Random vandalism? Destroying a storefront?
That's what it was. It was random, because as far as anyone can tell Jones Soda wasn't poking and prodding at SA previous to this. It was vandalism because SA took the message and branding that Jones Soda was trying to put out to the public (their storefront so to speak) and fucking defaced it
...afterbirth...funny to me...
To each his own.
None of those pictures make me think of Jones Soda in a negative light.
That's cool. Not everyone thinks the same though.
It'd be like doing a photoshop of 'design your own coke can'.
It would be if Jones Soda had sponsored it and was able to control whether imagery that depicted scenes not suited to polite society were made available in a venue (the internet) that was accessible to millions of random people, and once placed there would be there forever.
That wasn't the case though.
Hell, embracing it as 'funny' in my opinion HELPS the brand.
There are obviously many ways Jones Soda could have handled this situation. They chose to lawyer up. I'm betting their reasoning goes beyond, "OMG that shit is gross, sue them!" and also includes stuff like brand control and copyright maintenance, precedence and other law-type-things.
If Jones Soda had an internet newsletter (I'm not sure they do - it'd be a pretty boring newsletter)
Why would you thnk it'd be boring? Because they don't want people to associate Andres Serrano's claim to fame with their beverage?
On the other hand, random legal threats DO hurt Jones Soda.
How is Jones Soda's action in this regard random? They didn't just pull this out of their ass, ya know.
I don't have a problem with what SA did originally...parody rocks so hard. But their response to Jones Soda's legal threats makes SA look stupid. They crossed that shadowy line between cocky-but-cool-rebel to dumbfuck.
