Log
Protecting Minor Threat from a Major Threat
Nike (right) ripped off Minor Threat (left) in a poster for a skate event. In his critique of this, Kottke got it wrong, but it’s a complicated issue. Is Nike’s appropriation of the Minor Threat album cover a “punk” “homage” or is it just lame? (I’ve already lamented Nike’s entrance into skateboarding.)
Fortunately Nike has recognized the error of its ways.
But this is a perfect example of how copyright is supposed to work to protect creative endeavors: it’s a case of the big guy, Nike, capitalizing on the success of the little guy, Dischord Records/ Minor Threat. Copyright is intended to protect creative works from economic exploitation by other parties.
Now I know that arguing in favor of copyright isn’t all that cool these days, with so many creative efforts licensed under Creative Commons, but copyright does serve a purpose. Examining this case of appropriation in terms of power relationships (uh-oh, here comes the Foucoult), it’s clear that copyright protection is beneficial in this context. The less powerful party is being taken advantage of by a more powerful party. Furthermore, I believe that it’s perfectly appropriate to protect against the exploitation of the less powerful party to prevent damage to it.
This of course begs the question, is Nike’s appropriation actually causing harm to Dichord? The answer is, “Maybe, it depends.” It depends on whether an individual is cognizant of the fact that appropriation is taking place at all. Nike’s brand is so ubiquitous in the culture that the mere association of Minor Threat’s defining image with Nike subsumes it into the Nike brand, at least for the unitinitiated: in large part the kids that Nike Skateboarding targets, kids who are young enough to not know what Minor Threat and the entire hardcore/punk movement stood (stands?) for. If Nike’s brand is linked with the Minor Threat image, Minor Threat’s message suffers. An image derived from anti-consumism, anti-establishment ideals loses its meaning when its used by the very corporate forces that the original creators opposed. A minor threat becomes no threat at all.
Is this new? No, it’s common practice to appropriate words and images antithetical to a movement or individual. Through their appropriation and recontextualization, imagery and words lose their intended meaning. For example, the term “queer,” used as a derogatory term for homosexuals, has been embraced by many gay organizations and individuals in an effort to subvert its power as a tool of hate. Those that control speech, whether it’s verbal or visual, hold power (oh man, now Lacan).
For those of us who are familiar with Minor Threat, it should be obvious that Nike is out of line, because Ian MacKaye would never give permission to a multi-national corporation to use Dischord images or music in any way, no matter the price. I mean, come on, his bands are famous for their five dollar shows, right?
06/30/05 10:31AM Four-Wheeled Toy Movies, Music, Media
Recently Played on iTunes
-
“Heroin”
The Velvet Underground & Nico
The Velvet Underground
11/17/08 16:26 -
“All Tomorrow's Parties”
The Velvet Underground & Nico
The Velvet Underground
11/17/08 16:20 -
“Run Run Run”
The Velvet Underground & Nico
The Velvet Underground
11/17/08 16:16
