 |
| image from http://funnyphotosto.com |
Last month I went on a rant about Sinful Colors and Revlon stealing Bloggers images for their own promotional and commercial gain. My rant consisted of people that couldn't understand why stealing blogger's images was a bad thing and the fact that a company had the gall to steal images in the first place.
Let me explain. Originally Sinful Colors had:
a) stolen images from at least 2 different nail bloggers for use in a promotional pamphlet to go along with a Sinful Colors Nail Lacquer display at Walgreens stores. They photoshopped out the watermarks that were clear and present on the photos they used AND they didn't even steal pictures of nails that had Sinful Colors Nail Lacquer on them. Instead they stole images of nails with Color Club and OPI nail Lacquer on them
b) stolen an image from Jeanette of The Swatchaholic. This image had The Swatchaholic's watermarked photoshopped out of the picture and then the individual nails from the image were photoshopped directly onto a model's hand for the display that holds the Sinful Colors Nail Lacquers.
c) provided misleading and false information in the pamphlet on how to achieve the looks from the stolen images. For example, Mary from Swatch and Learn had her image stolen. Mary used a stamping technique from a Konad stamp to achieve the look in the image that Sinful Colors stole. Instead of informing consumers that a stamp was used to make the design, the pamphlet told customers that they could re-create the look by using a toothpick. (By the way. There is no way you could recreate that look with a toothpick.)
 |
| click to enbiggen |
d) not responded at all to consumer's complaints and concerns on Facebook. As a result, Revlon, Sinful Color's parent company, issued an apology on Facebook about the issue. This was done after being called on it by consumers and bloggers. Revlon made the claim that they were working with the bloggers for The Swatchaholic and Swatch and Learn to resolve the issue at hand.
To read even more about the Sinful Colors/Revlon photo stealing debacle, I refer you to my original post or a well written post on Nailed It, a popular nail polish and nail polish art blog
So why the rant?
Allow me to explain:
While shopping at my local Walgreens this past weekend I saw the
Sinful Colors display and I was shocked that it was still up AND that it was still displaying the fake and misleading pamphlet to consumers.
But what really shocked me was that noticed that someone had taped a new picture
of the model originally sporting a manicure from The Swatchaholic stolen image with a NEW picture of the same model with a brand new photoshopped manicure using an image from an unknown source.
If you look closely you can see that this cover up looked like it had been folded (maybe because it was sent in the mail to the store?) and simply tacked up over the original photo. The model in the new photo is the same as the old photo display. The nails are clearly photoshopped onto the model's hand. Looking at them, they do not have the same light and shadows as the original pilfered and photoshopped manicure.
This does not rule out the possibility that they simply kept the same stolen, photoshopped manicure and adjusted the colors/hue/and lighting. It is also possible that they took an entirely different photo of a manicure and photoshopped THAT onto the model's hands. Again. You have to wonder, since Sinful Colors stole images the first time....where did they get this new image?
In my opinion Revlon and Sinful Colors are NOT "making things right" With these two bloggers. They are still distributing material containing stolen images and still making money off of these stolen images. Now a new manicure has been plastered over the old stolen manicure. Have they just repeated the same mistake again?
What are your thoughts?
Please forgive the poor quality of some of the images used in this post. I tried to take pictures of the display but the Walgreens Sales Associate was unhappy in me doing so. These were the only images I was able to get before she called the manager over to speak with me.
I cannot believe they're still passing out the pamphlets. I hope this was part of the agreement with the bloggers, at the least.
ReplyDeleteNasty. I hope the bloggers got compensated. I'm a photographer and have to deal with this kind of crap all the time. People think anything on the internet is fair game and to hell with copyright laws and creators of work. Really sad. And it's even more disturbing when big companies are at it.
ReplyDeletewhy on earth did your Wags shoo you away from taking pics of the display? it's not like you were stealing polish...you were simply photographing it! i'm forever in drugstores snapping pics of makeup & so far haven't been reprimanded & hope i never am.
ReplyDeleteMany retail establishments do not allow photography inside, regardless of subject matter, as a security measure. Just because an individual may be taking innocuous "product" photos, another individual could be taking photos of points of entry, cameras, registers, alarms, etc. The easiest thing for them to do is just not allow *anyone* to photograph *anything*. This way, noone can claim they were "singled out" based on appearance.
