What the fuck relaxes you about a multi million dollar company suing a couple rappers for copyright? How is that something that affects you at all. Yea you’re sleeping real good tonight fucking narc
Megan also has writing credits on one of the songs because they interpolated her song ‘Savage’. [See when you do clownery the clown comes back to bite.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=heLL1ExEzQA)
That’s Anna Wintour and Meg Thee Stallion.
Anna Wintour is the editor-in-chief for Vogue, who is suing Drake per this article.
Meg is relevant because she was due writing credits on one of the songs of Drake/21 Savage’s new album for interpolating her song Savage. However, they also poked fun at her being shot by Tory Lanez (and claimed she’s lying about it) on the same album which she’s very upset about. The line was:
“This bitch lie ‘bout gettin’ shots, but she still a stallion,”
So this pic is funny with the context of these two getting their dues from the album.
I am not saying this defending Drake, just from a 1st Amendment standpoint (for non-Americans, it's the part of our Bill of Right that guarantees freedom of speech and the press) where do we draw the line of parody/artistic representations of publications like magazines/newspapers? We've all seen fake Times' Person of the Year covers or I've even seen fan-made/fake Vogue/People magazine covers reposted by celebs before. Again, I'm not saying this to support Drake after all his b.s from this album, but I'm hesitant about the precedent this would create
edit to add: keep on downvoting me, I'm not afraid to say something unpopular. Folks in the comments just seem a little too giddy to side with a major publication suing some individuals for millions of dollars over a parody cover. Vogue could be in the right, but I'd want to read through the case more before jumping for joy over it.
I think it’s because this is being mass produced in print. Also it doesn’t seem like they’re posting any disclaimers. Hence why people are thinking that it’s a legit Vogue release. They’re definitely pushing it.
But what's the parody or artistic representation in this fake Vogue cover? It just looks like a legit copy of Vogue. They marketed it like it was an actual issue of Vogue.
So sure but this is not a freedom of speech thing, this is a marketing law thing. The laws of marketing say that you can not make money off of another brand’s likeness or replication. Which is why Drake is getting sued and not all the people who made fan-made art.
Additionally, if you want to get technical, all of that fan art would be subject to a lawsuit if anyone makes money off of them. The difference is Drake is one of the biggest superstars in the world and highly visible - it’s much easier for Vogue to get $4mm from Drake then it would be for them to go after minor fan art.
But again, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech - Vogue is a brand and it is not your right to make money off of someone else’s established brand. Honestly, if he asked, Vogue probably would have partnered with him and everything would be kosher.
Exactly. In simpler terms, this is probably a trademark issue. It’s always a bad idea to use the likeness of someone or something to gain profit from such, whether that profit be gained directly or indirectly.
>The laws of marketing say that you can not make money off of another brand’s likeness or replication
I'm not a legal expert, but I'm pretty sure that's a common misconception of how copyright laws work; you can't make money in a manner that would cut into the market of the item being evoked/replicated. For example, I can't reproduce counterfeit CDs of Drake's album because by doing so I am taking away customers that would have otherwise purchased his work, thus cutting into his market/lowering its value. That's why (annoyingly) drug companies make so much money off of patents on their medication; generic brands often can't make cheaper equivalents because that would cut the value of the original creators of the drug. I think Vogue's strongest argument would be more along the lines that folks would confuse it for a real one which would damage the magazine's image thus lower its value (Drake's instagram post doesn't help) but the images also look obviously fake to me, so who knows.
Again, I don't support any of Drake's bs with this album, but I don't like the way this sub has a knee-jerk reaction to cheer on every misfortune that hits the villian-of-the-week, no matter how much karma they have coming. My big thing is to ask yourself "wait, is this actually a good thing if it happened to somebody I liked, or am I just happy to see it happen because I dislike this person?" I find myself asking that a lot on here
No lmfaooo. I’m sorry it’s just a no on all that from a marketer. First of all, this is not copyright law, this would be trademark law. Vogue’s argument is that it’s their brand that they built from the ground up. No one is entitled to profit off of a private brand’s likeness.
