Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, June 9, 2010
Visual Art A Letter to Amazon About Art
Posted by Jen Graves on Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:27 PM
Dear Amazon,
I am writing this open letter because I tried calling your PR office, but you did not return my call. Possibly this is a better format, since what I have to say is awkward, and it is this: It is not so hard to be decent, Amazon. Why must you always make Microsoft look like Mother Teresa?
A couple of years ago, The Stranger pointed out that you donated almost nothing to local arts groups, unlike every single other major corporation and bank in the city. So you started donating—a little. Yay! This matters. No, it is not required, but it is nice. And we all have to live together here in Seattle, Amazon. We are neighbors.
- Amazon took this photo of the art before the old building was demolished
Is this really necessary, Amazon? Your new headquarters will have 1.7 million square feet of new offices, for which interior designers are being paid. When people come to these offices, according to what designers told Hayes, they will come face-to-face with large, colorful, vividly weathered paintings—these are not tags, they're paintings of characters and scenes, some up to seven-by-five feet—in prominent places, including outside the main elevator.
Nobody will know who the artists are. Or how to get in touch with them to see more. And the pieces, created for public consumption, will be entirely private. They'll make you look good, and you got them for free. You can't part with some cash for the artists? Maybe, say, fair market value? Or hold an opening reception and put up some labels?
There's still time, Amazon. You can still do right.
With hope,
Jen
3
They suck more then I thought! Pay the artists!
Glad I've never bought anything thru Amazon. I've got my parents and a couple friends to quit too.
Glad I've never bought anything thru Amazon. I've got my parents and a couple friends to quit too.
5
As a local small gallery owner I've worked with almost all of these artists, and known some for years even before opening a gallery. Considering almost all of them are the definition of starving artists it would be great if Amazon could do something with them to help support the local artist community; commission new pieces, have an opening, give them some credit... definitely are all very easy items for Amazon. I can't understand why this wasn't done in the first place. I hired one of these artists several years ago to do a painting for an online start-up's lobby. It's not like it was expensive.
Historically, many companies have done the right thing; hired local street artists to create work, murals installations, etc for their campus, Nike, Nortel, lots of start-up style companies, so the way this was done feels cheap and disrespectful.
Now, Technically the work was done outside the bounds of contracts and legality so, the ownership of the pieces is a gray area. Actually, Amazon may technically own the boards these were painted on since they owned the property being demolished. Trying to get money for those pieces seems like a losing battle.
Technicality aside, It still doesn't make it feel any less cheap or disrespectful to the artists. It definitely doesn't looks like Amazon really cares about the artists that created the work.
-Cristopher Cook
Flatcolor Gallery
info@flatcolor.com
Historically, many companies have done the right thing; hired local street artists to create work, murals installations, etc for their campus, Nike, Nortel, lots of start-up style companies, so the way this was done feels cheap and disrespectful.
Now, Technically the work was done outside the bounds of contracts and legality so, the ownership of the pieces is a gray area. Actually, Amazon may technically own the boards these were painted on since they owned the property being demolished. Trying to get money for those pieces seems like a losing battle.
Technicality aside, It still doesn't make it feel any less cheap or disrespectful to the artists. It definitely doesn't looks like Amazon really cares about the artists that created the work.
-Cristopher Cook
Flatcolor Gallery
info@flatcolor.com
6
Paintings of characters and scenes sprayed on a wall without the permission of the owner of said wall is graffiti. Even if it is Banksey. and is illegal. it might be art, but it is first graffiti and illegal.
perhaps if the paintings of characters and scenes were legally painted on the wall with the permission of the owner, the creators have documents that prove they did it and that is was approved by the original wall owner. Those might also be art, but I have heard this is in the eye of the beholder.
But if they cant prove they made it, then I imagine it is public domain.
if I take a picture of a tree, I own the picture, not the owner of the land the tree lives on, or the creator, baby jebus/god/etc. YOu know, public domain.
Isnt that one of the reasons you cant take pictures in art galleries, because the picture belongs to the photographer, not the creator of the thing that is photographed. and the artist cant make any money off those photos?
perhaps if the paintings of characters and scenes were legally painted on the wall with the permission of the owner, the creators have documents that prove they did it and that is was approved by the original wall owner. Those might also be art, but I have heard this is in the eye of the beholder.
