Ferrari + Marlboro = Death...
Posted by DaiMOn
Yeah, don't ever accuse the EPHC of being slow to react, or there'll be trouble!*
*In 4-5 years' time.
*In 4-5 years' time.
what a load of rubbish there is a quote that says something like " it resembles the barcode at the bottom of a packet" well ive looked around in shops and the barcode is not at the bottom of a bare marlboro packet , so i dunno what hes on about, also if he means the barcode thats scanned on a till then every package in the entire world has that on so in that respect ferrari could be advertising a pack of tampons or something :P
ipswich2007 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what a load of rubbish there is a quote that says
> something like " it resembles the barcode at the
> bottom of a packet" well ive looked around in
> shops and the barcode is not at the bottom of a
> bare marlboro packet , so i dunno what hes on
> about, also if he means the barcode thats scanned
> on a till then every package in the entire world
> has that on so in that respect ferrari could be
> advertising a pack of tampons or something :P
Read it again - what he actually said is 'The bar code looks like the bottom half of a packet of Marlboro cigarettes'.
It does - the 'barcode' on the Ferraris has changed from what was on the '08' cars to something that, at speed, resembles the Marlboro logo that used to be on the cars. It's more blatant than whatever Jordan livery had 'Be on edge' as a non-tobacco livery, but spaced so that you could drop the remaining letters right back in.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2010 01:27PM by senninho.
-------------------------------------------------------
> what a load of rubbish there is a quote that says
> something like " it resembles the barcode at the
> bottom of a packet" well ive looked around in
> shops and the barcode is not at the bottom of a
> bare marlboro packet , so i dunno what hes on
> about, also if he means the barcode thats scanned
> on a till then every package in the entire world
> has that on so in that respect ferrari could be
> advertising a pack of tampons or something :P
Read it again - what he actually said is 'The bar code looks like the bottom half of a packet of Marlboro cigarettes'.
It does - the 'barcode' on the Ferraris has changed from what was on the '08' cars to something that, at speed, resembles the Marlboro logo that used to be on the cars. It's more blatant than whatever Jordan livery had 'Be on edge' as a non-tobacco livery, but spaced so that you could drop the remaining letters right back in.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2010 01:27PM by senninho.
2 things i admit you are right that i read him wrong,
but nothing was more blatent than be on edge lool
ps i am a huge ferrari fan and have been since i was 10ish , even when it used to say marlboro i was never even tempted to pick up a pack anyway, so...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2010 05:11PM by ipswich2007.
but nothing was more blatent than be on edge lool
ps i am a huge ferrari fan and have been since i was 10ish , even when it used to say marlboro i was never even tempted to pick up a pack anyway, so...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2010 05:11PM by ipswich2007.
This is actual genius. Did they not guess that when the Marlboro logos apparently disappeared, something else might be replacing them? Talk about delayed reactions. LMAO!
I love you Phillip Morris. :D
I love you Phillip Morris. :D
I does beg the question, when is a logo not a logo?
I mean... you can deconstruct it to kingdom come and back in the name of keeping things subtle, but at what exact stage do, say, the mcdonalds arches stop being the mcdonalds copyrighted logo?
I mean, what if you pixelised the entire thing to bare simplicity and boxes? We are talking an 8 x 8 chunky square grid.
And then a new company had a logo that resembled a very pixellated version of the mcdonalds logo? It is the mcdonalds on, pixellated, but is actually 64 pixel boxes of colour.
Where is the line drawn?
Very grey area this one, because if you remove so much of something, it doesn't really exist then. ie, breaking down the marlboro logo, what if it shared the same font with, say microsoft. It doesn't, but.. in terms of graphic images, colours etc...
What if marlboro and microsoft were the same text, and marlboro got graphically truncated to show just the two 'o's of the logo. They'd look the same. Letter 'o' *gap* Letter 'o'.
At what point does that stop being microsoft, and stop being marlboro? And do they equate to the same thing?
Does that make sense to anyone else, to be it is kinda hillarious. It is almost like you are trying to police the position of pixel locations.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
I mean... you can deconstruct it to kingdom come and back in the name of keeping things subtle, but at what exact stage do, say, the mcdonalds arches stop being the mcdonalds copyrighted logo?
I mean, what if you pixelised the entire thing to bare simplicity and boxes? We are talking an 8 x 8 chunky square grid.
And then a new company had a logo that resembled a very pixellated version of the mcdonalds logo? It is the mcdonalds on, pixellated, but is actually 64 pixel boxes of colour.
Where is the line drawn?
Very grey area this one, because if you remove so much of something, it doesn't really exist then. ie, breaking down the marlboro logo, what if it shared the same font with, say microsoft. It doesn't, but.. in terms of graphic images, colours etc...
What if marlboro and microsoft were the same text, and marlboro got graphically truncated to show just the two 'o's of the logo. They'd look the same. Letter 'o' *gap* Letter 'o'.
At what point does that stop being microsoft, and stop being marlboro? And do they equate to the same thing?
Does that make sense to anyone else, to be it is kinda hillarious. It is almost like you are trying to police the position of pixel locations.
danm schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I does beg the question, when is a logo not a
> logo?
> […]
>
> What if marlboro and microsoft were the same text,
> and marlboro got graphically truncated to show
> just the two 'o's of the logo. They'd look the
> same. Letter 'o' *gap* Letter 'o'.
>
> At what point does that stop being microsoft, and
> stop being marlboro? And do they equate to the
> same thing?
>
> Does that make sense to anyone else, to be it is
> kinda hillarious. It is almost like you are trying
> to police the position of pixel locations.
Reminds me of this:
Website | Blog | Twitter | CTDP: Site Blog Twitter
-------------------------------------------------------
> I does beg the question, when is a logo not a
> logo?
> […]
>
> What if marlboro and microsoft were the same text,
> and marlboro got graphically truncated to show
> just the two 'o's of the logo. They'd look the
> same. Letter 'o' *gap* Letter 'o'.
>
> At what point does that stop being microsoft, and
> stop being marlboro? And do they equate to the
> same thing?
>
> Does that make sense to anyone else, to be it is
> kinda hillarious. It is almost like you are trying
> to police the position of pixel locations.
Reminds me of this:
Website | Blog | Twitter | CTDP: Site Blog Twitter
St.Hubbins Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The graphic of the barcode must surely be
> copyrighted... So it is either copyrighted as a
> Marlboro logo or a Ferrari logo, and as far as law
> goes surely that is all?
But they may have realised the loophole and not copyrighted it.
X (@ed24f1)
-------------------------------------------------------
> The graphic of the barcode must surely be
> copyrighted... So it is either copyrighted as a
> Marlboro logo or a Ferrari logo, and as far as law
> goes surely that is all?
But they may have realised the loophole and not copyrighted it.
X (@ed24f1)
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.