Historicist: "The city that nobody loves"
The Daily Photoist: November 23, 2009
Urban Planner: November 23, 2009
Newsstand: November 23, 2009
Last summer, Clear Channel Outdoor threatened to sue the Toronto Public Space Committee; last week Astral Media Outdoor threatened to sue Rami Tabello and his IllegalSigns.ca. That left one bidder for the "street furniture" contract with a relatively fuck-up-free slate.
"Some people are blessed with intelligence; some people are blessed with good looks; others, with personality," Tabello wrote on Wednesday. "Then there's Nick Arakgi of CBS Outdoor. He's blessed with having competitors that are idiots."
Not surprisingly, we just weren't looking hard enough.
Take a good gaze at CBS's "Postering Structures" at left and right. See anything odd? Yup, it seems they integrated — as a "poster" — the cover of the fall 2006 issue of Spacing magazine. Without permission, of course.
On the first level, it's copyright infringement; at least Astral changed the font of Reg Hartt's "AYN RAND" poster before using it in their designs. On the second level, it puts at risk the reputation of Spacing as a credible and objective publication. But on the third, it borders on fraudulent, implying an endorsement of CBS's proposal by Toronto's most influential tastemakers of urban aesthetics.
Spacing Publisher Matt Blackett is fairly diplomatic in his Wire post on the matter, but the letter he sent to CBS Outdoor is more direct and assertive in demanding that the images be removed and an apology be issued. For its part, the (unaffiliated-since-2004) Toronto Public Space Committee will be filing a complaint with Ontario Integrity Commissioner Justice Coulter A. Osborne, who has been hired by the City to serve as the "Fairness Commissioner" for the "street furniture" project. The TPSC believes that the implied endorsement may have given CBS an unfair advantage with respect to the Design Jury's and staff's evaluation of the proposal. And seeing as the final staff report recommending a "winner" may be released as early as this week, it is likely that there will be no opportunity for the jury and staff to reassess the proposal; therefore, CBS should be disqualified.
This is only the latest street furniture scandal. More are here, here, and here. And those are on top of the aforementioned lawsuit threats. And the illegal billboards. And the shitty designs. As you can expect, there's much more to come...
Images of two of CBS's "postering structures" taken from their brochure. There is also a third shelter-like one on which the Spacing cover again appears.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
What's the deal on these ad companies. They can't do anything right. I would be outraged if I was Spacing and ask for compensation for copyright violations.
If it took us, a group of interested and engaged people, more than a week to spot the wee image...do we really think it's going to make that much of an impact on the competition? I mean, I like spacing and all, but I can make my own decisions. Our society is way too obsessed with copyright infringement.
"If it took us, a group of interested and engaged people, more than a week to spot the wee image...do we really think it's going to make that much of an impact on the competition?"
One would sincerely hope that the six members of the Design Jury (who are each getting paid $500 a day for their services) would be subjecting the designs to much closer and more thorough scrutiny than members of the public.
I “spotted” the images on day one. It merely took me a while to write several hundred words of critique in which I could mention it. In any event, delay is legally irrelevant in this case.
Spacing should be honored, not pissed. This is so silly and dumb.
Honoured that a company which represents a diametrically-opposed ideological view has appropriated its brand for their own commercial purposes?
Yes.
Could you please explain more?
Does it really matter?
What's more ominous in my mind is the fact that these poster pillars are being shown as containing community posters. Didn't we just fight an endless battle to keep community postering legal on poles?
The kiosks are intended ONLY for commercial postering.
Maybe I'm paranoid, but I worry that as soon as we have these kiosks, council's going to turn around and say, well, we have kiosks! Posters should ONLY go there...
Alison:
And if you read through the descriptions in the proposal brochures, you discover that many of the postering kiosks will include certain physical features for the express purpose of discouraging large-format commercial postering.
as I suspected. :(