Nike's major lift - Signal vs. Noise (by 37signals)

Nike’s major lift Matt 27 Jun 2005

83 comments Latest by we offer branded sports shoes

There’s a striking similarity between the poster for Nike’s “Major Threat” East Coast Tour (skateboarding) and a 1984 album cover from Dischord’s Minor Threat.

major minor

When asked by Pitchfork if Nike had obtained permission to mirror the art, Dischord Records said:

No, they stole it and we’re not happy about it. Nike is a giant corporation which is attempting to manipulate the alternative skate culture to create an even wider demand for their already ubiquitous brand. Nike represents just about the antithesis of what Dischord stands for and it makes me sick to my stomach to think they are using this explicit imagery to fool kids into thinking that the general ethos of this label, and Minor Threat in particular, can somehow be linked to Nike’s mission. It’s disgusting.

Update: Nike apologizes and says, “This was a poor judgement call and should not have been executed without consulting Minor Threat and Dischord Records.”

83 comments so far (Jump to latest)

JackRuby 27 Jun 05

Dear Nike,

Thanks for turning a really important record from my youth into a cheap ad campaign for your sweatshop output.

worst regards,

jack.

Nick 27 Jun 05

It should be interesting to see if Dischord will take Nike to court, somehow I get the feeling they won’t, but they should just to be funny.

Dan Boland 27 Jun 05

Keep in mind that this is the same company that used the Beatles’ “Revolution” (a pro-peace song) to sell sneakers in the 80s.

Aaron 27 Jun 05

“Keep in mind that this is the same company that used the Beatles� �Revolution� (a pro-peace song) to sell sneakers in the 80s.”>

Keep in mind they had permission.

Don Schenck 27 Jun 05

I’m floored! I’m amazed that a company of Nike’s size feels it has to resort to *stealing*.

So while 12-year old “Music Pirates” are being hauled into court by the RIAA, Nike walks.

Amazing. Frickin’ amazing.

Art Wells 27 Jun 05

Does this mean we can use Nike’s images and “branding” to promote whatever we’d like? If it does, I won’t be quite as disgusted by the baseness of their ethics (not that I had significant expectations).

Their only way out here is to write a huge check and issue an apology.

I had the understanding that Nike was making some corporate effort (or the appearance of effort) to be more responsible after being hurt a little by the discovery of their parasitic approach to labor and human life. Hopefully, they’ll have a bit of an education about how civilized organizations treat others intellectual property. Not much reason to hope, but I’ll take it.

Adam C 27 Jun 05

It doesn’t sound like Nike is getting away with much here. It was called out by Pitchfork and Dischord Records seems pretty mad. That and we’re talking about it here. All depends on if Dischord wants to do anything about it. But I don’t think anyone is connecting Dischord or Minor Threat with the new campaign. That’s an accusation that is made frequently in design and copyright related cases and I just can’t go for it.

armofinfant 27 Jun 05

I think Lebron is behind all this.

www.melvins.net

Scott M. 27 Jun 05

Without condoning Nike’s motives, I’m not sure I’m seeing any infringement. Similarity, yes. The concept is the same, yes. But a concept is not copyrightable — and thank goodness for that.

I think this is more about insidious marketing tactics of a big coporation appropriating the design ethos of subculture more than copyright theft.

James 27 Jun 05

Most of Nike’s stuff isn’t designed in-house. Let’s point the finger of blame more directly at the agency that designed the piece in the first place. That’s where the fault really lies.

How Nike handles the situation now that the rip-off has been pointed out is what will reflect more directly on them.

Tom S. 27 Jun 05

Nike was most likely not aware that the concept was rip-off of the Minor Threat artwork. I doubt Nike legal would have released it for production if they had known the concept was not original.

Bryan C 27 Jun 05

Um, why would Nike be expected to obtain permission? They (or their designer) has obviously aped the design of Dischord’s 20-year-old album cover, but it’s just as clear that they restaged it, rather than stealing it. I don’t see anything sinister about it; new designs based on yesterday’s cult favorites are far from unusual.

