[arista]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Misleading title poster; it's not clear that Nike is suing over the "drop of human blood" or even cares about that at all. They're suing (obviously) because he's illegitimately selling something with the Nike logo all over it... as any brand would.

The Title is Correct
you Ex Manager.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

Originally Posted by arista

you Ex Manager.

Ghjkjh

[arista]

Originally Posted by Fetch The Bolt Cutters

Ghjkjh

Nice to see you on this Section

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

Originally Posted by arista

Nice to see you on this Section

:3

[bots]

Originally Posted by arista

The Title is Correct
you Ex Manager.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by arista

The Title is Correct
you Ex Manager.

NO the thread title says Nike sues over drop of blood in the shoe, then the article says Nike sues over copyright infringement. Inconsistent, inaccurate, downright sloppy.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

NO the thread title says Nike sues over drop of blood in the shoe, then the article says Nike sues over copyright infringement. Inconsistent, inaccurate, downright sloppy.

But the Invasion of Blood
inside the Sole
matters to readers.


Sloppy
is posters that do not add a link.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by arista

But the Invasion of Blood
inside the Sole
matters to readers.


Sloppy
is posters that do not add a link.

But your title says "Nike sues over a drop of real human blood in the soles" that is FALSE and FAKE NEWS. You could have said

"Nike sues over shoes with a drop of real human blood in the soles"

That would be slightly misleading still as it (wrongly) suggests they are suing because of the blood, but it would at least be technically accurate. Your version is just a lie .

[arista]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

But your title says "Nike sues over a drop of real human blood in the soles" that is FALSE and FAKE NEWS. You could have said

"Nike sues over shoes with a drop of real human blood in the soles"

That would be slightly misleading still as it (wrongly) suggests they are suing because of the blood, but it would at least be technically accurate. Your version is just a lie .

Title Now Modified

[user104658]

Originally Posted by arista

Title Now Modified

[Ammi]

...it does seem to be the human blood and ‘Satan’ aspect that Nike object to specifically because they don’t want any ‘satanic’ attachment to their image...this seems to be a company that ‘customises’ certain brand products as limited editions and then sells them for huge amounts...?...it’s surprising if no one has sued before...it’s not the first time that they’ve ‘religiously converted’ Nike Air Max apparently...they transformed some into ‘Jesus shoes’ at one time with their soles filled with holy water...(...soles to purify the souls...?...)....they didn’t use real blood, they added red paint/colouring or some such to depict the blood of Christ and one had a crucifix fastening replacing the lace and they ‘soled out’ within hours for up to 3000 dollars...(...I don’t know the cost of an uncustomised/regular pair...)...anyways, they weren’t objected to by Nike because they felt okay with that Jesus of walking on water image and concept but not the satanic ones...


...an interesting thing...something similar was apparently done with some Barbie dolls by a company, I’m not sure if it’s the same company...they were customised into ‘dismembered Barbie’....and Mattel tried to sue also for copyright infringement and they lost their case...


...this is part of what the company have said ....

It’s fine to directly resell products, Roberts says, and it’s legal to advertise goods while mentioning somebody else’s trademark. You can also do things like dismember Barbie dolls and sell pictures of them as art. “But what about the businesses making jewelry out of authentic Chanel buttons, or cutting fringes into genuine Vuitton bags?” Earlier this year, in fact, Chanel sued a company for “misappropriating” its brand for recycled button earrings.

Basically, MSCHF bought shoes that it could legally resell using Nike’s branding, but it heavily modified them into what’s arguably a new product whose quality Nike can’t control, then sold them as a commercial good rather than a traditional art piece. Depending on how a court weighs all those factors, it could create a precedent for future cases. “I think other high fashion brands will be keeping a close eye on this case,” Roberts says.


...and as it says, this case could create a precedent so it’ll be really interesting to follow...

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...it does seem to be the human blood and ‘Satan’ aspect that Nike object to specifically because they don’t want any ‘satanic’ attachment to their image...

Indeed, Nike will make their own sweatshop workers bleed in their own damn way thank you very much