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.
Adding more bleach with this lamb, delighted to have some tummy rubs!
@breadandrosesblogger, It is tempting to put the AVfM logo on some posters they really wouldn’t want to be associated with. Certainly, by their logic that would be both legal and ethical. Sadly, I hold myself to a higher standard than they apparently do.
Most MRAs probably aren’t personally opposed to sex work, but when they try to list societal ills caused mostly by women, they totally want to grab prostitution as an item. It’s illegal in many places after all, so you might as well equate it with rape, or something.
I think the message of this campaign, while painfully unclear, conveniently flips between two states:
1. “So rape is mostly a male crime, but these XYZ, which are totally serious problems, are mostly female crimes, so checkmate feminists.”
2. “It’s pointless and ridiculous to blame rape specifically on men, just like it would be pointless and ridiculous to blame these XYZ crimes specifically on women.”
So they’re still butthurt about an anti-rape campaign, but gradually learning to be more “subtle” about it, meaning that their message has shifted from blatant rape apologia to completely incomprehensible and vaguely misogynist code-talk.
sparky, if you read his post, he claims not to be responsible or to know who exactly is putting the posters up. Though on twitter he promised that the “Posters will continue, cupcake,” which suggested that he was sort of in charge of them. So he’s trying to have it both ways. Obviously they know who is doing it; there’s probably something on their forum about it, though maybe in some private section.
@Titanblue: I’m not sure that one has to be a legitimate business to solicit for personal donations or start a private legal defense fund. Holding oneself out to be a legitimate, licensed business owner or a non profit while soliciting funds may be a matter of fraud, but that would be a question for an attorney.
We all know that he’ll do absolutely nothing anyway.
Arctic Ape,
I’m pretty sure your #2 is not any part of their message.
And your #1 is flawed too, to them the original posters only state that all men are rapists.
You know, the smart idea would be to admit that you just copied the entire bottom section of the ending violence against women poster (including the URL at the bottom, and I suspect the id code at the top), due to clumsiness or laziness.
Or, y’know, just double down and deny any fault, thinking that even if you all get used and lose the little you own…well at least you’ll get attention. Also, no money = no child support has to be paid!
@gillyrosebee: A Voice For Men, LLC has lost it’s business license, due to a failure to pay taxes. Paul Elam hasn’t had a business license for over a year now and won’t, until he pays the taxes he owes, penalties and fees for reinstatement.
I completely agree with the last bit, but I’d argue that this isn’t about copyright infringement or “fair use” or “the right to parody” or whatever other defenses are being peddled, it’s about unambiguous misrepresentation of the views of several organizations with reputations to protect – including the Halifax police.
That’s the line that these people have overstepped, and I’m not getting much of an impression that they recognize it yet.
I don’t think they realize exactly what the consequences of baiting the police can be and how much trouble they can get themselves into.
Fair use provisions in copyright law include the right to parody.
This seems like more of a trademark issue than a copyright issue. The basic test for trademark infringement is, “Could a casual observer mistake this for something that was created by the trademark holder?”
If an entity wants to peddle lies, then they best be prepared to have their lies parodied… and that means the right for those parodying to lift logos and proprietary symbols and reframe them in a context that highlights their absurdity.
If the poster were something like, “Byrony House and Halifax Police are just horrid, and here are their logos to help you understand which organizations I’m talking about” then that would probably be acceptable. But that’s not what’s going on here.
This is actually a symptom of a broader problem with AVFM. It’s gotten turned into this closed inward-looking community that’s built up a massive structure of in-jokes about in-jokes about in-jokes. And it’s lost sight of the fact that no one outside the community has the faintest idea what any of the jokes mean.
Here’s a fun exercise: Suppose you’re in a courtroom, trying to convince a judge that the third poster up above is meant to be a parody of something-or-other involving the trademark holders. How long do you think it would take you to explain the background needed to make your case? Ready? Go!
Paul Elam & Co are perfectly 100% in the clear and there is nothing that anyone can do about it. Free speech and all that. Eat your hearts out. It’s going to be fun seeing Halifax Police and Byrony House true to sue for this. Please, do go for it. lol.
Now you’re just being silly.
I think that’s right — and at least one of those organizations might have the deep pockets to actually push the issue. I think one of the reasons they don’t recognize the issue is that their own reputation is so shitty, they don’t themselves have anything to protect.
Exactly! They could have made this a legitimate criticism so easily!
Step 1: Scrap the logos for colorless links to male friendly support groups.
Step 2: Get rid of accusatory “facts” line.
Replace it with something that reflects the goal of the campaign.
The original campaign didn’t pull out accusations saying “90% of rapes are committed by men.” They simply say “sex without consent = sexual assault” which is basically a summation of every single poster in the campaign (not the idea “all men are rapists” which these MRA idiots seem to think was the point).
Step 3: Make the main text and image relevant to the issue of sexual assault of men.
“Just because you’re dating, doesn’t mean he wants it too.” (From damselindetech)
“Just because he has an erection, doesn’t mean he wants to share it with you.”
