We just had a good discussion the other day about JKR at Paris Fashion Week watching the extremely thin model go down the runway. Then I saw a picture from Ralph Lauren with a model so incredibly emaciated it was posted on a website called Photoshop Disasters which inspired the perceptive observation from a blogger on BoingBoing who wrote,

"Dude, her head's bigger than her pelvis."

Photoshopped Fillipa Hamilton, Olive Oyl, and a more "robust" and real Hamilton.
Actually, poor Olive would need to lose weight for the runway these days.

 

Great Video Coverage of this by Rachel Maddow
"She sort of looks like she was shrinky-dinked, doesn't she?
Look at the ratio of her torso to her head.
That is not a ratio that exists in nature, at least outside the insect world....
It looks like whoever was in charge...was inspired by a combination of Barbie and those
giant-headed Bratz dolls. Actually those dolls
look more normal and more human than the model."



The picture was circulating around the blogosphere when the House of Lauren decided to do a Rowling and send out a bunch of threatening letters, as documented by BoingBoing:

It's obvious by now that Ralph Lauren *hates* being mocked. They hate being mocked so much that they ordered their attack lawyers to send letters trying to fool ISPs into pulling an "infringing" advertisement featuring a ridiculously skinny model (in fact, our posting of the image was fair use, not infringement; Ralph Lauren's takedown notices are bogus and they should know better).

It's also obvious that the photo of Filippa Hamilton used in the Ralph Lauren advertisement was digitally manipulated. But we still have three questions: 1) who, exactly, gave Ms. Hamilton the Olive Oyl physique? 2) If the photo was manipulated after it appeared in the advertisement, why didn't Ralph Lauren's law firm make mention of that in their silly DMCA takedown notice? and 3) Where's the original advertisement?

Note: For all these blog links, read the comments ~ priceless!

Eventually, Lauren did admit to Extra that the photo was manipulated:

"For over 42 years we have built a brand based on quality and integrity. After further investigation, we have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman's body. We have addressed the problem and going forward will take every precaution to ensure that the caliber of our artwork represents our brand appropriately."

Photoshop Disasters complied with the takedown request, much to the disappointment of many who urged them to fight, but BoingBoing is still railing at Lauren for threatening to sue over criticism of the horrible picture:

As Wendy Seltzer from the Chilling Effects project said, "Sounds like a pretty solid fair use case to me. If criticism diminishes its effectiveness, that's different from the market substitution copyright protects against. And I've rarely seen a thinner DMCA form-letter."

So, to Ralph Lauren, GreenbergTraurig, and PRL Holdings, Inc: sue and be damned. Copyright law doesn't give you the right to threaten your critics for pointing out the problems with your offerings. You should know better. And every time you threaten to sue us over stuff like this, we will:

a) Reproduce the original criticism, making damned sure that all our readers get a good, long look at it, and;

b) Publish your spurious legal threat along with copious mockery, so that it becomes highly ranked in search engines where other people you threaten can find it and take heart; and

c) Offer nourishing soup and sandwiches to your models."