But if they cant prove they made it, then I imagine it is public domain.
if I take a picture of a tree, I own the picture, not the owner of the land the tree lives on, or the creator, baby jebus/god/etc. YOu know, public domain.
Isnt that one of the reasons you cant take pictures in art galleries, because the picture belongs to the photographer, not the creator of the thing that is photographed. and the artist cant make any money off those photos?
7
Labels would be nice, but compensation? Street artists have to be used to their are being transient and when they are painting on someone else's property it is hard to imagine them asking for money in return, no matter the future use. "Market value" seems an odd term since the only one would could sell part of the building is Amazon.com itself.
8
Those artists didn't own the property they were painting on. Isn't that kind of like sketching on a notepad in someone else's home?
If you come back a year later and find that sketch on the fridge, do you demand a fee?
They should credit the artists, but it seems that burden lays with Damion Hayes.
If you come back a year later and find that sketch on the fridge, do you demand a fee?
They should credit the artists, but it seems that burden lays with Damion Hayes.
9
Mr. Cook @5, Amazon may technically own the boards the paintings are affixed to, but that does not give them the right to reproduce the work (taking photos of Amazon execs in front of the paintings) and arguably does not give them the right to publicly display the works. Under Copyright law, those rights remain with the authors (the artists in this case). I hope that Amazon will see this as an opportunity (another one) to demonstrate their stated committment to the arts community and do something for these artists.
10
Um, Mother Teresa was an awful, suffering-obsessed wench who took donations given for the purpose of caring for her "patients" and used it to build seminaries, nunneries, and other church institutions. Do the research. She's a mass-murderer on a gigantic scale.
12
Regardless of legalities regarding ownership and so on, this is a dick move by Amazon. Amazon seems to excel at dick moves.
They're gonna spend $100+ million on this building. They'll spend thousands of dollars more on preservation, storage, and installation of the art in their lobby. Would it kill them to throw a few hundred bucks to the actual artists?
Don't be a dick, Amazon.
They're gonna spend $100+ million on this building. They'll spend thousands of dollars more on preservation, storage, and installation of the art in their lobby. Would it kill them to throw a few hundred bucks to the actual artists?
Don't be a dick, Amazon.
13
Well! This will teach Amazon to preserve graffiti... Should ‘a bulldozed them with the building and been done with it. I’m sure they will learn their lesson fir next time. No good deed goes unpunished.
15
I side with the artists. They have real passion, creativity and technical skill. They risk illegality to create something beautiful --things I absolutely appreciate-- on top of very mundane and un-beautiful objects.
If Amazon is going to legitimize the art in question by saving it and decorating their offices with it --an act I highly commend, as it enriches their space with real local history and ties them more intimately with our communities-- then they ought thank the artists from whom they benefit. Since Amazon has two things in spades, money and visibility, those are logical gifts to give the artists, who themselves gave the gift of their creativity and recognition of an important Seattle institution, Conworks. It's not about demanding compensation, it's about Amazon recognizing a gift (which they do) and replying with a gift.
If Amazon is going to legitimize the art in question by saving it and decorating their offices with it --an act I highly commend, as it enriches their space with real local history and ties them more intimately with our communities-- then they ought thank the artists from whom they benefit. Since Amazon has two things in spades, money and visibility, those are logical gifts to give the artists, who themselves gave the gift of their creativity and recognition of an important Seattle institution, Conworks. It's not about demanding compensation, it's about Amazon recognizing a gift (which they do) and replying with a gift.
17
Really? Even if they haven't copyrighted the work? Even when they have little (or no) evidence that it is their work? Please.
Under Copyright law, those rights remain with the authors (the artists in this case).
Really? Even if they haven't copyrighted the work? Even when they have little (or no) evidence that it is their work? Please.
18
As a matter of record, at the time these images were created, ConWorks had a lease with Vulcan for use of the building in question, one that had already been slated for demolition, but which ConWorks was allowed to occupy with, I believe, the understanding that it could make alterations to the building, both inside and out, so long as the alterations didn't violate existing DPD regs, fire codes, et al (a not uncommon occurrence). So technically, these pieces were not "graffiti" as the term is commonly used, because the work was done with permission of the lessee (ConWorks). Thus, it was not "illegal" in the sense that @6 implies.
