Here we go again. Like small children who have just discovered the power of the tantrum, the terrible people at A Voice for Men seem to have realized that the only reliable way for them to get the attention of the world is to act like complete assholes in public. And so some fans of AVFM have decided to bring back the “Don’t Be That Girl” campaign — you know, the witless and misogynistic “parody” of the successful Canadian “Don’t Be That Guy” rape awareness campaign. Now they’re postering in Halifax.
But there’s one difference: this time they’ve put the logos of the real sponsors of the real “Don’t Be That Guy” rape awareness project on their phony posters. (You can see the whole list by downloading one of the pdfs of the real posters on this page.)
So far, two of the organizations listed on their phony posters – the Bryony House shelter for victims of domestic violence and the Halifax Police Department – have made very clear that their logos are being used without permission.
https://twitter.com/BryonyHouse/status/448148862193389568
@Allisomething Tk u for reporting. We're not a sponsor of this campaign and find it deeply troubling. We'll be looking into this further HT
— Halifax_Police (@HfxRegPolice) March 24, 2014
It’s a pretty safe bet that the other organizations whose logos were appropriated feel similarly.
I’d like to encourage anyone who can afford it to follow up on a suggestion from Cloudiah in the comments and donate to Bryony House so that some good can come out of all this.
Now, I’m no expert on Canadian law, but it seems rather unlikely to me that it’s legal to simply stick some organization’s logo on something and pretend that they have endorsed it. Especially when that organization is the police.
Apparently some MRAs disagree with me on that:
https://twitter.com/AVoiceForMen/status/448225043026149376
“Your consent is not required” seems to be the operating assumption of a lot of those drawn to the Men’s Rights movement.
In later tweets, Elam claims that using the logos is legal because of “fair use,” which is not actually a term used in Canadian law, and promises that the “[p]osters will continue, cupcake.”
I guess we will see. Here are several more photos of the posters. There’s more discussion of this in the AgainstMensRights subreddit.
Lots of real comedians around town apparently… pic.twitter.com/P92KmW3I41
— Handsome Adam Barrett (@im_adam_barrett) March 24, 2014
and one more before I vomit everywhere pic.twitter.com/jEJTXSSHXG
— Handsome Adam Barrett (@im_adam_barrett) March 24, 2014
EDITED TO ADD: Elam has now responded to the critics, and promises to bankroll any legal challenges against the posterers. It’s pretty clear that he doesn’t understand why the logos are a problem.
EDIT/CORRECTION: It’s not completely clear that this postering campaign originated with AVFM. It’s pretty clear, though, that it’s supported by AVFM, and that those involved in it are supporters of AVFM. I’ve made a few changes to the headline and first graf to reflect this.
That last one is bizarre – MRAs whining about sex workers? Or MRAs whining because their isn’t enough money in the world to make a sex worker with any choice in the matter choose them?
So… their campaign strategy is effectively: “I’m going to pull up every nasty trope about women and make it the basis of a postering campaign because I don’t understand how marketing works but science anyways all up in yo FAISE.”
“Your consent is not required” – Paul Elam, 2014
Yep, that sums things up pretty well.
As I’ve said in the other thread: Using goddamn child abuse of all things, just to take a cheap lying shot at some posters which hurt their poor feelings. It’s revolting. And of course some slut shaming thrown in for good measure.
Really hope that all those organizations sue Elam and friends so hard, for so much cash that he is forced to shut down the site due to crippling debt. That would be glorious. 😀
I’ve been inspired by their strategy, so I’m going to create my own postering campaign using other slogans without their permission:
[large text at top of poster]: “Jesus Saves”
[picture of Metallica]
[slogan]: “Gimme a Break”
[logos at bottom of sponsors]: Trojan Condoms, Gillette razors, Toyota, Ronald McDonald House
As to fair use. Even in the USA where that is a term and legal definition he would be on very unsteady ground as he’s claiming that these organizations are supporting his posters.
I think that poster meant sexually active women rather than sex workers. Offering as in “the dating/hookup ‘market’ ” rather than the actual sex work market. I think it’s just typical shaming women for daring to have sexual wants.
