RIP Rosa Parks

[link343]

 

[racketboy]

yeah I saw that on Apple's site today

that was very cool of them

 

[it290]

Yeah, how insanely cool of them to use the death of a civil rights icon to plaster their logo all over her photograph. 🙁

 

[SkankinMonkey]

yea, exploiting her death to sell a few more ipods just really shows their dedication to (being pricks) civil rights

 

[ExCyber]

The way that photo is framed really makes her look peripheral. If the text wasn't there I'd be wondering who the white guy with the mutant ears right in the middle of the photo is supposed to be. <_<

Talk about mixed messages...

 

[mal]

At least they didn't photoshop an iPod onto her. 😉

 

[racketboy]

Originally posted by it290@Wed, 2005-10-26 @ 02:49 AM

Yeah, how insanely cool of them to use the death of a civil rights icon to plaster their logo all over her photograph. 🙁

[post=141063]Quoted post[/post]​

it's a bit more subtle that that...

It's no different than the other "Think different" photos of old

 

[SkankinMonkey]

yea because exploiting people is good - how?

 

[it290]

it's a bit more subtle that that...

It's no different than the other "Think different" photos of old

True, but I've never been a fan of those either, or the Dirt Devil ads with Fred Astaire, IBM's Charlie Chaplin, etc. That type of advertising was a big fad in 90's, but I think it's somewhat appalling to use the dead in ways they never knew about or wanted. I don't care if companies use Henry VIII or whoever in their ads, since they're just using an actor in that case (not to mention Henry wasn't the greatest guy anyway), but seriously Racket, how would you feel if your mom just died and the next day I put put her picture on my home page with my company logo and slogan on top of it?

 

[Mask of Destiny]

Wasn't there a Rosa Parks Think Different ad before she was dead? I seem to remember seeing this image before (minus the 1913-2005 bit of course). If that is indeed the case, might they have already had her permission to use her likeness in the ad?

 

[racketboy]

I'm almost positive that they had permission.

It would be idiotic not to.

I still don't know why you [Skank] think it's exploiting a person.

Its not really advertising anything.

Besides, think of it this way -- they took DOWN their big graphics for the new iPod Video, Nano, and slimmed iMac.

Apple is basically sacrificing their normal advertising to remind people of the difference she made in America.

Heaven forbid...

 

[SkankinMonkey]

It's not advertising? It's advertising the company, the brand, but not the product. It's saying 'hi we're nice people, you should buy from us!'

 

[it290]

Maybe they did have permission, I don't know. I'm certain they didn't have Einstein's permission, although they may have had the permission of his estate... which isn't the same thing at all in my opinion. Same with Ghandi, etc. As for Parks, it doesn't seem like her to sell her image like that, but I guess you never know. Since she was a public figure, though, it seems possible that Apple might be able to use her likeness without permission, the same way that companies that sell Dubya action figures do.

 

[SkankinMonkey]

I think the 'dubya' action figures can do it by legal right of parody.

 

[it290]

The ones I'm referring to aren't meant as parody though, they're the ones with him in his 'Mission Accomplished' flight gear. They're funny as hell, but the manufacturer is serious about them.

 

[schi0249]

I guarantee they had permission. Her estate sued how many people while she was alive? I remember them going after some musician because they had a song about Rosa.

 

[SkankinMonkey]

Originally posted by schi0249@Wed, 2005-10-26 @ 07:53 PM

I guarantee they had permission. Her estate sued how many people while she was alive? I remember them going after some musician because they had a song about Rosa.

[post=141109]Quoted post[/post]​

They went after Outkast because they had a song entitled rosa parks which basically said she should have moved to the back of the bus and stopped being an annoying woman.

Outkast settled and was forced to setup some charites or something.

 

[racketboy]

Originally posted by SkankinMonkey@Wed, 2005-10-26 @ 11:38 PM

It's not advertising? It's advertising the company, the brand, but not the product. It's saying 'hi we're nice people, you should buy from us!'

[post=141102]Quoted post[/post]​

Your arguement still doesn't make sense -- especially when you compare it to my last post.

If it was a company you liked, I'm sure you wouldn't complain.

 

[it290]

Makes sense to me. I think it's pretty hard to claim that an image featuring the company logo and slogan isn't advertising, even if it's not advertising a specific product. After all, this is just like every other 'Think Different' ad, and those all appeared in magazines, etc. Not something you could consider a public service announcement.

 

[SkankinMonkey]

Originally posted by racketboy@Wed, 2005-10-26 @ 08:09 PM

Your arguement still doesn't make sense -- especially when you compare it to my last post.

If it was a company you liked, I'm sure you wouldn't complain.

[post=141112]Quoted post[/post]​

I don't dislike apple, I have an ipod myself. I dislike their abuse of someone that created their own image to bolster their own image though. It would be like McDonalds using Dave Thomas's death to sell Big Macs.