, but emotional appeals tend to fall apart when the time comes to actually quantify this sort of thing.
Comment by greg — June 28, 2005 @ 4:54 pm
GODDAMMIT!!! i wrote a big long comment and then lost it when i hit the wrong button.
Comment by tomN! — June 29, 2005 @ 9:19 am
I’m personally pretty upset about Nike ripping off Minor Threat for all the reasons people talked about above, but what’s even more upsetting is their history of labor abuses. Nike is notorious for their use of sweat shops and for child labor and they deserve to be boycotted. Unfortunately Nike bought Converse a few years back. I think it would be a great statement if punks (and everyone!) joined the boycott that’s been going on for years now and stopped buying Converse and other Nike products. This Nike rip-off has generated a lot of talk, but I hope it will generate some action too. Otherwise Nike just got a lot of free publicity with no negative consequences.
Comment by basla — July 3, 2005 @ 8:27 pm
Appropriation has been consuming my life for the past 6 months – I am writing my thesis on graphic design appropriation. The Nike vs. Minor Threat debate is an example of the problems faced by designers when choosing to design by appropriation. Don’t get me wrong appropriation can work however there are so many factors that come into play when appropriating that it seems crossing the line is evitable. Designers should not ignore the content and context of the original appropriation. In Nikes case they should have examined Minor Threat philosophy and asked the question ‘Is the context of the album and band appropriate to Nike philosophy?’ Is there a common link? Although a common link could have been skateboard and the punk scene, Nike needs to ask themselves if the punk genre is enough to justify an appropriation. This is where designers face problems when appropriation, they don’t ask enough questions or put themselves in the original designers shoes.
Homage is a word that is thrown around too much. It is a word that designers and company use to justify their influence. However, this doesn’t always end criticism. As a designer, I know that we look to a number of influences for ideas, call it homage if you want - that is what we do. We speak in a familiar language that is accessible to the audience, through familiar typography, grids and images. What we should not do is misappropriate other designer’s work and hope that they will not find out – because they will. Ask yourself questions, make sure that if you are choosing to appropriated that the original meaning is not lost, create through content and context and put yourself in other peoples shoe. If anyone should have done, this Nike should have.
Comment by bexx — July 12, 2005 @ 9:51 pm