Julie Gillis wonders if there was consent to use the image in the Belvedere ad that implied rape.
So, turns out that the image used in the Belevdere Vodka ad (you know, the one that offended tons of people for it’s combo image/slogan that suggested sexual violence and was dissected here at GMP) wasn’t even an image created by the ad company responsible for the controversial ad.
It was a screen shot taken from a comedy video and the actress from the video is filing suit.
Actress Alicyn Packard, who appeared in the ad, has filed a lawsuit against Belvedere parent Moet Hennessy, alleging emotional distress and claiming that the company did not have permission to use her image. The image, Packard says, originated in a Strickly Viral Productions comedy sketch in which she starred. Monetary damages weren’t specified. Packard told KTLA, “To be affiliated with an ad that’s so offensive to so many has just been horrible.” The client has yet to respond to the filing.
I saw this and I wasn’t even sure how to respond. Mostly with a sense of resignation that people can’t be bothered to do their own work anymore and appear to rely on hijacking images for creative ideas because they probably knew that actually hiring actors to do a shoot that entailed replicating some vague-to-clear sense of sexual misconduct would a) cost money and b) alert the company that the ad reps were up to shenanigans that might get Belvedere into trouble.
The video itself is a snarky little piece about really jerky parents insistent on recreating a childhood photo, with surprising, if not off-putting, results. I’ll let you watch it and then give you my ever so academic take on it (ha).
Brittany and Ryan are waxing nostalgic about their childhood as friends. Brittany’s mother and father come in and jostle the hell out of Ryan, who seems passive and resigned. They insist on recreating the photo of Brittany on Ryan’s lap. Brittany doesn’t want to take the embarassing photo, is barraged with emotional assholery from her parents until she gives in, and her jostling and protesting (while sitting on Ryan) sets of Ryan’s “phone.” He continues to seem non-plussed about the situation, while her look of shock, fear, surprise, disgust is due to realizing his “phone” apparently “went off.” Wetly.
No one comes off looking good in the video, which makes sense since it’s comedy. The parents are rude and demanding, the daughter is passive and sarcastic, and the friend is nearly featureless. As a comic piece the punchline is nearly beside the point, and, much like the “phone call” short and not much of a climax at all.
It’s got a sexual ending, and the text of the story, oddly, still has plenty to do with consent and boundaries, which is probably what made it such an easy choice for the ad company to use for the Belvedere piece.
Bad ad ideas, potential purloinment of photos, cutting corners and not taking the time to do the creative work they were paid to do? Is this what’s going on? Is this the story?
Talk about consent issues! Is it easier to snag someone else’s work, instead of asking or creating your own work? We can only hope that the creatives behind the ad asked for permission to use the images and were granted that permission before moving forward. If anyone has additional links with more information, let us know.
Wow… what a mess. It continues to amaze me with how lazy graphic artists can be some times.
“He continues to seem non-plussed about the situation, while her look of shock, fear, surprise, disgust is due to realizing his “phone” apparently “went off.” Wetly.”
I read his expression as more being frozen and horrified.
Yeah, fair enough. PEople often react with what appears to be a smile when in shock. I think his character is uncomfortable about the entire meeting, parents, her freak out etc.
i had wondered if belvedere and told the couple how the ad would be used, and what their thoughts were on their faces being used in such an ad. so to find that the photo was not commissioned but lifted from a comedy is even more bizarre.
i wonder what the guy whose face is now associated in many people’s mind with sexual assault, is thinking about that association and his private and public image. he must be absolutely livid
I would think so. I’m continuing to look for info on his participation. I believe he was also the director of the actual video (and may be, if I am correct, a main producer of the videos), so I’d suspect not only personally but professionally, he’d be seeking a suit.
I think the issue is that image plus text equals narrative. Enough people saw a narrative of sexual impropriety at best, assault at worst from the combination of her image and the text about “going down” that the ad was taken down. The video doesn’t include sexual assault, but it does include an unwanted (perhaps by both parties) ejaculation. Thus her expression. The narrative is different than the ad, but still deals with two people being pushed around by two others. I don’t think the story exists only in the mind of people who like being offended. I think a… Read more »
Funny story. When I looked at that image, I didn’t see a sexual attack at all. This view wasn’t popular, as the crowd that has effectively psyched themselves into seeing sexual attacks around every corner was convinced that there could only be one common interpretation of that image/slogan combo. Then, it turns out that the image was lifted from something else, and did not actually depict a sexual attack. Yet I’m sure I’m about to hear how there is still only one “correct” way to view the image, and that this whole story doesn’t actually just exist in the minds… Read more »
When I looked at that image, I didn’t see a sexual attack at all.
Perfectly sensible conclusion.
Then, it turns out that the image was lifted from something else, and did not actually depict a sexual attack.
The problem is even though when looked at in context the image wasn’t a sexual assault the image was used as what very much appeared to be a sexual assault.
I’m not going to tell you you’re wrong for not seeing it that way though.
Danny,
The larger point is: why should we, as a society, be beholden to the most easily offended among us?
Aren’t we better off without censorship, however it is imposed?
Yeah, but the subtitle (which I’ll admit quite a few people missed) made it clear that the ad’s creators intended it to be viewed that way.
Heck, I said that I didn’t see any rape in that image and my post was outright deleted. Now that we know the truth, I know I was right–there ISN’T any.
Of course, I also said I was going to buy some Belvedere vodka just to toast the phony outrage it generated.
But I agree–stealing someone else’s work and pretending that your ad agency did it is a bad business practice that should be punished.
Hell that comedy clip wasn’t that much better. The parents basically bullied the them into the pic and in her acting out over the video accidentally stimulated him to ejaculation.
And maybe its because I’m a guy but I got a sense of aggravation and possible embarassment from him. Like he had a “Let’s get this over with” attitude. He probably only smiled because of he good feelings that (usually) come from ejactuation.
The whole thing is a hot mess.
Yes it is.