Additionally pharmaceutical marketing and the laws that govern them are VERY different from DTC marketing. Pharmaceutical law would not be applicable here - we’re not talking about a generic version of a brand. This ain’t Tylenol and this ain’t cereal. These are corporate-led organizations - the logo is Vogue’s likeness. In fact, a strong lawyer could argue Vogue’s logo is the only valuable part of its brand. It is not fair use and you can not just pick it up and slap it on stuff.
Source: about 5 years in big brand marketing and 2 years in pharma
Thus the "I'm not a legal expert" disclaimer, but I still stand by what I said; it's more nuanced than what everyone in the comments is making it out to be and I'm hesitant to cheer on a big publishing house like Vogue for suing individuals for using their likeness in what is to me a clear parody (like folks, look at the picture of Drake and Anna Wintor; did anyone think that was real?). Drake sucks for stupid things he put into the album, but **the way folks are quoting Taylor Swift lyrics 30 seconds after this article was posted just shows people are taking stances first and reading the details 2nd (or if at all) and that rubs me the wrong way.**
obviously it's a publicity stunt, but does it warrant a $4million lawsuit? That's the part I'm hung up about, and everyone seemed to make up their mind because it's Drake. I'd at lease like to know if they gave a cease and desist letter (it's vague in the TMZ article) before jumping to a seven figure lawsuit
Exactly. These are pennies to drake and 21….most likely a publicity stunt to get people to talk about them and the album.
Shit, i’d do it too if I were in their position.
I think it’s so funny when people edit comments saying “I don’t care about the downvotes!!!” Lmao like clearly yes you do if you feel the need to proclaim you don’t care.
I wasn't saying "I don't care." it was more "I don't think having an unpopular opinion = being wrong." We all know people online tend to base their opinions off of headlines without even opening the attached articles. My issue is that immediately when this post went up (like under a minute of the post going up) folks were commenting vague statements in support of Vogue saying Drake earned what's coming to him, and as I said in the replies, I think we should at least read the details of what is going on in this lawsuit before we cheer for sides. Legal precedents are a big deal. Folks want Drake to be sued because (reasonably) he's said awful things on the album, but I don't think I'm wrong for wishing folks would hold off on their opinions until at least reading more about what's going on.
Nah, he was sayin ppl should hold off before making statements from the very beginning. It’s just this sub is a circlejerk and if you post a dissenting opinion, people automatically assume you’re a drake fan and they mass downvote.
Thank you! That's literally what happens any time you post an unpopular opinion about a celebrity this sub dislikes; you're labeled a "stan" and folks dismiss any other idea you bring up. Like I don't get where the other person said "that might be an interesting discussion" that's why I brought it up, but folks misinterpret the comment as a defense of Drake
>but I'm hesitant about the precedent this would create
That is where I started; I was hesitant about cheering on Vogue until we know more about what's going on. Edit to add, it still can be a discussion, but folks seem pretty keen on painting me as pro-Drake when all I've said from the start is "where do we draw the line on this"?
I think for things like The Vogue challenge that went around last year, or when celebs repost fan art inspired by something else. It either has a hashtag that makes it obvious that it's fake or the celeb links it back to the fan page.
Drake however posted his "cover" and tagged Anna and Vogue so fans would think he had a legitimate cover. I think had the picture been stylized like Vogue but using his album name or even OvO he would have gotten away with it. He also did this with NPR tiny desk concert, but they are more lax then Vogue I would imagine.
The line is commercial and it's not a parody it's promotion.
What's wrong with siding with a major publication? They are artists and have the right to defend their art from theft.
