I built this website. From scratch. Including the servers.
Looks like that second ad is carrying on a Baby Bob tradition, in the CBS sitcom of Babu Bob there is an episode where the baby hits on his mother. Gack! (source jumtheshark.com, I have never seen the sitcom.)
Having worked for a (client) company that sold ringtones and screen-images for phones, I really do think they ripped this believing that they wouldn't get caught. The company I worked for sold pin-up art by Armando Huerta without crediting (nor paying) the artist.
Related ringtone & animation copycat the evolution of Crazy frog.
Unlike the hysteria in the states, I think the British branch of VW+DDB has more of a legal leg to stand on if they really intend to sue the LADs for this viral ad. The Guardian reports that they are considering it.
'It gives the impression we've condoned or supported it, and is potentially very damaging to Volkswagen. Our legal department is planning an action and we will decide tomorrow.'
Tomorrow in that quote is today - no word yet if they have filed suit.
More from Martin Schwimmer at the Trademark Blog.
If He Doesn't Like Bloglines, Why Does He Make a RSS Feed Available?
So the question is not why, if I don't like Bloglines, do I make a RSS feed available.
The question ought to be:
Is there a compelling business case for the blogger to waive effective commercial control of content in order so that the aggregator can make a full-text web-based feed available?
Or can aggregators accomodate bloggers who wish to maintain the non-commercial nature of their feeds? I will guess that if Bloglines offers a commercial opt-out, its business model will still work.
... I read it as that as well, that VW did file some sort of suit (to protect their Trademark which they should do) and NatLamp did the right thing(tm) and hid the ad.
NatLamp could also have changed the whole VW thing to WV in another similar font and be in the clear, I think, since it was parody. They should have left the trademark (VW) alone in the first place. I wonder what was on the other side of the VW-parody ad page that had to be removed as well when they razorbladed that page out of the mags. :)
Well, apparantly VW of the past did sue, see the
Answer Section where National Lampoon savant Mark Simonson says:
That [ad] was in the National Lampoon Encyclopedia of Humor (1973). It's listed in the contents page (under D) as "Doyle Dane Bernbach" and was written by Anne Beatts. If you buy a copy of this issue, you may find the ad is missing. As a result of a lawsuit by VW over the ad for unauthorized use of their trademark, NatLamp was forced to remove the page (with razor blades!) from any copies they still had in inventory (which, from what I gather, was about half the first printing of 250,000 copies) and all subsequent reprints. For what its worth, Ted Kennedy didn't sue.
Odd.
Depends on what we compare it too. Sugar is definatly better for you than any aspartame that leads to the accumilation of formaldehyde in brain, organs and tissue.
I'll take natural raw cane sugar over any toxic shite any day. And honey over sugar. :) Do I eat too much? No, but I also don't drink several gallons of soda nor eat sweets so what the heck, I can have sugar in my coffee. weee! (in fact, I don't drink soda at all. I drink tea, Coffee, mineral waters, fresh juices, and lots of beer. Ha!)
Adland® is a commercial-laden heaven and hell for advertising addicts around the world.
This advertising publication was founded in 1996, built on beer and bravery, Adland® now boasts the largest super bowl commercials collection in the world.
Adland® survives on your donations alone. You can help us out by buying us a Ko-Fi. Adland® works best in Brave browser