Brian 27 Jun 05

I can’t believe the last four comments (except James). Are you kidding me?

Ian Mackaye is throwing up.

Art Wells 27 Jun 05

A little search found that they’ve done something somewhat similar to this and lost in (a Chinese) court. Zhu Zhiqiang had his “concept” stolen by Wieden and Kennedy, and Nike fought it (and expressed an interest in appeal), rather than apollogizing and renumerating the artist.

Whether or not this case is similar enough to the Zhu Zhiqiang case to be considered a nasty habit on Nike’s part, whether or not it’s legal infringement or the use of a public domain “concept”, or someone else’s fault, Nike will tell us by their actions what they think a good business should do. I don’t expect this message will stay the same in cases where their intellectual property is aped for profit, but I’m open to hoping for better.

Pete Prodoehl 27 Jun 05

Oh, I see “striking similarity” is some sort of code for “rip-off” eh?

Man, I HATE Nike!

(But I LOVE Dischord!)

It’s a good thing I wear Converse… What? Oh, nevermind…

Melanie 27 Jun 05

Dischord Records is asking people to email Nike to complain, whatever good that will do.

Nike Customer Help

Tom 27 Jun 05

I work for an ad agency that has had its hand slapped for this exact sort of “borrowing” or whatever you want to call it. Photographers and their reps go to great lengths (as they should) to protect concepts and yes they do win these cases.

This example goes above and beyond by copying the band’s album art, logo, even name likeness and the usage is to promote a “show.”

I continue to be a huge fan of Minor Threat as well as Fugazi and am appalled at this blatant disregard for those artist’s rights not to mention messages.

I’m “Seeing Red” and “Screaming At A Wall,” hopefull we’ll “Look Back And Laugh” at this whole thing.

Randy 27 Jun 05

This is classic. Everyone is so for artist’s rights, yet those same people probably have no problem dloading MP3s illegally or copying CDs.

pb 27 Jun 05

Puh-leaze. Infringement? Illegal? C’mon. This kind of stuff is common: http://www.knockoffproject.com/

The only reason that ad has any significance is because it derives from the album cover.

At worst it’s ill-concieved.

pb 27 Jun 05

“I work for an ad agency that has had its hand slapped for this exact sort of �borrowing�”

Care to provide any details?

Tom 27 Jun 05

I can’t really provide details, but in the interest of saving money the agency has staged images that were too similar to pricey stock photography and got called on it.

Dale Cruse 27 Jun 05

I don’t think anyone would argue that many designs are inspired by other designs, but this is beyond “inspiration.” This is out and out copying - they didn’t even *attempt* to hide what they were doing.

Graeme Worthy 27 Jun 05

Dudes, you are all freaking out over this, but then turn around and pass your friends mix tapes and say ‘doh’ when you stub your toes. It’s not a ‘rip off’ its not ‘theft’ its fun, it’s playful, and really, it’s the way that we all want things to be. You’re only upset because it’s a ‘large corporation’.. well no, it’s an ad designer just like you, and you and you, and they probably got mighty stoked when they got to pay homage to minor threat.

We all love the little guy, but if we want to be able to ‘rip off, mash up, and pass on’ our own ideas and to riff on the ideas of others. We have to stop this petty arguing about ‘blatant ripoffs.’

And stop being yesmen.

Art Wells 27 Jun 05

“Lesser artists borrow. Great artists steal.” (attributed to Picasso and Stravinsky.) Corporations, entities that exist only through the favor of laws and commerce, do neither. Corporations may hire artists, but they may also hire lawyers that stifle artists.

