Nike UK photoshops logos out of Euro Indoor photo

polevaultpower wrote:

I guess it's OK if Nike does it...

https://twitter.com/nzaccardi/status/573928379998674944

thanks for the post

Can you please tell us a bit more about where the altered image was published? Even the logos on the hurdles have been removed.

It's the Nike UK Twitter account.

Original:

https://twitter.com/NikeUK/status/573904760392323073

Calling that "photoshopping" is pretty generous. It's more like MS Paint.

They photoshopped out all the "Spar" logos? That's a grocery chain.

Looks worse with them photoshopped out.

If you guys knew anything about marketing, you'd know that any other logos are considered "noise" in that image, and Nike wants their logo noticed. I don't get what all the fuss is about

ad man wrote:

If you guys knew anything about marketing, you'd know that any other logos are considered "noise" in that image, and Nike wants their logo noticed. I don't get what all the fuss is about

How long do you think it would take Capriotti to get on the phone to Mary W if the NYRR used a photo of Shalane in a USA uniform with the swoosh photoshopped out?

What is good for the goose wrote:

ad man wrote:

If you guys knew anything about marketing, you'd know that any other logos are considered "noise" in that image, and Nike wants their logo noticed. I don't get what all the fuss is about

How long do you think it would take Capriotti to get on the phone to Mary W if the NYRR used a photo of Shalane in a USA uniform with the swoosh photoshopped out?

It's Nike's photo, they can do whatever they want with it. There are pictures on Nike's campus of Mo winning the 10K at the Olympics, and the adidas logo is photoshopped out. This is nothing new. You're making a big deal out of nothing.

No, she's making a deal out of one of the things that Nike makes a bid deal out of. She's pointing out the hypocrisy of Nike...

trollipop wrote:

No, she's making a deal out of one of the things that Nike makes a bid deal out of. She's pointing out the hypocrisy of Nike...

Nike is presenting the Nike Sponsored athlete. What's the big deal?

ad man wrote:

It's Nike's photo, they can do whatever they want with it. There are pictures on Nike's campus of Mo winning the 10K at the Olympics, and the adidas logo is photoshopped out. This is nothing new. You're making a big deal out of nothing.

It is not clear that it is Nike's photo. The photo (unaltered) was also used in an IAAF tweet today. It is reasonable to assume it was shot by a freelance photographer at the meet.

The two big questions in my mind are:

1. Did Nike UK actually purchase the photo from this photographer?

2. What is in the fine print for media credentials for this meet? Is the right to remove other logos from a picture (besides cropping them out) even a right that the photog can grant to Nike?

I know that the IAAF and all the other sport NGBs and Meet Directors consider bib logos to be sacred. Meets and NGBs rely on being able to sell sponsorship on the bibs. If the photogs went around removing those logos, the ability to sell these sponsorships would be diminished. So even if it is not illegal per se for Nike to do this, it is very bad form.

Nike would be effing livid if adidas did this to one of their athletes if there was a swoosh on the bib. I know that Nike USA and Nike UK are not the same people exactly, but I am a little surprised that the tweet hasn't been removed.

Remember that last spring, USATF's lawyers sent a cease and desist letter to Oiselle when they posted a photo of World Relays athletes with the Nike swoosh changed to the athletes' sponsors.

I realize these are sort of apples and oranges and different parties. I think USATF did the right thing, putting another company's logo on the team uniform is not cool. BUT part of the fundamental argument was that altering images like that weakens their ability to get sponsorships. And that is the same argument that applies here.

If Nike wants to post artistic photos of their athletes showcasing sweet Nike gear, then have a photo shoot. This was not an artistic photo, this was an editorial photo and it was inappropriate to use it as an advertisement, which is what Nike UK did when they removed all of the other logos.

polevaultpower wrote:

Remember that last spring, USATF's lawyers sent a cease and desist letter to Oiselle when they posted a photo of World Relays athletes with the Nike swoosh changed to the athletes' sponsors.

There's a difference between taking a logo off and replacing a logo. By replacing the swoosh with, let's say, a New Balance logo, you're insinuating the NB made the USA kit, which is wasn't the case,

ad man wrote:

polevaultpower wrote:

Remember that last spring, USATF's lawyers sent a cease and desist letter to Oiselle when they posted a photo of World Relays athletes with the Nike swoosh changed to the athletes' sponsors.

There's a difference between taking a logo off and replacing a logo. By replacing the swoosh with, let's say, a New Balance logo, you're insinuating the NB made the USA kit, which is wasn't the case,

True, it isn't quite the same, but it's a bad practice nevertheless, even if Nike purchased the rights to the photo. Removing the logos takes credit away from the meet and meet sponsors, which in this case happen to NOT be competitors of Nike.

