DAVE SEGAL wrote:

“For Nike, this is business as usual. Ask the (surviving) Beatles and the Stooges. The company’s been trying to drape its image in rock ‘n’ roll rebelliousness (itself a long-dubious idea) for decades.”

Though it’s a huge bummer to think of “Revolution” or “Lust For Life” or any other good song used in a commercial for shoes (or beer, or cars, or fast food, or iPods), it doesn’t bother me because usually, someone, somewhere associated with the artist agreed to it and, presumably got (seriously) paid. And I’m pretty firm in my belief that you can’t begrudge musicians their few opportunities to make a livingespecially when you consider that TV commercials play more (and in many cases better) music than most radio stations. HOWEVER:

In this case, the Dischord folks disavowed all knowledge, and basically swore revenge, which is fundamentally different. I don't think the precept of fair use for commentary applies here. This isn't some work in the public domain, and a Nike ad isn't commentary. It's commerce. I hate to sound (be?) so self-righteous, but the argument for Nike (which is, admittedly, totally imaginary at this point) reminds me of PACs describing political contributions as free speech and Christians feeling persecuted. This is a case of copyright theft, and if it works to protect corporations, it must at least work the other way.

Then again, it occurred to me that if some hip artist had done this as a piece of subversion, an actual commentary, I would be all for it. I might even buy a print. Or I might think, "no, that's a bit overstated." This campaign (if it is a campaign and not a prank) is a good reminder that there is no such thing as overstatement here. In that sense, the thing itself is almost beautiful; is it satire? Does it stand alone? Ask me in 20 years. But Nike doing it to sell themselves, without the permission or knowledge of Minor Threat (presumably) is somehow rank and offensive enough to get me to trot out a hoary old phrase like "corporate branding of underground culture." It's a complete reversal of what the original image meant, and means. Though I have less than zero invested in the ethos represented by the original image, I'm still appalled by the nerve of whatever junior ad clone imagined and implemented this idea, without stopping to care about what it means about the world that they can get away with it.

How sad and strange life is.