We all echo our culture to some extent, and the motivations of satire, flattery and adoration should be followed. However, there is a huge, and I would think obvious, difference between fair use of copyrighted material by an individual, the remix of an adored work by an artist, stealing music via filesharing, and the co-opting, and perhaps claiming, of a cultural icon for profiteering. I can even appreciate arguments would make it all fall under the same law, but to muddle them all together under the same ethic is an unfortunate mistake.

Nike has enthusiatically sued others for less. Let them follow the legal precedent they helped establish.

W. B. McNamara 27 Jun 05

Graeme said:
well no, it�s an ad designer just like you, and you and you, and they probably got mighty stoked when they got to pay homage to minor threat.

Well, see, that’s the thing here: “paying homage” to Minor Threat by duplicating their cover art for a Nike poster is kind of like…oh, I don’t know, paying homage to them by kicking them in the crotch, spitting on them while they’re writhing on the ground, and then laughing as you walk away.

Dischord records continues to exist today because Ian MacKaye has pretty significant concerns about the role of corporations in the US, and quite literally is willing to put his money where his mouth is: he turned down both major label contract offers for Fugazi and buyout offers for the Dischord label as a whole, in order to maintain independent control over what they created.

I suppose that the designer may possibly be happy with what they’ve done, now that you mention it, but I’m pretty confident that the people who created the original artwork are not at all pleased…

ek 27 Jun 05

To Graeme Worthy and others making similar points, regardless of the merits of your argument, to put it simply, two wrongs don’t make a right.

You might be right in calling some of the people decrying this hypocrites, but that doesn’t somehow absolve Nike of blame for clearly ripping off Minor Threat’s album cover art.

And whomever actually executed on the production of the poster, ultimately, the blame lies in Nike’s lap because, even if it was done by an outside agency, said agency was working on Nike’s behalf and all work done by said agency on behalf of Nike would have required the company’s explicit approval.

And, in response to Tom S’ post up near the top, the sad thing is, knowing some of the people at Nike SB, I’m certain that they knew exactly what they were doing — they’re almost as immersed in the underground/indi scene as the artists are. I’m sure the legal people didnt’ have a clue, but the people responsible for developing and approving the concept for the ad almost certainly did. To me, that’s the most disappointing part of all this.

All-in-all I’d have to say that, legal or not, this is a pretty lame move on Nike’s part.

Finally, to Melanie, the tone of your post re: an email campaign seemed rather sullen, but such a campaign can indeed be very effective. What Nike cares about more than anything is its image, so if you can get enough people emailing them and letting the company know that this unapproved co-opting of Minor Threat’s album art is lame, they will act. My guess is that a grass roots email campaign is going to do more to get their attention than a lawsuit brought by Dischord. So think positive — individuals working in concert can effect change!

pb 27 Jun 05

I agree with Kottke.

John 27 Jun 05

@pb
Sorry mate but a homage is usually identified as such.
Based on Kottle’s line, I could copy his layout because I realy think he’s the bee’s knees and have since he started.

Well done on their apology but the homage line is pretty weak.

pb 28 Jun 05

An homage is never explicitly identified as such!

If I put up a kottke-like home page for National Blogger’s Week there would be *no* issue.

Randy 28 Jun 05

I’m with Kottke (and pb) too.

Justin P. 28 Jun 05

I don’t get Kottke’s statement. It’s completely contradictory to what goes on around the web when people “borrow” another individuals website design.

It’s not a homage in that case (stealing a website) so how is it a homage when Nike does it, that’s a bunch of bullsh!t.

Jamie 28 Jun 05

Kudos for Nike owning up, apologising, and pulling their posters.

On the other hand, thanks to the fuss made over this i’m now aware Nike has a skateboarding business unit. So, mission accomplished, I suppose.

(Not that I actually have any desire to buy Nike product, skateboarding related or not, you understand…)

Britt 28 Jun 05

I also disagree with Kottke (and I gave him $30). This is not homage. It is a blatant rip-off. For younger people who did not grow up listening to Minor Threat, they will see the Nike ad first and think the Minor Threat album art is a copy because they don’t have context. In order for something to be an homage, there has to be context.