“Just because he was flirting with you, doesn’t mean he’s looking to get laid.”
Bam! Just like that, a set of posters that both point out legitimate societal issues and point out the failings of the “don’t be THAT guy” campaign. But they can’t go discussing real issues apparently, they’re too busy making their “women are evil” poster campaign.
Well, looks like there will be consequences:
http://globalnews.ca/news/1229905/obscene-posters-in-halifax-have-police-city-mulling-legal-action/
“Blais [the police chief –DF] said the posters themselves are not criminal but the police force and the municipality are pursuing legal action for the unauthorized use of the police logo.”
@Stephen Jarosek, see you were almost there. Halfway, even. And I think you might be surprised to find that lots of people who find you personally loathsome would still be willing to advocate for your right to have your say (at least where the First Amendment to the Constitution/Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms holds sway). But you are explicitly, completely wrong about the logos, which are covered under different legal frameworks.
Ironically, if the “designers” responsible for these particular posters wanted to take some time to be just a bit less lazy, they could have created a set of generic parody logos which were similar in some characteristics (a shelter, a law enforcement organization, etc) but distinct from the actual organizations who supported the real campaign, the visual impression given would have been the same, the satiric impact might have been stronger, and they would have neatly sidestepped the legal problems while still accomplishing the “shaming” they seem to intend. Any designer worth their salt would be able to do this in under an hour, you just need to be less ignorant and self-righteous than the average AVfRageyDudebros follower.
Ahhh,.. Thanks, Nova, I’ve been so busy that I only get to check in once or twice a week and I must have missed that.
Wow, Dean Esmay changed his tune from his initial reaction in the AVfM comment thread to the comments in the article David posted.
But-but-but Paul Elam, Dean Esmay and Stephen Jarosek said it was OK!
In fact, more than just OK – “perfectly 100% in the clear” is what Jarosek said, and he of all people can’t possibly be a liar because that would make him a rancid hypocrite with painful-looking scorch marks on his legs.
Being total chucklefucks so rarely has consequences, that I have to admit I will enjoy it immensely if this does come to pass. And I’m not exactly a big fan of the police. XD
And from the article David linked to:
Nope. Actually, we won’t call it “a small mistake and probably an honest mistake,”. Maybe we’ll call it a great big mistake and watch Halifax PD sue your ass.
Well, if that’s the case, sweetcheeks, I’m sure that Paul Fucking Elam won’t mind if I grab his tacky logo and his lying URL, and stick it all over posters reading things like “LEGALIZE RAPE”, “YAY WOMAN ABUSE” , or “SERVICE MY DICK NOW, BITCH”.
PS: You’re also 100% wrong…this is illegal. It’s copyright infringement, designed to mislead and confuse. And I hope he gets sued bankrupt for damages, too.
Actually, they are gonna have to “stand by” those posters, because they certainly haven’t contested the fact that the AVfM website is on there, so any attempt to distance themselves as an organization from the logo use will be challenging to say the least.
@ladysunami
That actually sounds like a really good campaign! Clear cohesive messaging that actually *gasp* gives a voice to men who’ve been sexually assaulted and might make a woman think twice before she assumes her boyfriend’s boner means he’s always ready to go. Highlights the gaps in the original campaign without being a steaming heap of misogyny. Makes people think about the issue from a totally new angle. If they’d pitched that to some of the organizations involved in the original campaign, they might even have got them on board!
“Feminism: better at men’s rights than Men’s Right Activists since 1890.”
I imagine the British National Party also thought that using the Marmite logo on their ads was an Esmay-style “minor mistake”, right up until the point where they were hit with a six-figure bill for damages and costs from the trademark owner.
Personally, I don’t think connecting multiple organizations with reputations to protect (including the police!) to an explicitly misogynist ad campaign is a “minor” anything – it’s a serious fuck-up with potentially serious consequences.
Incidentally, the BNP’s defense was practically identical to Esmay’s – apparently the “Marmite” campaign ad was a parody of a Unilever ad that featured a made-up political party called the Hate Party. The BNP, inexplicably (since they’re all such lovely people without even the merest hint of multiple convictions for racist violence and hate speech amongst their leadership), identified themselves as the Hate Party and decided that their next ad would take revenge on Unilever.
In other words, they appeared to be using exactly the same “it’s only a parody” defense as AVFM, right up to the point where they settled out of court for £170,000 (US$280,000 at the current exchange rate).
Oh well, maybe Canadian law is more lenient than British law. Or at least that’s what the perpetrators must devoutly be hoping.
Maybe it’s the emphasis on women doing these things. Abusing or abandoning children is men’s work, after all. /s
It angers them twice over. First, that anyone should suggest any men are rapists (if there’s even any lip-service to the idea that rape is a crime). Second, that rape should be a crime at all, because it’s their god-given right to control and terrorise women this way.
Brain bleach, d’awwwww baby giraffe! 🙂