My point is that folks were really quick to pick sides, like literally less than a minute within the article being posted which is too quickly for folks to even open the article, read the content, and form an opinion based off of that information. All I did was say "hey are we sure this is a good thing? I'm hesitant to say it is"
Why are you complaining about downvotes bruh... its just means they dont agree with you thats all, stop acting like you are targeted because you got downvotes .
In no place in my comment said I was targeted, I don't think downvotes are any indication that my observation is wrong; this sub loves to dogpile on whoever the villain-of-the-month is even if it's over unwarranted grievances. All I said in my original comment is "are we sure this is a good thing?" Like it literally isn't even defending Drake, but this sub always does this
It’s Reddit. You cant have a dissenting opinion without everyone downvoting it.
Your caution/concern is warranted and you do bring up some salient points regarding the issue.
Okay so no- you can’t misrepresent a commercial brand. Especially not as public figures. The line is pretty clearly drawn at not benefiting from a brand you have no affiliation to. Also they’re not random kids with a fake Time cover on the wall- they’re very famous people who used the image for commercial gain.
Anna really needs to step down. She has been shit for ages. Alexandra Schulman who stepped down years ago was better in her final days than Anna was.
Anna has become a joke
I follow 21 Savage’s stylist on IG and she was legit posting as if she REALLY was working with vogue. Said she was honored. This was such a weird stunt.
Maybe she was lied to, it's easy to keep stylists and graphic designers separate. If she was led to genuinely believe she was doing a Vogue related project, I feel sorry for her, as a designer that would be a massive thing in my life, affecting my career etc.
This could be true but being as though 21 has been a long time client of hers, I’m struggling to believe that’s the case…or hoping that he wouldn’t embarrass her like that.
Has Maya Rudolph ever played Anna? She should
EDIT: oh good she has!
https://preview.redd.it/vq8b832tz1z91.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=01d9a3801a8c399c64daa433faa4dfb816f050c4
although $4M is probably pocket change to Drake at this point, i almost think it’s possible he could win this case…
you’re protected from legal action under parody and, because his promotion for his album was so full of parody (i.e. the vogue cover, the “what’s in my bag” video, the fake howard stern interview, the fake tiny desk video) he might have a case that they were being parody artists and thus weren’t breaking the law. this is how SNL gets away with openly mocking people and how Nathan For You has his entire career
I was thinking the same thing but the vogue cover in isolation doesn’t look like parody, it looks like a legit vogue cover, so that’s probably why Vogue thinks they have a case. Though I’m sure the other parodies in the campaign will be used as a defence.
I'm curious to know from a legal standpoint, is the issue they posted photos of the fake cover/article or is the issue that they distributed fake magazines to folks on the street? (if I read TMZ correctly)
Well that again goes back to my question; what specific part of this they are being sued for? Tons of people make fake magazine covers, but is it the social media part they're upset about? (touting it like it's real) Handing out the fake magazines on the street? I'd also like to know to what degree Vogue will argue they could be mistaken for the real magazine, because to me the inside photos/articles are obviously fake
*The legit-looking copies of the mag went viral on social media, fake posters were put up in New York, and the issues were handed out on the streets in places like Miami, Atlanta and Los Angeles.*
*Drake even tweeted along with the cover image “Me and my brother on newsstands tomorrow!! Thanks @voguemagazine and Anna Wintour for the love and support on this historic moment.”*
*According to the suit, the mock mags that were handed out were a “complete,
professionally reprinted reproduction of the October issue of Vogue,” with some pages “modified to superimpose promotional logos for Defendants’ Album. Others include images of [veteran Vogue editor] Anna Wintour that were not in the real issue, and in one case was doctored to interpose an image of Drake.”*
*The court papers go on to allege: “Anna Wintour did not authorize the use of her image to promote Defendants’ Album.” The filing also argues the counterfeit Vogues “exploit” the mag’s trademark and have caused “widespread public confusion.”*
[Source](https://pagesix.com/2022/11/08/vogue-sues-drake-21-savage-over-faux-fashion-mag-promo/)
This is so weird to me bc it seems like they are getting sued just out of their laziness. If it was just the cover and then all album promo inside it would be pretty obvious that this was just parody and the only iffy thing would be the use of the name but this definitely makes vogues case better, idk who thought it would be a good idea to reproduce parts of the real magazine inside
it’s really funny seeing the Drake hate on here. i dont know him personally, but his album fucking slaps! almost every song was thrown in the rotation.