As for verifying their creation, anybody with even a passing familiarity with the local art scene would probably recognize the style of the images as being unique and particular to the artists in question, so I think that argument can be characterized as a "red herring" at best, as is the tree picture argument, since, of course, no one "created" the tree, but in this case the image being photographed does indeed "belong to someone", namely the original creator of the image, who does not relinquish their rights to the image, just because someone else creates a secondary image in which it appears.
We went through all this a while back re: the Broadway Steps @6, perhaps you should spend a little time reviewing that issue before making blanket uninformed proclamations.
As for verifying their creation, anybody with even a passing familiarity with the local art scene would probably recognize the style of the images as being unique and particular to the artists in question, so I think that argument can be characterized as a "red herring" at best, as is the tree picture argument, since, of course, no one "created" the tree, but in this case the image being photographed does indeed "belong to someone", namely the original creator of the image, who does not relinquish their rights to the image, just because someone else creates a secondary image in which it appears.
We went through all this a while back re: the Broadway Steps @6, perhaps you should spend a little time reviewing that issue before making blanket uninformed proclamations.
19
@18
That same tenant improvement clause almost certainly says that any such improvements become the property of the building owner upon the expiration of the lease, particularity if not removed and abandoned by the tenant...
That same tenant improvement clause almost certainly says that any such improvements become the property of the building owner upon the expiration of the lease, particularity if not removed and abandoned by the tenant...
20
While I hate to inhibit your creativity in any way, I would simply remind you that the rest of humanity makes decisions about copyrights based on Title 17 USC, rather than the content of your apparently rich fantasy life.
But if they cant prove they made it, then I imagine it is public domain.
While I hate to inhibit your creativity in any way, I would simply remind you that the rest of humanity makes decisions about copyrights based on Title 17 USC, rather than the content of your apparently rich fantasy life.
21
@19:
I don't dispute that, it was the suggestion the works were created illegally about which I was more concerned.
Still, dick move on Amazon's part, regardless. You know, sometimes people should do the right thing, because, well, it's the right thing to do.
I don't dispute that, it was the suggestion the works were created illegally about which I was more concerned.
Still, dick move on Amazon's part, regardless. You know, sometimes people should do the right thing, because, well, it's the right thing to do.
22
@17, yes, even if they haven't "copyrighted" their work (copyright protection exists from the moment of expression in a tangible medium). I'm sure there is ample evidence that each artist created his work - examples of his other work showing similarity in theme, design and execution; witnesses who saw the actual painting being created; the artist's own testimony. Does Amazon contend that they created these works? Do they contend that someone else did?
Washington Lawyers for the Arts is presenting a seminar at Hugo House tomorrow on Copyright issues, and often helps to educate members of the arts community and general public on these issues. I suggest you look them up: www.TheWLA.org. Or, you know, read Circular 1 from the U.S. Copyright Office: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
Washington Lawyers for the Arts is presenting a seminar at Hugo House tomorrow on Copyright issues, and often helps to educate members of the arts community and general public on these issues. I suggest you look them up: www.TheWLA.org. Or, you know, read Circular 1 from the U.S. Copyright Office: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
24
@21
I concur with you on the issue of legality, but, in my opinion identifying the artists and giving them credit constitutes doing the right thing.
Hell, maybe someone with money to spend on art, who might not have seen it at an abandon building site, might see it while waiting for an elevator, like it, and take an interest in the artist (and possibly commission a piece).
Alternatively, it could have been destroyed with the building after ConWorks abandoned it… But Amazon took the expense to save it and the effort to (attempt to) properly credit it.
Seems kind of like looking a gift horse in the mouth to demand money and credit for art that was anonymous and discarded just cause you think you can wring a few shekels out of a fat cat…
But maybe that’s just me.
I concur with you on the issue of legality, but, in my opinion identifying the artists and giving them credit constitutes doing the right thing.
Hell, maybe someone with money to spend on art, who might not have seen it at an abandon building site, might see it while waiting for an elevator, like it, and take an interest in the artist (and possibly commission a piece).
Alternatively, it could have been destroyed with the building after ConWorks abandoned it… But Amazon took the expense to save it and the effort to (attempt to) properly credit it.