Something tells me that men will be helping to rip that last one down.
Putting the logos on there seems to me to be equivalant to putting words in someone’s mouth. So not just copyright infringement but libel.
Again, I’m not an expert on copyright law or Canadian law, but this suggests that the posterers don’t really have a legal leg to stand on here:
http://www.smart-biggar.ca/en/articles_detail.cfm?news_id=687
Hm. Didn’t see that. Well then, disregard my theory. 😉
I am still not quite sure whether to laugh at the baby-dumping one or not. Are babies in dumpsters really a thing that happens?
Babies abandoned unsafely or killed are sadly a thing, not necessarily in dumpsters though. 🙁
Here’s the original version of that prostitute one:
http://i.imgur.com/P2Nngln.png
That’s what I was thinking: If you just said “here’s a list of resources for domestic violence” and included their logos there, then that might be defensible, since there’s no implication that they’re affiliated with you or your campaign, but this is really just like saying “this message is endorsed by Bryony House,” which you’re clearly not allowed to do if it isn’t really.
Well, Katz, you know if it does happen then the solution is to make clear to people who have babies what the legal definitions are of “baby-dumping”, not just to reduce the numbers of people who baby-dump, but also to educate the public and any potential jury pools on the various forms baby-dumping can take in order to change our culture into one that is less ignorantly accepting of baby-dumping as just being a misunderstanding.
Yeah, not getting the last one at all.
Unless it has something to do with the sartorial choices of women who are not sex workers? Maybe?
I can’t tell if they’re equating sex workers with rapists because they’re scumbags that think there’s something wrong with sex work, or scumbags that think there’s nothing wrong with rape. Either one could fit their MO.
so slow I am…
Baby-dumping? Does Canada have safe haven laws? Isn’t that what we call the laws that let you drop off a baby with authorities and not suffer prosecution?
They’d rather tut-tut the results of shaming tactics than improve conditions in any way that would prevent such desperate actions.
I know actual child abandonment is a thing, but…babies in dumpsters. Are they expecting people to look at that photo and go “This looks like a serious problem I should care about”?
It sounds like Canada has stricter laws about parody than the US so they could in trouble.
Even in the US, I would think only the “artwork” would count as parody. Adding the logos isn’t parody, it’s falsely claiming that the groups endorsed or even put out the parody posters. And here I thought MRAs were opposed to false claims.
So much fail. Even more so than usual MRA posters.
“I didn’t know they were anti sex worker. What the fuck does that post even mean”
What they are for/against does matter so much when the modus operandi is “Can X be used to shame/smear women. Then do it.”
Logic should not be used so much when interpreting MRA posters.
Referring to the abused child as “it” is even more disturbing since calling a child “it” is an actual child abuse technique.
http://www.amazon.com/Child-Called-It-Courage-Survive/dp/1558743669
Well, you know Elam. any excuse to call women “whores”…
Literally the briefest of the Googles has told me that fair use (i.e. exceptions to copyright infringement laws) is called fair dealing in Canada and covers research, private study, education, news reporting, parody/satire or criticism. I guess The Greatest Human Rights Movement of All Time could potentially try to defend this as one of the last two (I have no idea how their utterly warped understanding of satire would hold up in a lawsuit) but even then, as David pointed out, it’s also a libel issue because directly ripping the real logos of real organizations implies that they support this misogynistic batshittery.
And in any case it’s going to be even more difficult, since several of these organizations have said “Yeah, we in no way approve this” and Elam the Mighty has basically responded with “LOL FUCK OFF”. On the Internet. On an extremely public platform. Such a savvy leader.
In one way I enjoy seeing MRAs flailing around in the real world and running up against actual organizations who are too busy doing good work to pay attention to Elam or get into petty flamewars with his supporters. They’ll just throw the book at it and move on. It’s a lot safer on the Internet where it’s more difficult to hold them accountable for their actions, which explains why so much of their “activism” takes place online – but I do take perverse joy in watching them stumble around in the sunlight of the real world with their arses thoroughly exposed.
On the plus side, I think they’re getting better at Photoshop…