Satire in advertising
November 27, 2002 8:40 AM Subscribe
Should advertising be allowed to contain caricatures and satire of major figures without their permission? My opinion is yes they bloody well should. Good luck to the producers with hunting down Osama.
Non-rhetorically, why shouldn't they? Sounds fine to me.
posted by alumshubby at 8:54 AM on November 27, 2002
posted by alumshubby at 8:54 AM on November 27, 2002
As long as they don't insult our fearless leader!
posted by Pollomacho at 8:55 AM on November 27, 2002
posted by Pollomacho at 8:55 AM on November 27, 2002
Well in the USA this would not have played out like this.
The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) ruled that the ads were offensive because they questioned the president's intelligence, and without having asked his permission.
Maybe the network or a judge's order, but the closes thing we have like the BACC is the FCC which look for nudity & profanity.
posted by thomcatspike at 8:55 AM on November 27, 2002
The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) ruled that the ads were offensive because they questioned the president's intelligence, and without having asked his permission.
Maybe the network or a judge's order, but the closes thing we have like the BACC is the FCC which look for nudity & profanity.
posted by thomcatspike at 8:55 AM on November 27, 2002
/s they it, indeed!
That's a sticky problem . . . satire is protected, but so is a person's rights to their own image in regards to promotion of a product. Could a collection of political cartoons be advertised with a representative cartoon from the collection that featured an ex-pres? I think so. Hmm . . .
posted by mikrophon at 8:56 AM on November 27, 2002
That's a sticky problem . . . satire is protected, but so is a person's rights to their own image in regards to promotion of a product. Could a collection of political cartoons be advertised with a representative cartoon from the collection that featured an ex-pres? I think so. Hmm . . .
posted by mikrophon at 8:56 AM on November 27, 2002
I remember a company getting in trouble a few years back for using President Clinton's image in a commercial, but I think if the character were some sort of "Bubba" character it would be protected.
posted by owillis at 8:58 AM on November 27, 2002
posted by owillis at 8:58 AM on November 27, 2002
The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) ruled that the ads were offensive because they questioned the president's intelligence, and without having asked his permission.
I bet that's why "That's My Bush" got canceled...
Bastards.
posted by SweetJesus at 9:03 AM on November 27, 2002
I bet that's why "That's My Bush" got canceled...
Bastards.
posted by SweetJesus at 9:03 AM on November 27, 2002
Wait this is not a show, but the commercial in between one from what I see on preview. I'm not sure in the USA, but that would infringe on some endorsing rights over here, as your using someone's name or likeness to sell a product to make money. It's hard to have a true opinion on this living under different laws from the UK.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:07 AM on November 27, 2002
posted by thomcatspike at 9:07 AM on November 27, 2002
I bet that's why "That's My Bush" got canceled...
That show struck me more as a project than a series anyway, verging on actual art. I think it was best that it wrapped when it did.
posted by mikrophon at 9:11 AM on November 27, 2002
That show struck me more as a project than a series anyway, verging on actual art. I think it was best that it wrapped when it did.
posted by mikrophon at 9:11 AM on November 27, 2002
2dtv is a tv show; don't know if the commercial is for the actual tv show or the dvd of the series. Their site is here.
They are also responsible for the recent George Micheal video.
posted by toby\flat2 at 9:15 AM on November 27, 2002
They are also responsible for the recent George Micheal video.
posted by toby\flat2 at 9:15 AM on November 27, 2002
You know, I read this story in the NY Times, and got all excited because I figured I'd be the first to post it to MeFi. Oh well. At least I can contribute this, a link to a site which collects cease-and-desist letters sent to Internet users.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 9:18 AM on November 27, 2002
posted by BitterOldPunk at 9:18 AM on November 27, 2002
Yes, toby, their site is... featured in my post.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:27 AM on November 27, 2002
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:27 AM on November 27, 2002
You expect me to read the post? Pfft!
posted by toby\flat2 at 9:38 AM on November 27, 2002
posted by toby\flat2 at 9:38 AM on November 27, 2002
In the US, the major broadcast network's standards and practices department view spots before they air. Would they have nixed this one? Probably not since it is clearly a cartoon representation of GWB and satire. Now if it showed our commander in chief doing blow off a stripper's tits, that wouldn't make it on ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX. On cable though, anything goes.
posted by birdherder at 1:26 PM on November 27, 2002
posted by birdherder at 1:26 PM on November 27, 2002
'Course, Dubya snorting Texas booger-sugar off of some stripper's knobs would be a bit closer to the mark than calling him a moron. Mind you, not much more - the only thing Bush has done well, in terms of intellect or education, is improve the country's opinion of Dan Quayle. Bush is at least intelligent enough to realize that he's dumb enough to need flappers.
You get the feeling that Republicans put idiots and doddering fools in office because they're easier for the GOP to manage?
posted by FormlessOne at 9:05 PM on November 28, 2002
You get the feeling that Republicans put idiots and doddering fools in office because they're easier for the GOP to manage?
posted by FormlessOne at 9:05 PM on November 28, 2002
« Older The Constitution's 27 Amendments in our daily... | Al Gore on Media Bias Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Pretty_Generic at 8:41 AM on November 27, 2002