Oiselle , Sally Bergesen just demonstrated her unethical business practice. Oiselle knows the legal framework on sponsorship. They removed the Nike logo and added there own, and they made a reference to the event. Once the Nike legal contacted Oiselle , the photo was pulled instantly.

You do not know the contact Nike has with this athlete. They may have the 1st right of refusal, so they allow this athlete to have other logo's. Also the secondary sponsors may know/have legal agreement that Nike has editorial control of this persons image. For example if Spar wanted to use this image , Nike has to give permission. And they can use the image only if the Nike swoosh stays. It's not the free for all that people think.

Ad buyer wrote:

Oiselle , Sally Bergesen just demonstrated her unethical business practice. Oiselle knows the legal framework on sponsorship. They removed the Nike logo and added there own, and they made a reference to the event. Once the Nike legal contacted Oiselle , the photo was pulled instantly.

You do not know the contact Nike has with this athlete. They may have the 1st right of refusal, so they allow this athlete to have other logo's. Also the secondary sponsors may know/have legal agreement that Nike has editorial control of this persons image. For example if Spar wanted to use this image , Nike has to give permission. And they can use the image only if the Nike swoosh stays. It's not the free for all that people think.

Sally doesn't understand any of the legalities of intellectual properties. This has been proven time and time again. And didn't she publicly publish the C&D hoping for people to feel sorry for her even though anyone with a brain knew she was in the wrong?

Pole Vault Power has been know to be a Nike hater. Let her blow off steam.... because hot air is all it ever is.

polevaultpower wrote:

Is the right to remove other logos from a picture (besides cropping them out) even a right that the photog can grant to Nike?

Between the photographer and Nike? Yes. Absolutely. You pay a little extra for some photographers. Others want to photoshop themselves as a kind of brand exercise.

We're assuming the IAAF/media rights owner gives the photographer full rights to images taken of their meet. Since this is the norm, lets' just go with it.

As far as I'm concerned, 'no harm, no foul'. I'm sure Getty Images nor Ian Walton gives a rip as long as they got paid. Getty has a deal with the IAAF to provide photographs, and I'm sure the IAAF and/or European Athletics (who owns the meet) can't stop Getty from making side deals with Nike, or whoever wants to purchase the rights to that photo. By the way, here's the link to the photo in question:http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/katarina-johnson-thompson-of-great-britain-competes-in-the-news-photo/465333186I guarantee you this--they're not pulling Ian Walton's nor Getty's credentials at the European Championships now or anytime soon. Ian's been a mainstay at all the major meets. Contrary to what polevaultpower says, it's not inappropriate to use the photo as an ad. Nike paid for it, and that's the bottom line, 'cause Stone Cold said so!

polevaultpower wrote:

Remember that last spring, USATF's lawyers sent a cease and desist letter to Oiselle when they posted a photo of World Relays athletes with the Nike swoosh changed to the athletes' sponsors.

I realize these are sort of apples and oranges and different parties. I think USATF did the right thing, putting another company's logo on the team uniform is not cool. BUT part of the fundamental argument was that altering images like that weakens their ability to get sponsorships. And that is the same argument that applies here.

If Nike wants to post artistic photos of their athletes showcasing sweet Nike gear, then have a photo shoot. This was not an artistic photo, this was an editorial photo and it was inappropriate to use it as an advertisement, which is what Nike UK did when they removed all of the other logos.

pop_pop! wrote:

polevaultpower wrote:

Is the right to remove other logos from a picture (besides cropping them out) even a right that the photog can grant to Nike?

Between the photographer and Nike? Yes. Absolutely. You pay a little extra for some photographers. Others want to photoshop themselves as a kind of brand exercise.

We're assuming the IAAF/media rights owner gives the photographer full rights to images taken of their meet. Since this is the norm, lets' just go with it.

Correct. No different than a print ad for Olympic Trials or Olympic Games where an athlete had Toyota on the bib and the USOC has to protect BMW.

That said, what you can't do is remove the swoosh from the uniform. Like the earlier post about Oiselle, when they removed the swooshes they were in violation....adding other logos just made the situation worse. No one can remove the swoosh from national team uniform for any reason. USAT&F would have the authority to take the photo down or send a C&D.

Removing logos is pretty par for the course in ad-work, replacing with another is a different story. One of the best examples is Meb's Boston Marathon win. Skechers' post win print ads all showed Meb crossing the line. These ads removed the Adidas logo from the finish line tape and from surrounding sign boards. I don't think anyone ( even Adidas) complained about that, pretty much par for the course. (I personally thought it wasn't a great choice for a shot, only because it was a glaring logo deletion for most of the target audience that knows very well Adidas is all over that line).

If Skechers actually photoshopped their logo into the Boston Marathon finish line tape, then Skechers would likely have received a not very friendly letter from Adidas, because it would be incorrectly implying Skechers sponsored Boston.