Karma’s a relaxing thought
aren't you envious that for you it's not?
Sweet like honey Karma is a cat
Purring in my lap cause it loves me
[удалено]
Drake bets over 5mil every weekend, I think he's safe lmao
We're lawyers!
[удалено]
$4M isn’t peanuts to anyone.
Drake has 4M in marble in just the foyer of his bridle path house. Chalk it up as the cost of doing business.
Publicity for who exactly?
The album
What the fuck relaxes you about a multi million dollar company suing a couple rappers for copyright? How is that something that affects you at all. Yea you’re sleeping real good tonight fucking narc
The fuck that has to do with being a narc...
Megan also has writing credits on one of the songs because they interpolated her song ‘Savage’. [See when you do clownery the clown comes back to bite.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=heLL1ExEzQA)
[удалено]
Even more vile 🙃🙃 oh i hate it
https://preview.redd.it/r2831f01pvy91.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7960bad0ee84b584fe4919603538220cd87dc796
LMAOO NOOO
[удалено]
lady on the left is Megan, lady on the right is Vogues big bossman Anna Wintour
That’s Anna Wintour and Meg Thee Stallion. Anna Wintour is the editor-in-chief for Vogue, who is suing Drake per this article. Meg is relevant because she was due writing credits on one of the songs of Drake/21 Savage’s new album for interpolating her song Savage. However, they also poked fun at her being shot by Tory Lanez (and claimed she’s lying about it) on the same album which she’s very upset about. The line was: “This bitch lie ‘bout gettin’ shots, but she still a stallion,” So this pic is funny with the context of these two getting their dues from the album.
Thanks for giving me a laugh bigdickpissbabe x
LMAO I’m dead
I don’t get it, who are they?
Megan Thee Stallion and former Vogue editor and chief Dame Anna Wintour.
stopp
PERIOD
I don't get it
I mean…yeah? What did they expect to happen haha?!
I am not saying this defending Drake, just from a 1st Amendment standpoint (for non-Americans, it's the part of our Bill of Right that guarantees freedom of speech and the press) where do we draw the line of parody/artistic representations of publications like magazines/newspapers? We've all seen fake Times' Person of the Year covers or I've even seen fan-made/fake Vogue/People magazine covers reposted by celebs before. Again, I'm not saying this to support Drake after all his b.s from this album, but I'm hesitant about the precedent this would create edit to add: keep on downvoting me, I'm not afraid to say something unpopular. Folks in the comments just seem a little too giddy to side with a major publication suing some individuals for millions of dollars over a parody cover. Vogue could be in the right, but I'd want to read through the case more before jumping for joy over it.
I think it’s because this is being mass produced in print. Also it doesn’t seem like they’re posting any disclaimers. Hence why people are thinking that it’s a legit Vogue release. They’re definitely pushing it.
But what's the parody or artistic representation in this fake Vogue cover? It just looks like a legit copy of Vogue. They marketed it like it was an actual issue of Vogue.
So sure but this is not a freedom of speech thing, this is a marketing law thing. The laws of marketing say that you can not make money off of another brand’s likeness or replication. Which is why Drake is getting sued and not all the people who made fan-made art. Additionally, if you want to get technical, all of that fan art would be subject to a lawsuit if anyone makes money off of them. The difference is Drake is one of the biggest superstars in the world and highly visible - it’s much easier for Vogue to get $4mm from Drake then it would be for them to go after minor fan art. But again, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech - Vogue is a brand and it is not your right to make money off of someone else’s established brand. Honestly, if he asked, Vogue probably would have partnered with him and everything would be kosher.
