Angriest_Dragon wrote:

tipcat wrote:Intellectual property questions aside, what is it that distinguishes an homage (good) from a rank appropriation (bad)?

A good band doing it versus a bad band doing it.
If someone like Shellac mocked the cover art to a CCR record, it would be seen as homage or funny.
Now if someone like ICP did the same thing, people would get angry.

hahahaha seeing ICP do a cover of a CCR song would probably make me so furious my heart would implode

the earth would truely die that day

So the implication of a.g.'s statement is that artists deemed 'good' by people 'of taste' are within their rights to pay homage/appropriate, for such activity is in the service of creating 'real' art. Clowns who make 'bad' music are not really making art, and therefore denigrate the source material by appropriating it. In the latter the source is regarded as merely one among many, without distinction.

Hmm...

tipcat wrote:Intellectual property questions aside, what is it that really distinguishes an homage (good) from a rank appropriation (bad)? What is it that distinguishes The Clash's theft from that of Nike's?

How about this one:

-Album covers are not adverts.

Album covers like that are used to pay homage to a similar artist or influence, or to make a joke.

Nike's ad is attempting to sell shoes by implying a connection to an artist - taking advantage of that artist's hard work and reknown to sell a product.

We know that Nike's marketing dept didn't get Dischord's permission to use that image.

Do we know that none of the above 'tribute' cover designers also did not get permission to parody the covers they paid tribute to?

Maybe Nike can just flat out afford a lawsuit and dont give a fuck.

"A million dollars to pay off some little band we never heard of? Shit, we spend more than that on a good cigar."

Do we know that none of the above 'tribute' cover designers also did not get permission to parody the covers they paid tribute to?

you don't need permission to parody something. parody is protected speech.

whiskerando wrote:

Do we know that none of the above 'tribute' cover designers also did not get permission to parody the covers they paid tribute to?

you don't need permission to parody something. parody is protected speech.

There's a rub--maybe Nike is parodying the same culture they're selling to! "Ha! isn't this art funny, what with the guy looking so upset on his porch!"

Then again, maybe not.

The devil's advocate point is a really good, head-scratching one, but ultimately, i have to side with it being unjustifiable. I'm sorry for the dude struggling with his student loans and looking to get on his feet in the graphic design/marketing world, but if you can't come up with an idea at least a LITTLE based on your own inspiration, then maybe you suck at it.

That said, this really really does bring up some interesting questions about on what level an advertisement can be considered an art form (and i think that, to a degree, it can, although the fact tat it exists to sell a product is part of the overall context of the work and more often hurts rather than helps its standing as a "great work" or whatever), and how copyright law/fair use comes into play.

I think my final verdict (for now) is: whether or not Nike should be allowed to do it, it still stinks because of what Nike stands for overall: corporate profit, child labor, and questionable product. The joke made earlier that "it's ok when someone good does it" may actually have something to it, if you think in terms of the larger umbrella of whatever the art is promoting.