Seems kind of like looking a gift horse in the mouth to demand money and credit for art that was anonymous and discarded just cause you think you can wring a few shekels out of a fat cat…
But maybe that’s just me.
25
@22,
And, if you're suggesting that it's illegal for someone to display art that belongs to them, as Amazon is doing, there is something seriously wrong with copyright law. Is there an art museum in this country that's not violating copyright by your definition?
And, if you're suggesting that it's illegal for someone to display art that belongs to them, as Amazon is doing, there is something seriously wrong with copyright law. Is there an art museum in this country that's not violating copyright by your definition?
26
@23:
I think it would be very entertaining to see someone "try" to kick Jeff Bezos in the nut-sack - so, what's your point?
So far as I'm aware none of the artists in question have even made such a suggestion, but, hey, thanks for playing. We'll send you the home version of the game.
I think it would be very entertaining to see someone "try" to kick Jeff Bezos in the nut-sack - so, what's your point?
So far as I'm aware none of the artists in question have even made such a suggestion, but, hey, thanks for playing. We'll send you the home version of the game.
27
Interior Architects should pay. They have to but it would be the right thing to do. Amazon doesn't handle these mickey mouse details. I'm not hating on Amazon for what Interior Architects did.
28
@25 has the substance of it…
It’s “Art” that was gifted to ConWorks, presumably without any contractual obligation to ConWorks, as recipient of said gift, concerning its display, sale or disposal. Surely the crack investigators at the Stranger would have uncovered and reported any such Agreement if it existed!
ConWorks abandon the “Art” upon expiration of its Lease. Under the lease, property abandon by the Tenant becomes the property of the Landlord, to dispose of as it sees fit (this is a very standard lease clause).
That said, if ConWorks violated an Agreement between the “Artists” and ConWorks regarding ConWorks rights to the display, sell, or dispose of the “Art”, the “Artists” surely have a claim against ConWorks… In which case, they should absolutely defend their rights to their fullest.
It’s “Art” that was gifted to ConWorks, presumably without any contractual obligation to ConWorks, as recipient of said gift, concerning its display, sale or disposal. Surely the crack investigators at the Stranger would have uncovered and reported any such Agreement if it existed!
ConWorks abandon the “Art” upon expiration of its Lease. Under the lease, property abandon by the Tenant becomes the property of the Landlord, to dispose of as it sees fit (this is a very standard lease clause).
That said, if ConWorks violated an Agreement between the “Artists” and ConWorks regarding ConWorks rights to the display, sell, or dispose of the “Art”, the “Artists” surely have a claim against ConWorks… In which case, they should absolutely defend their rights to their fullest.
29
You say that the artists don't want much, but you don't say what they want.
I'm guessing that they want to be paid for the uncommissioned work that Amazon salvaged from a construction site?
I'm guessing that they want to be paid for the uncommissioned work that Amazon salvaged from a construction site?
30
@25 etc, why do you keep posting your incredulous comments when it's clear you know nothing about copyright law and refuse to read up on it even when others offer you relevant links?
In short: a museum or collector owns the physical artwork, but not the copyright on that work, typically. That remains with the creator. This is, for example, why a record label sells CDs and MP3s of a song, while a completely different organization like ASCAP collects royalties based on airplay and live performances of that song.
If Amazon found a CD in the ConWorks building before it was demolished, and then played it in the lobby of the new building, they'd need to buy ASCAP license to do so. And I could construct a similar argument in support of Amazon paying the artists for use of their work, though visual artists aren't typically represented by hardcore organizations like Artists Rights Society till they reach the point where serious money is involved.
Here's a link that explains the legal facts, though you are unlikely to read it:
http://www.arsny.com/basics.html
In short: a museum or collector owns the physical artwork, but not the copyright on that work, typically. That remains with the creator. This is, for example, why a record label sells CDs and MP3s of a song, while a completely different organization like ASCAP collects royalties based on airplay and live performances of that song.
If Amazon found a CD in the ConWorks building before it was demolished, and then played it in the lobby of the new building, they'd need to buy ASCAP license to do so. And I could construct a similar argument in support of Amazon paying the artists for use of their work, though visual artists aren't typically represented by hardcore organizations like Artists Rights Society till they reach the point where serious money is involved.