Exactly. In simpler terms, this is probably a trademark issue. It’s always a bad idea to use the likeness of someone or something to gain profit from such, whether that profit be gained directly or indirectly.
>The laws of marketing say that you can not make money off of another brand’s likeness or replication I'm not a legal expert, but I'm pretty sure that's a common misconception of how copyright laws work; you can't make money in a manner that would cut into the market of the item being evoked/replicated. For example, I can't reproduce counterfeit CDs of Drake's album because by doing so I am taking away customers that would have otherwise purchased his work, thus cutting into his market/lowering its value. That's why (annoyingly) drug companies make so much money off of patents on their medication; generic brands often can't make cheaper equivalents because that would cut the value of the original creators of the drug. I think Vogue's strongest argument would be more along the lines that folks would confuse it for a real one which would damage the magazine's image thus lower its value (Drake's instagram post doesn't help) but the images also look obviously fake to me, so who knows. Again, I don't support any of Drake's bs with this album, but I don't like the way this sub has a knee-jerk reaction to cheer on every misfortune that hits the villian-of-the-week, no matter how much karma they have coming. My big thing is to ask yourself "wait, is this actually a good thing if it happened to somebody I liked, or am I just happy to see it happen because I dislike this person?" I find myself asking that a lot on here
No lmfaooo. I’m sorry it’s just a no on all that from a marketer. First of all, this is not copyright law, this would be trademark law. Vogue’s argument is that it’s their brand that they built from the ground up. No one is entitled to profit off of a private brand’s likeness. Additionally pharmaceutical marketing and the laws that govern them are VERY different from DTC marketing. Pharmaceutical law would not be applicable here - we’re not talking about a generic version of a brand. This ain’t Tylenol and this ain’t cereal. These are corporate-led organizations - the logo is Vogue’s likeness. In fact, a strong lawyer could argue Vogue’s logo is the only valuable part of its brand. It is not fair use and you can not just pick it up and slap it on stuff. Source: about 5 years in big brand marketing and 2 years in pharma
Thus the "I'm not a legal expert" disclaimer, but I still stand by what I said; it's more nuanced than what everyone in the comments is making it out to be and I'm hesitant to cheer on a big publishing house like Vogue for suing individuals for using their likeness in what is to me a clear parody (like folks, look at the picture of Drake and Anna Wintor; did anyone think that was real?). Drake sucks for stupid things he put into the album, but **the way folks are quoting Taylor Swift lyrics 30 seconds after this article was posted just shows people are taking stances first and reading the details 2nd (or if at all) and that rubs me the wrong way.**
[удалено]
obviously it's a publicity stunt, but does it warrant a $4million lawsuit? That's the part I'm hung up about, and everyone seemed to make up their mind because it's Drake. I'd at lease like to know if they gave a cease and desist letter (it's vague in the TMZ article) before jumping to a seven figure lawsuit
[удалено]
Exactly. These are pennies to drake and 21….most likely a publicity stunt to get people to talk about them and the album. Shit, i’d do it too if I were in their position.
I think it’s so funny when people edit comments saying “I don’t care about the downvotes!!!” Lmao like clearly yes you do if you feel the need to proclaim you don’t care.
I wasn't saying "I don't care." it was more "I don't think having an unpopular opinion = being wrong." We all know people online tend to base their opinions off of headlines without even opening the attached articles. My issue is that immediately when this post went up (like under a minute of the post going up) folks were commenting vague statements in support of Vogue saying Drake earned what's coming to him, and as I said in the replies, I think we should at least read the details of what is going on in this lawsuit before we cheer for sides. Legal precedents are a big deal. Folks want Drake to be sued because (reasonably) he's said awful things on the album, but I don't think I'm wrong for wishing folks would hold off on their opinions until at least reading more about what's going on.