DeleteAlthough I am UK based I've been following this with some interest as a blogger.
ReplyDeleteGood to see you all have each others backs x x
Good luck
Is it an accurate picture that I have: You, snapping pictures while wearing a stunning trench & dark glasses. Perhaps your hair in pin curls & an oversize hat. The associate, hideous of course, calling the manager. You strike a pose, tell them its America, then the manager arrives. Bystanders scream "Run Sith, RUN!" & you flee, in excruciatingly high pumps of fabulosity to deliver us this news as the manager shakes his hand muttering "Sithed Again"
ReplyDeleteI feel this is an accurate portrayal. On a side note, what douches. I just hope that they are actually coming to an agreement with the bloggers financially & they might need to cover it during these legal times.
I was at my Walgreens and they haven't even attempted to cover it up. I've been wondering what was going on but I hadn't heard. I thank you for the update. I know it's not much but for those of us who are still following the story its something. I also am firm with my stance with boycotting as are my friends and fam. Thank you again.
ReplyDeleteI will not be buying from Sinful nail polish because of this. It's awful. Revlon and Sinful should be ashamed of themselves.
ReplyDeleteI'm gonna be controversial here and play devil's advocate because this feel very much like something that does happen in my profession (marketing). Don't get me wrong, what was done to those bloggers suck. But I'm pretty sure the culprit is a careless agency that was designing the material and believe me, you do suppose that your agency knows better and you trust them, plus how can you check that they acquired the rights to use an image? So there goes, you print all this expensive material - these displays cost a leg and a kidney.
ReplyDeleteScandal appears, you can get all mad at your agency and even sue them but well, damage is done. So what do you do? Throw away all that money that this material represents, or try to find a solution to fix it? I know what I'd do, I'd try to save what can be saved, because that's what my company would expect. Covering part of displays with a sticker is a common method.
It's not all pretty, it's not ideal, but what more do you want? That they throw it all away? That they beat themselves publicly to ask for forgiveness?
Why is covering up the stolen material not enough? Is the thought that it's hidden underneath the sticker so unbearable? Customers can't see it anymore. The stolen images aren't doing anything anymore for the sales. We have zero evidence these would be the same blogger's pictures photoshopped.
Sorry, but I don't see where the problem is. Companies are there for money, it's only normal they try to limit the damage which, I'm sure, is huge enough already with the bad PR that went around this story.
Sometimes, we try to put ethics where there isn't much to be had.
Side note: having kept the pamphlets with the stole pics is bad and there's no excuse for that.
DeleteAmen.
DeleteIt is ultimately the client's responsibility to approve or disapprove of the campaign that their chosen agency has created for them. Yes, the agency was terribly sloppy, but the client has a responsibility and duty to ask questions like "Where did you get these images?". Ignorance cannot be used as an excuse. Sinful Colors' parent, Revlon, has a huge legal department. They know that they are responsible for ceasing to distribute and make available to the public images that they now know to be stolen, but that is not happening across the board. Stolen images are still figuring in Sinful Colors' campaign at some locations and that is the "big deal".
DeleteI agree with you that using a sticker to cover the offending picture is a fix albeit a very tacky one, but it is a solution that is not being utilized on all the displays. That negligence, in combination with permitting retailers to keep the pamphlets known to contain stolen images, is inexcusable, reprehensible, and immoral. The notion that because the campaign might have "cost a leg and a kidney" that it absolves the company from taking all the necessary steps to rectify the wrong is absurd. The company should have recalled all the displays and pamphlets, applied the stickers before returning the displays to the retailers, and destroyed all the pamphlets. If it meant losing money, so be it. They should chalk it up to the cost of doing business honestly and then go after the agency if they don't want to just write it off.
I'm sorry if I seem angry. I'm not. I just don't think the cost factor is any excuse for not righting a wrong.
Eileen I do agree with you that money is no valid reason to do something wrong, that using the pamphlets as they are is unacceptable and that uncovered displays shouldn't be used either.