Here's a link that explains the legal facts, though you are unlikely to read it:
http://www.arsny.com/basics.html
31
@22
I missed the part of this “story” that alleges that Amazon intends to reproduce (make copies of) the “Art”…
Are you suggesting that Amazon displaying property that they have legal title to violates copyright protections?
Or are you suggesting that Amazon does not have legal title to the property in question?
Either way, I’d like to understand how you construct that argument.
I missed the part of this “story” that alleges that Amazon intends to reproduce (make copies of) the “Art”…
Are you suggesting that Amazon displaying property that they have legal title to violates copyright protections?
Or are you suggesting that Amazon does not have legal title to the property in question?
Either way, I’d like to understand how you construct that argument.
32
@30
Wow... you're confused!...
Copyright law treats recordings and graphic art differently ("copy" is fairly key to the concept).
Are you suggesting that Museums owe artists royalties on a per-view, or per-display basis? And if the latter what constitutes a display?...
You’re a ding bat.
Wow... you're confused!...
Copyright law treats recordings and graphic art differently ("copy" is fairly key to the concept).
Are you suggesting that Museums owe artists royalties on a per-view, or per-display basis? And if the latter what constitutes a display?...
You’re a ding bat.
33
@32, I did not suggest that.
The issue is not "copies" but "copyright." Here, it's about commercial exploitation of creative property, without compensation. If Amazon wanted to display quotes from living authors in their lobby, by hanging pages from books they found in the original building, I'd make the same argument, and you'd call me a dingbat again because you're not interested in thinking.
By your logic, interestingly, Amazon would owe the original artists money only if they hired others to repaint (and thus copy) the images.
Oh, lastly, why do you put ellipses after punctuation marks? Is the idea that you are finishing a sentence without having said anything, and the ellipsis stands in for a better, more interesting thought that you were unable to put into words?
The issue is not "copies" but "copyright." Here, it's about commercial exploitation of creative property, without compensation. If Amazon wanted to display quotes from living authors in their lobby, by hanging pages from books they found in the original building, I'd make the same argument, and you'd call me a dingbat again because you're not interested in thinking.
By your logic, interestingly, Amazon would owe the original artists money only if they hired others to repaint (and thus copy) the images.
Oh, lastly, why do you put ellipses after punctuation marks? Is the idea that you are finishing a sentence without having said anything, and the ellipsis stands in for a better, more interesting thought that you were unable to put into words?
34
Copyright in a work is separate from ownership in the original piece of work. So, if I buy a painting from an artist, with no other license or assignment of the copyright, I cannot create 100 limited edition prints of that painting. The right to create copies of a work is one of the specific rights granted to the author of a work (the artist, songwriter, sculptor, etc.) under copyright law. Another of those enumerated rights is the right to *publicly* display or perform the work. If I buy the original print of a film, I am buying that object, but not the right to then show that film in my movie theater. Likewise, when I buy a painting, I am not buying the right to publicly display it.
Museums generally enter into licensing agreements with artists or their representatives to allow the museum to publicly display the work, as well as to reproduce it in the museum's advertising or catalog, or to print it on a tote bag for sale in the lobby.
Just trying to educate.
Museums generally enter into licensing agreements with artists or their representatives to allow the museum to publicly display the work, as well as to reproduce it in the museum's advertising or catalog, or to print it on a tote bag for sale in the lobby.
Just trying to educate.
35
Maybe the "artists" should have made art that they could own. If you make it on someone else's property with the expectation that it will be wiped clean or destroyed, you really shouldn't have any expectation of compensation later. They should just be happy it wasn't destroyed. Credit would be nice since Amazon finds it decent enough to display, but getting paid for vandalizing someone's property in the past is hardly a legitimate request.
36
One could get the law into it - and it looks like there may be case for both sides. But I don't think it's Jen's job to decide what has the prerequisites for a lawsuit. She's written a letter - and a damn fine one. It seems like some of you guys expect her to create a case for the artists.
Dick move for sure. And if someone thinks there is a solution (legal or otherwise), please bring that to the discussion.
Dick move for sure. And if someone thinks there is a solution (legal or otherwise), please bring that to the discussion.
37
Wow Jen. Your open letter spawned more discusion on artist's rights and arts copywrite law thamyths UW exhibitions class I teach. Way to go.