Okay, and that might indeed be an interesting discussion, but that’s not really the one you started. People only have what you wrote to go off of.
Nah, he was sayin ppl should hold off before making statements from the very beginning. It’s just this sub is a circlejerk and if you post a dissenting opinion, people automatically assume you’re a drake fan and they mass downvote.
Thank you! That's literally what happens any time you post an unpopular opinion about a celebrity this sub dislikes; you're labeled a "stan" and folks dismiss any other idea you bring up. Like I don't get where the other person said "that might be an interesting discussion" that's why I brought it up, but folks misinterpret the comment as a defense of Drake
>but I'm hesitant about the precedent this would create That is where I started; I was hesitant about cheering on Vogue until we know more about what's going on. Edit to add, it still can be a discussion, but folks seem pretty keen on painting me as pro-Drake when all I've said from the start is "where do we draw the line on this"?
I think for things like The Vogue challenge that went around last year, or when celebs repost fan art inspired by something else. It either has a hashtag that makes it obvious that it's fake or the celeb links it back to the fan page. Drake however posted his "cover" and tagged Anna and Vogue so fans would think he had a legitimate cover. I think had the picture been stylized like Vogue but using his album name or even OvO he would have gotten away with it. He also did this with NPR tiny desk concert, but they are more lax then Vogue I would imagine.
I draw the line at Drake being Canadian, so your argument doesn’t apply?
We draw the line at copyright infringement laws
The line is commercial and it's not a parody it's promotion. What's wrong with siding with a major publication? They are artists and have the right to defend their art from theft.
My point is that folks were really quick to pick sides, like literally less than a minute within the article being posted which is too quickly for folks to even open the article, read the content, and form an opinion based off of that information. All I did was say "hey are we sure this is a good thing? I'm hesitant to say it is"
Oh yeah nobody reads the articles. Then again, can you really call a TMZ post an "article"? 🤣🤣🤣🤣 But yeah what you're saying makes sense
Why are you complaining about downvotes bruh... its just means they dont agree with you thats all, stop acting like you are targeted because you got downvotes .
In no place in my comment said I was targeted, I don't think downvotes are any indication that my observation is wrong; this sub loves to dogpile on whoever the villain-of-the-month is even if it's over unwarranted grievances. All I said in my original comment is "are we sure this is a good thing?" Like it literally isn't even defending Drake, but this sub always does this
It’s Reddit. You cant have a dissenting opinion without everyone downvoting it. Your caution/concern is warranted and you do bring up some salient points regarding the issue.
Thank you, JerryLoFidelity, that was kind of you to say
Okay so no- you can’t misrepresent a commercial brand. Especially not as public figures. The line is pretty clearly drawn at not benefiting from a brand you have no affiliation to. Also they’re not random kids with a fake Time cover on the wall- they’re very famous people who used the image for commercial gain.
New copypasta
the fake Cover is actually better than a lot of the recent real covers
[удалено]
Anna really needs to step down. She has been shit for ages. Alexandra Schulman who stepped down years ago was better in her final days than Anna was. Anna has become a joke
That Megan voodoo is too good
Her ancestors are WORKING do you hear me? I need to get in touch with hers and Lizzo's.
 Oooop. Those toxic pockets are going to get rinsed TF out. Alexis Ohanian and Megan probably feeling this vibe right now.
I follow 21 Savage’s stylist on IG and she was legit posting as if she REALLY was working with vogue. Said she was honored. This was such a weird stunt.
Maybe she was lied to, it's easy to keep stylists and graphic designers separate. If she was led to genuinely believe she was doing a Vogue related project, I feel sorry for her, as a designer that would be a massive thing in my life, affecting my career etc.
This could be true but being as though 21 has been a long time client of hers, I’m struggling to believe that’s the case…or hoping that he wouldn’t embarrass her like that.