This is not just a part of remix culture. It is a rip off. Remix culture would be if some schmoe took the Minor Threat album and put Nikes on the guy and posted it on his blog as commentary. This is purely about a company using the artwork to make money. That is not what remix culture is about.

B 28 Jun 05

My guess is that neither pb nor Kottke skated or listened to Minor Threat. If they did, they’d sing a different tune.

Justin P. 28 Jun 05

You’ve hit the nail on the head with that one, B.

There’s a certain amount of ignorance that goes along with an individuals lack of understanding/appreciation for a subject. I see it all the time in various aspects of life, beit a band that I am into (everyone has heard the line “All their songs sound the same…”) or a work of art (how about: “My 10 year-old could do that…”) or even when it comes to making websites.

Nike is not a skateboarding company and they never have been (nor will they ever be one). Nike is not known for the great love of Minor Threat, the designers of that ad were not paying homage, they were stealing work because they:

a) Were hoping it would go unnoticted
b) Were trying to use Minor Threat to help better connect to the skate community.

FF 28 Jun 05

“Isn’t punk all about taking without permission?” - Kottke

I don’t know where JK is from, where he grew up, or what he even knows about Ian Mackaye, Minor Threat, or Dischord have meant for the Washington DC area. As a someone who grew up and lives in the area for the last 35 years it’s sad to see that this is the opinion of what punk is. Even now punk has been redefined good and bad since Minor Threat was around. Those who remember how the DC punk community evolved from the mid to late 80s knows it was never about “taking without permission”.

Tyler 28 Jun 05

Nike Apologizes, for the record

pb 28 Jun 05

Hah, hah. That’s funny. Now one needs to be a skater and Minor Threat listener to weigh in. Yeah, you’re better than me.

Were hoping it would go unnoticed? You’re kidding right? How many people “ripped off” “Just do it” or “Got milk”.

Sure, it was lousy judgement on the Nike SB team but, c’mon, the idea that it is theft is absurd.

Dan Boland 28 Jun 05

Hah, hah. That�s funny. Now one needs to be a skater and Minor Threat listener to weigh in. Yeah, you�re better than me.

That’s what I was thinking. That happens on a lot of these boards — people look for ways of invalidating others’ opinions. And the “Got Milk?” point is well taken.

qyph 28 Jun 05

I was never a Nike afficionado to begin with, but as they appear to appreciate the amateuristic, incoherent, painfully unmusical and ultimately boring noise that Minor Threat produces, I will make absolutely certain that my sportswear will not carry the Greek God’s checkmark..

Justin P. 28 Jun 05

Yeah I get the point with the whole “Got Milk” deal, sure *everybody* uses that one now.

My gripe with Kottke’s statements is that this “homage” to Minor Threat looks an awful lot like when sombody pays homage to a CSS Zen Garden entry by copying it and trying to pass it off as their own. As we have seen time and time again, this web community usually chastizes the individual who pirated the work. I really can’t see the difference with this whole Nike thing.

It takes me a few seconds to spout off some “Got …” derivative. But to actually take the time to duplicate another individual’s work of art, that is quite different.

Nike tried in vain to insert themselves into the skate community in ‘99-00 with this crappy line of “skate” shoes. They failed miserably then and now here they are again, this time with a whole new marketing strategy which attempts to brand themselves as this hardcore company.

Lacy 28 Jun 05

The only thing Nike did wrong here was to not consult Minor Threat and Dischord Records for the approval of using their likeness in their posters. Who are you Justin P. to say that Nike can’t branch out to the skating or hardcore world?

A quote from the Nike apology letter:

“To set the record straight, Nike Skateboarding’s ‘Major Threat’ Tour poster was designed, executed and promoted by skateboarders, for skateboarders.”