41
@33
The public display of a work of art does not in and of itself constitute publication. Publication occurs when a work is sold, leased, or loaned, or when it is offered for sale, lease, or loan to the public. Thus, mere display in a museum or other public place does not deprive the artist of copyright unless the work is also offered for sale or loan. The loan of a work by an artist to a museum for public display probably constitutes publication. The statute gives to the copyright owner the exclusive right “to display the work publicly,” although unlike the exclusive right of reproduction, this right passes with the work. This means that when an artist owns a work lent to a museum, the artist may condition the loan on a proper public display, subject to agreement with the museum.
Let me repeat: The statute gives to the copyright owner the exclusive right “to display the work publicly,” although unlike the exclusive right of reproduction, this right passes with the work.
So again… the question is who owns the “art” now? (It was a gift to ConWorks who abandon it to their landlord).
I’d guess Amazon…
The public display of a work of art does not in and of itself constitute publication. Publication occurs when a work is sold, leased, or loaned, or when it is offered for sale, lease, or loan to the public. Thus, mere display in a museum or other public place does not deprive the artist of copyright unless the work is also offered for sale or loan. The loan of a work by an artist to a museum for public display probably constitutes publication. The statute gives to the copyright owner the exclusive right “to display the work publicly,” although unlike the exclusive right of reproduction, this right passes with the work. This means that when an artist owns a work lent to a museum, the artist may condition the loan on a proper public display, subject to agreement with the museum.
Let me repeat: The statute gives to the copyright owner the exclusive right “to display the work publicly,” although unlike the exclusive right of reproduction, this right passes with the work.
So again… the question is who owns the “art” now? (It was a gift to ConWorks who abandon it to their landlord).
I’d guess Amazon…
42
I'm not sure where to start here. How about the fact that graffiti is illegal despite how beautiful it maybe or who it is tributed to. Let us also not forget that even if the work had been commissioned by Amazon it took years of people scrubbing the walls of there businesses for these vandels turned "artists" to perfect their craft. As far a the "artists" getting compensation and recognition for their work it sounds to me that Amazon made an attemp to contact the artists to give them their credit but Damion Hayes was unwilling to give up the names without some from of monetary compensation. So much for being motivated by the passion for street art. I would also like to point out that the graffiti was "A GIFT TO THE PUBLIC". Anyone ask amazon or the design company if the space it will be displayed is open to the public? I would imagine that some parts of the building will get a fair amount of public traffic. The next time the design company is faced with a similar decision they will no doubt just send the work to the dumpster. Nice work.
43
@41, it's probably Vulcan that owns the art, actually, which just makes this letter even sillier.
"Will you please consider being decent to the street artists whose paintings you chopped off and kept from the walls of the building you demolished for your brand-new, six-block campus in South Lake Union?"
Who is "you", Jen? Amazon or Vulcan? Presumably it was actually Vulcan that did the demo, and Vulcan owns the buildings, but did you bother to find the details of how Amazon is using the art as part of their lease?
I find it odd that Vulcan wasn't mentioned by anyone but COMTE @18. It's all somehow Amazon's fault. #18 is actually a great reason why these artists don't have shit on anyone except ConWorks for abandoning the pieces. They produced an uncommissioned work, gifted it if you will, on property that they knew was slated to be demolished. Someone, either Vulcan or Amazon, spent what was probably good deal of money to salvage the pieces. They could have just demo'd them but didn't. If Amazon/Vulcan attributes the pieces, which they tried to do, that's all they should have to do.
"Will you please consider being decent to the street artists whose paintings you chopped off and kept from the walls of the building you demolished for your brand-new, six-block campus in South Lake Union?"
Who is "you", Jen? Amazon or Vulcan? Presumably it was actually Vulcan that did the demo, and Vulcan owns the buildings, but did you bother to find the details of how Amazon is using the art as part of their lease?
I find it odd that Vulcan wasn't mentioned by anyone but COMTE @18. It's all somehow Amazon's fault. #18 is actually a great reason why these artists don't have shit on anyone except ConWorks for abandoning the pieces. They produced an uncommissioned work, gifted it if you will, on property that they knew was slated to be demolished. Someone, either Vulcan or Amazon, spent what was probably good deal of money to salvage the pieces. They could have just demo'd them but didn't. If Amazon/Vulcan attributes the pieces, which they tried to do, that's all they should have to do.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (43) RSS