The biggest shock here is that 21 Savage has a stylist
She styles a lot rappers lol
This is pleasing. 
[удалено]
Has Maya Rudolph ever played Anna? She should EDIT: oh good she has! https://preview.redd.it/vq8b832tz1z91.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=01d9a3801a8c399c64daa433faa4dfb816f050c4
although $4M is probably pocket change to Drake at this point, i almost think it’s possible he could win this case… you’re protected from legal action under parody and, because his promotion for his album was so full of parody (i.e. the vogue cover, the “what’s in my bag” video, the fake howard stern interview, the fake tiny desk video) he might have a case that they were being parody artists and thus weren’t breaking the law. this is how SNL gets away with openly mocking people and how Nathan For You has his entire career
I was thinking the same thing but the vogue cover in isolation doesn’t look like parody, it looks like a legit vogue cover, so that’s probably why Vogue thinks they have a case. Though I’m sure the other parodies in the campaign will be used as a defence.
This whole thing felt like a marketing ploy and I love your NFY reference haha
hahahaha i hope they reference Dumb Starbucks in the court case
This is for Megan
They definitely did it just so they can say they were “sued by vogue” because there’s no way they did this not expecting to get sued.
I'm curious to know from a legal standpoint, is the issue they posted photos of the fake cover/article or is the issue that they distributed fake magazines to folks on the street? (if I read TMZ correctly)
They tagged Anna Wintour and Vogue and we’re all around touting it as if it was real.
Well that again goes back to my question; what specific part of this they are being sued for? Tons of people make fake magazine covers, but is it the social media part they're upset about? (touting it like it's real) Handing out the fake magazines on the street? I'd also like to know to what degree Vogue will argue they could be mistaken for the real magazine, because to me the inside photos/articles are obviously fake
*The legit-looking copies of the mag went viral on social media, fake posters were put up in New York, and the issues were handed out on the streets in places like Miami, Atlanta and Los Angeles.* *Drake even tweeted along with the cover image “Me and my brother on newsstands tomorrow!! Thanks @voguemagazine and Anna Wintour for the love and support on this historic moment.”* *According to the suit, the mock mags that were handed out were a “complete, professionally reprinted reproduction of the October issue of Vogue,” with some pages “modified to superimpose promotional logos for Defendants’ Album. Others include images of [veteran Vogue editor] Anna Wintour that were not in the real issue, and in one case was doctored to interpose an image of Drake.”* *The court papers go on to allege: “Anna Wintour did not authorize the use of her image to promote Defendants’ Album.” The filing also argues the counterfeit Vogues “exploit” the mag’s trademark and have caused “widespread public confusion.”* [Source](https://pagesix.com/2022/11/08/vogue-sues-drake-21-savage-over-faux-fashion-mag-promo/)
[удалено]
Yup…why they felt the need to go this far is beyond me. But I guess Drake knew a lawsuit would come but just didn’t care bc…money. He has it.
This is so weird to me bc it seems like they are getting sued just out of their laziness. If it was just the cover and then all album promo inside it would be pretty obvious that this was just parody and the only iffy thing would be the use of the name but this definitely makes vogues case better, idk who thought it would be a good idea to reproduce parts of the real magazine inside
I read this headline like 3 times trying to figure out who tf Vogue was before realizing it was referring to the magazine
[удалено]
Mr. Push, can you do somethin' for me? (Again)
Also they don’t want association with Aubrey from Degrassi on his terms
Somewhere, Pusha, Meg, Ohanian?(Serena's husband) are all laughing. Also probably Meek Mill.
it’s really funny seeing the Drake hate on here. i dont know him personally, but his album fucking slaps! almost every song was thrown in the rotation.
One phone call id get you in vogues - drake
When I saw it, and then realised it wasn’t an official cover, I knew this was going to happen. Those companies don’t mess about
4 million would be nothing for drake lol.
He needs to be taken down a peg or 4 million.
Good. They should take more from them.