One of the benefits Nike and other businesses have today is that you’re free to change and branch out to whatever groups you please. 10 years ago if someone said “Let’s go get something healthy at McDonald’s” you probably would have laughed at them. But today McDonald’s has branched out to attract health-conscious people. Like McDonald’s branching out to the health world, Nike’s effort to sell to the skating community is not something that can be restricted. Even if Nike is the “antithesis of what Dischord stands for,” that doesn’t forbid Nike from trying to create a skateboarding line. The only thing it forbids them from doing is that which they have apologized for (and claimed they meant no harm, only respect): using the artwork without the permission of Minor Threat and Dischord.

This is not to say that their skateboarding campaign will be successful, it’s just a clarification of their freedom to do a skateboarding line of products if they want to.

Also, Justin P., in response that Nike was hoping this would “go unnoticed,” I suggest you read their apology letter (as linked by Tyler above). They claim they used it on purpose because the tour was ending in DC. They thought it would be “a perfect fit” because of the album’s “strong imagery.” And yes they were definitely hoping to better connect to the skating community through the poster, but it is not that attempt at connection that they are at fault here for; it is the use of the artwork without consulting Minor Threat and Dischord.

Justin P. 28 Jun 05

Nice points Lacy, thanks for taking the time to put all that down.

I appreciate and understand the point you are trying to make in that a company is free to branch into whatever avenue of business they desire…technically speaking, one cannot argue against that.

> McDonald�s has branched out to attract health-conscious people

Uh, I see your point but please, McDonald’s and healthy do not go together. Throwing a couple pieces of deep-fried chicken on some Iceberg lettuce does NOT constitute a healthy meal.

This discussion started out of the fact that Nike pirated another artist’s work so we should leave it at that.

Kilok 28 Jun 05

Nike apologized. When is the skate community going to pull their heads out of their asses and apologize for being completely closed minded and protective of an industry with absolutely zero justification?

Sure you want to support your own, buy American made, buy local produce. It’s human nature to support your community but I think some communities take it a little too far. We outsource customer care to India where we can get intelligent cheap labor because it makes sense.

Nike isn’t wrong to try and penetrate the skate community. Eventually it’ll happen. They have the money to do it if they want to. Microsoft penetrated the home gaming market with the X-Box console because they stuck to their guns in the face of much scrutiny among the die-hard, including myself a through and through Nintendo fan, and soon enough will be in a very good position to lead the industry.

You guys can sit around and play your violins until your fingers bleed, but soon enough you’re going to wake up some morning to the sound of a kid’s wheels thumping over cracks in the road and he’ll be sporting a brand new pair of Nike skate denim jeans underneath the white of his Nike branded underclothed ass.

Maybe the skate community should just try and accept the effort, it’ll save yourself a stroke at 40.

Justin P. 29 Jun 05

> in the face of much scrutiny among the die-hard, including myself

Typical. One individual chastizing others for actions which they themselves are guilty of. Classic double-speak of the good ol’ US of A.

Kilok 29 Jun 05

Actually, I was born and raised in Canada.

But missing the points on this topic aside, I acknowledge my mistake and thought I made clear that I corrected the flaw in my thinking and am passing along the small bit of wisdom I have gained so that the community on this issue could possibly see their error and just give it up.

Clearly I was wrong in boycotting Microsoft for their attempt to penetrate an industry I felt they had no business being in. Similarly, everyone whining in this thread is doing the same to Nike.

Maybe they are trying to sneak this way, explain that they were merely trying to pay homage to the community. It could be some corporate propaganda seeking some sympathy from the community, or maybe… just maybe, they are being honest and made a grave miscalculation. Had this been any other company already established in the community, many of the people whining about Nike would be lined up outside the local skateshop thanking the heavens they aren’t sold out of the ‘Major Threat’ t-shirt.

I’m saying throw the hypocrisy out the window and grow up. Big bad Nike is invading your community. /sigh.

I feel like I’m in the company of people who gather the community to protest the opening of the local Wal-Mart fearing Joe-Bob’s Strawberry stand will be going out of business.

