Virgin sued for user teen's photo

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
No, even though the innuendo is there in every mention of the company name, it isn’t necessarily about anyone. This ad was. This time, they did use a sexual reference to a child, for their own purposes. I am assured by our legal talent that it is entirely legal to do so. I accept that. It is still reprehensible, and legal opinions have no bearing on that.

Pretending that is isn’t a sexual innuendo is just stupid.
[/QUOTE]

Mate, you’ve got no idea what you’re on about here. I don’t know how many times I can explain that the company’s name has no sexual innuendo here in Australia. It’s just a name, just as Coon Cheese doesn’t have racist innuendo here either. It’s just a name- just as “Ford” and “Coca-Cola” and “Boeing” and “De Beers” are just names.

If you guys in the US want to misinterpret foreign company names, fine. But that doesn’t change the fact Virgin Mobile isn’t using anything approaching “sexual innuendo” to sell their stuff in this case, no matter how badly certain misinformed parties in foreign countries would like to believe otherwise.

Bear in mind that Advertisers here in Australia can get away with a lot more than they can in the US- some of the ads for Deodorant, V8 Utes, Beer, and so on are a lot more risque than anything Virgin Mobile are ever likely to come up with. Hell, you see more sexual innuendo on the cover of Cleo magazine than you do in a Mobile Phone ad. Red Rooster’s current ad campaign features gratuitous T&A to sell some kind of chicken sizzler type thing, and there’s an ad for Breaka milk in which a Footy Team’s mascot is asked by his flatmate why he “does that crappy job” (having rubbish thrown at him, gettin crash tackled by people, making an ass of himself), when it’s revealed during the half-time show he gets a front row view, close range of all the cheerleaders doing their routine in all their short-skirted gymnastic glory.

Compare that to… a company whose name can, if you’re determined about it, be interpreted as being innuendo in some contexts (but only by the sort of people who think it’s Shakespeare needs re-writing “to remove all the naughty bits”), and you can, I hope, see why this entire conversation is rapidly becoming considerably more absurd than a Dadaist performance of Monty Python’s “And Now For Something Completely Different”.

I’m also reminded of a (possibly apocryphal) anecdote about Samuel Johnson, who, upon compiling his Dictionary, was congratulated by a woman at a social gathering for not having put any Naughty Words in it. Dr. Johnson’s response: “Ah, so you’ve been looking for them, have you Madam?” :smiley:

82

[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
If you guys in the US want to misinterpret foreign company names, fine.
[/QUOTE]
Thing is, though, Virgin companies are known and do operate in the US. Shit, Virgin Mobile USA target their products to the youth market. God help them if they ever have a baby in one of their ads.

83

[QUOTE=Kal]
Thing is, though, Virgin companies are known and do operate in the US. Shit, Virgin Mobile USA target their products to the youth market. God help them if they ever have a baby in one of their ads.
[/QUOTE]

Virgin Mobile Australia aren’t even owned by Virgin anymore, though- they’re a wholly owned subsidiary of Optus, who are just licensing the name from Richard Branson. And at any rate, we’re not talking about Virgin Mobile US, we’re talking about Virgin Mobile Australia. Different company, different market.

84

[QUOTE=Intelligently Designed]
As an aside, speaking of Flickr, and flicking, and innuendo, how about this Virgin campaign?
[/QUOTE]

Now, there’s a product that needs endorsement by Clint Eastwood.

85

[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
Virgin Mobile Australia aren’t even owned by Virgin anymore, though- they’re a wholly owned subsidiary of Optus, who are just licensing the name from Richard Branson. And at any rate, we’re not talking about Virgin Mobile US, we’re talking about Virgin Mobile Australia. Different company, different market.
[/QUOTE]
Yah, I know all that. My point was that the Virgin brand is known in the US, which makes the moral outrage about the innuendo of its name somewhat baffling. It’d be easier to understand if no-one in the US had ever heard of Virgin, but various Virgin branded companies have operated over there for years and have had little bother. Folk don’t snigger or go red-faced with shock when they see a Virgin Atlantic 'plane at an airport. Teens don’t get teased for owning Virgin mobiles.

Mind, they’ve probably had the good sense to not have a photo of a teen in any of their ads, alongside any Virgin-related slogan or tagline. There’d be protests outside their stores or offices, demanding that the evil makers of kiddie porn be locked up for life. Okay, there’d probably only be Tris protesting, but that’s cos he ain’t stupid like those of us who fall for that damned legal smoke and mirrors.

In other news, this subject did have lots of potential for debate. I’d be interested in finding out about jurisdiction in particular. Sadly, it was not to be. Instead it’s kiddie porn and those corporate bastards willing to use a sweet, innocent girl’s sexual being to sell a few mobiles.

Pity.

86

[QUOTE=Rick]
[hijack] did anybody else notice that the pic in the ad is the reverse of the original?
:confused:
Anybody know why this is?
If they were working off a negative, I would think they put the neg in the enlarger backward.
[/hijack]
[/QUOTE]

If they did get the image from Flicker, then there probably wasn’t a negative to begin with. What do you think they drove their horse and buggy to Flicker to get it? You can just flip the digital image. They probably did it so they could put the text in the ad where they wanted it.

87

[QUOTE=Zebra]
If they did get the image from Flicker, then there probably wasn’t a negative to begin with. What do you think they drove their horse and buggy to Flicker to get it? You can just flip the digital image. They probably did it so they could put the text in the ad where they wanted it.
[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes:
I know that there was no negative. Notice the word If that starts the last sentence. Read for detail, read for comprehension.
I mentioned a negative because having used an enlarger in a darkroom, I have seen people do this.

88

[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
Mate, you’ve got no idea what you’re on about here. I don’t know how many times I can explain that the company’s name has no sexual innuendo here in Australia. It’s just a name, just as Coon Cheese doesn’t have racist innuendo here either. It’s just a name- just as “Ford” and “Coca-Cola” and “Boeing” and “De Beers” are just names.
[/QUOTE]

I guess I will just have to take your word for it. The only virgin in Australia is the phone company.

I must say, I am surprised by that.

Tris

89

[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
So what? Why should Virgin Australia be concerned about the fact that immature kids in the US need to grow the fuck up?
[/quote]

Because they’re using the image of an American kid that American kids can see on the internet. (And surely teenagers everywhere are prone to similar childishness, if over different matters depending on their culture and location.) What they should be concerned about is the emotional distress caused to an innocent party through their unethical, and in some places illegal, actions. Distress that, though apparently unforeseen, was easily foreseeable. Actions that were easily avoidable at minimal expense.

Not at all. But neither should Coon Cheese use the photo of an American, without that person’s knowledge or consent, in an ad that can be seen by Americans.

90

Just as a point of information, the word Virgin was used because Branson was new to the music business. Source is something I have read about Mike Oldfield. Tubular Bells was the first Virgin release.

Even in San Francisco, no one sniggers going into the Virgin Music store.