Posted on May 18, 2015
1
1
0
I agree that some images are iconic and shouldn't be used in advertising. I also believe in free speech and being able to say and use imagery that is not trademarked or copyrighted. This is one of those difficult calls, while I would not have produced a shirt like this and think it is distasteful., I would say that it is allowable according to the constitution.
So, at what point is an image off-limits? Should UA have bowed to the pressure? Does this image bring recognition to the original event or does it somehow make the original event seem trivial?
http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/18/news/under-armour-iwo-jima-shirt/index.html
So, at what point is an image off-limits? Should UA have bowed to the pressure? Does this image bring recognition to the original event or does it somehow make the original event seem trivial?
http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/18/news/under-armour-iwo-jima-shirt/index.html
Posted in these groups: 
WWII World War Two
Historical pictures
WWII World War Two Historical pictures
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 7
4
4
0
3
3
0
Under Armor (UA) is very popular with military and produces quality products. Their use of such an iconic image seemed over the top. I think pulling the product was the correct response.
(3)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
What's the big deal? Looks like a bunch of fellows setting up a basketball hoop to me...
(1)
(0)
LTC Gavin Heater
I think, my opinion only, that there are iconic images in all societies that instill a sense of Nationalism and Patriotism. When displayed in the same theme, and not for profit, they can be parodied. The First Amendment is very liberal as our Constitutional Framers intended it. So what is left...Good Taste versus Poor Taste. I think this image was in poor taste. Once again, just my opinion.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
This is a question that can only be answered by those Marines that planted the flag of their family members. To include the photographer that took the picture and his family members.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
I do not get why this was so offensive. I personally think that the shirt is ugly and wouldn't buy it, but there are many shirts I feel like that about. Maybe because I know that the iconic image was a staged event and as such I have less of a reaction to it. Either way the company will do what they perceive to be profitable to them and pulling it probably made the most business sense.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Honestly i feel there is a ton of But hurt goign on wiht this. Alot of AD and Veterans like to say man Civilians are so sensitive and get butt hurt to easy even when what is said is extremely offensive. But the second the Civilian population does something the slightest bit offensive our community gets all sort of butt hurt. Under Armor does alot for out community and that imiage is iconic and means alot to us but it is a Image. I think we need to take a bit of our own advice and stop being so butt hurt over this.
Edit: We find it okay for people to make parodies of Mohammed and tell anyone that says that it is wrong because of who he is to Islam that they need to suck it up and they are a liberal. that is somethign that is Sacred to their belief and there cultural as this image is sacred to our cultural.
Edit: We find it okay for people to make parodies of Mohammed and tell anyone that says that it is wrong because of who he is to Islam that they need to suck it up and they are a liberal. that is somethign that is Sacred to their belief and there cultural as this image is sacred to our cultural.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It is not prudent to interject humor in such a hallowed symbol of American bravery and the spirit to win.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I don't know if they're stealing it or putting it up. Okay, that was bad. I saw this the other day on a friend's feed. It is pretty disgusting. So was 23 Feb 1945 a freakin' joke? I don't even by UR because it is over priced crap.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google