DeleteHowever, really, no company EVER asks their agency where images are from because if there's one thing agencies should know, it's not to steal content. I cannot get over how stupid this agency (or at least someone in their staff) was with this. You do give your sub-contractors some credit and trust (obviously, sometimes you shouldn't), you just cannot control everything from every supplier all the time and you have to assume they know how to do their part right.
Hi Musings,
DeleteAt the risk of sounding argumentative, I must take exception with your comment, ". . . No company EVER asks their agency where images are from . . ." First, that really isn't an excuse and I think you know that. Ignorance might be bliss, but it does not absolve anyone of wrong doing. Second, I have a small company and when I meet with the advertising team, I always ask where they plan on getting their images because it has a direct bearing on the cost. Perhaps I'm just overly cautious as to how my advertising dollars are being spent, or perhaps I'm more aware of Internet theft, or perhaps it's because my son specializes in copyright infringement and intellectual property law--whatever! I'm the one who ultimately approves the campaign and so being informed is my responsibility. The buck stops here.
In any event, this has been an interesting exchange. You brought a different point of view to the discussion.
Kudos to you for doing it, then :)
DeleteObviously, I'll stop buying Spoiled NPs until they stop stealing bloggers' pics. Can't they even put their own nail polish on their own models in some decent fashion, for God's sake? How pathetic.
ReplyDeleteIts Sinful Colors, not Spoiled.
DeleteStolen pics aside, the real question is how on earth did anyone think that that looked good enough to release in the first place?!? That is such a horrible photoshop job, you'd think it'd be easy enough to find a model with nice or even fake nails and give her a simple mani--what crap
ReplyDeleteIt's more expensive and time consuming. The model was probably a cheap stock photo. If they had spent money on a photoshoot, they would have had a manicure done on her they way they wanted. Basically this was a 100% photoshop job.
DeleteThat is horrible! Though after getting screwed over (again) by Zoya I'm sadly not surprised. They will do whatever they have to in order to make a buck--and the bloggers/customers/little people be damned.
ReplyDeleteRant away, Sith. I guess it's a small comfort that my nail photos will never be stolen lol.
I am thinking they worked out an agreement which is why you still see the promo images. After all she did say she was not going to talk about it anymore. 70% sure an agreement was reached.
ReplyDeleteI don't expect any advertising in current markets to "real." It's all photo shopped. Major magazine editoral credits cannot even be trusted to be the products that they tell you they are. Advertising on all levels is nothing more than a fantasy designed to make you take your wallet out. Every brand has done what sinfull colors did. Expensive brands do this constantly. You can't trust any image you see. It's sad that the images were stolen, however, not uncommon at all. Usually the stealing is done with more grace and edited to look totally different from the origional image. Everyone thinks that there are millions of fashion models taking millions of photo shoots, but that costs so much money. It's much cheaper to take images on file or steal them and reinvent them to be whatever they need to be. If you wanted to avoid this exact senario, you would be on a no buy for the rest of your life. No makeup, no cereal, no bread, no gasoline, nothing. It is remarkable how little sinful colors did to hide the stealing. I am 100% floored that revlon responed to this at all and 100% floored that even some displays recieved new posters.
ReplyDeleteSince Sinful Colors stole images from bloggers that used Color Club and OPI nail polish, then not only should the bloggers be suing Sinful Colors, but Color Club and Opi should too. Sinful Colors is wrong for stealing bloggers' pictures without permission and using it for promotional gain. They are also misleading people into thinking that the nail colors were by Sinful Colors and not by Color Club or OPI nail polish. I wonder if these 2 companies know about this and what they decide to do.
ReplyDeleteI actually work at a Walgreens, and as a beauty blogger I was aware if what sinful had done, our display didn't contain the pamphlet ,but does have the model with the image of the stolen manicure. I will never buy from sinful ever again.
ReplyDeleteWe don't have all the facts, and since neither side is willing to put everything out there, we never will. It could be that those responsible for procuring the stock photos thought they were getting something legit, and it was their source which pilfered them (or even the sources source, and so forth). The photos could have exchanged hands multiple times, and Sinful Colors (or any company) is going to up and down the entire chain, nor should they have to.
ReplyDeleteI like Revlon cosmetics. And it sucks cause I know they just recently took on Sinful. I never really use nail polish but, I probably won't be picking up any Sinful ones anytime soon.
ReplyDelete