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.

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.

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.

the little guy does deserve protection from being ground into little pieces by huge corporations

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.

I’m a big supporter of copyleft and I believe the line is drawn as soon as you start taking something for commercial purposes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.