Don’t bother attacking me next time, attack the idea. I can only vouch for the school system here in Canada but I’m pretty sure we learned that around Grade 5.

Cara 29 Jun 05

Actually Justin P. I think you missed Kiloks point entirely. How long did it take you to TRY and find something you could piss and moan about in his post? Im just curious…

If i read correctly, hes challenging you to open ones mind and try thinking with that instead of ones ass. Its natural to be ‘scared’ of something new, but if its not harming anything why fight it.

Also, Lacy made some very nice points!

If I recall correctly Nike is/was an aggressive skating sponsor (at least in 1998 when a personal friend of mine was part of their ‘team’), its only natural they would branch out to where the money is, and that exactly what they’re doing. Heaven forbid they be good at making more then just basketball shoes…

Nike appolgized and seemed to make it very clear it meant no harm to the above stated ‘band’, im sure they’re working on righting the situation as we type.

Anonymous Coward 29 Jun 05

If I recall correctly Nike is/was an aggressive skating sponsor (at least in 1998 when a personal friend of mine was part of their �team�)

I believe they disbanded that whole effort, regrouped and went small.

pb 29 Jun 05

The link: http://www.business2.com/b2/web/articles/0,17863,609476,00.html

Justin P. 01 Jul 05

Kilok,
The USA part aside, you completely contradicted yourself in your own arguement. Telling me that I am wrong for disapproving of Nike and then telling me you did the same thing with Microsoft… that is ridiculous, and to me, invalidates your entire arguement.

I don’t like Nike and I don’t like big companies invading small communities in the name of money. I don’t care if anybody agrees with me or not, that is what I believe in. Go ahead and stand behind Nike or Walmart or whatever big company is trying to take hold of a given market by creating a monopoly.

> I�m pretty sure we learned that around Grade 5.

Wow, there is seemingly no end to your hypocrisy. You tell me not to attack the person, then you call me childish. At least you’re doing all the work of invalidating your arguements so I don’t have to.

I’m done with this pointless banter. Go back to buying your healthy McDonalds food and sporting your coolest new Nike skate shoes (with the Swoosh� of course).

Frank kj 01 Feb 06

This is for the nike company someone told me that I am able to buy a small peace from nike and own it and I want to know if it is true and if it is can you tell how can I do that.

sophia 06 May 06

nike is the best shoes in the whole wild word!!
i love nike because it is comfortable to wear..
i always buy nike stuff because i reckon it is the best ever!!!

xoxoxoxo

Sam chen 22 May 06

We are a professional shoe international trading company Lies in the biggest shoe-making base —- CHINA. We specialised in BRAND shoes. Our main business is NIKE JORDAN,SHOX R4,NZ,TL,TU,AIRMAX 95,97, 2003, 2004,TN,DUNK and other brands of PUMA,TIMBERLAND, REEBOK,ADIDAS etc.Meanwhile, clothes, bags, towel and some leather products are also one part of our business.
We also manufacture can do very high quality sports shoes,mens/ladies PU/MD/TPR & Leather Shoes at very competitive prices. We have different varieties, colours,design with different material ranging from pu,leather and other material.
?? Kindly let us know your interest and we will send you photo samples and quotations for your reference.
More information about us, please visit our website —- www,offernikeshoes,com
Hope to get a long time business with all buyers over the world!

If you have any question to send to email for me,thank you very much.

website: www,offernikeshoes,com
msn: nikewindow@hotmail,com
email: sales@offernikeshoes,com

Sam chen 22 May 06

If you have any question to send to email for me,thank you very much.

website: www,offernikeshoes,com
msn: nikewindow@hotmail,com
email: sales@offernikeshoes,com

Sam chen 22 May 06

If you have any question to send to email for me,thank you very much.

website: www,offernikeshoes,com
msn: nikewindow@hotmail,com
email: sales@offernikeshoes,com