No picture + NSFW ads? Thanks.

Asteroth: No picture + NSFW ads? Thanks.

Yeh. thanks a whole farking lot.

Oh dear god! EYE BLEACH! I NEED EYE BLEACH!!!

Bugerz: Oh dear god! EYE BLEACH! I NEED EYE BLEACH!!!

THIS! THIS!

gay

Do journalists take a special class on not including a picture in an article?

(Pretend this is a pic of Romero)

"When you post photos or personal information in a public forum, people may use them without your permission"

TTIUW/OP

I have adblock so I'm not seeing anything that I'd need eye bleach for.. I'd like to see this ad mentioned in the article though.

WTF was THAT!?

Ahh ahh aaaaauuuuuggggggghhhhh!

/Sam Kinison
//RIP, brotherman

"Haunted Hell Wine Biatch"????

Dude, there's not enough eye bleach in the world. Need to update my adblock filters, I guess.

Swift kick to the groin for submitter.

skeevywonder: I have adblock so I'm not seeing anything that I'd need eye bleach for.. I'd like to see this ad mentioned in the article though.

If you value your eyes you wouldn't. That was either an elephant or a pallete of oreos gone wrong.

LOL yeah kinda close to nsfw there on the right side.

(But eye bleach? Well, I guess girls do love 'sensitive' guys.)

My friend actually had some graffiti (the legal kind) photographed by some guy he didn't know and sold for use without his consent in a Fuji ad campaign. He successfully settled out of court with them but the photographer in question harassed him for months.

"Virgin to virgin" is pretty farking humiliating if its a picture of you and you never consented to its use. Why the hell didn't the ad agency just use some stock photography? Maybe, as in the case of my friend, some photographer sold the 'picture' he nicked from flicker and the agency never realized they were using an image that hadn't been legally cleared for commercial use.

bottsicus: (Pretend this is a pic of Romero)

"When you post photos or personal information in a public forum, people may use them without your permission"

Wrong...especially wrong when it is for advertising.

Photographer owns copywrite, whether its put on a public forum or not.

/Photographer

I was not expecting to be seeing that today.

And original photo:

WTF was THAT!?

Ahh ahh aaaaauuuuuggggggghhhhh!

/Sam Kinison
//RIP, brotherman

Actually, I kind of hope the Devil is screaming in his face with the same ignorant, racist, unfunny rants Sam used to scream at his audience.

At least you didn't call him funnyman, because then I'd have no idea who the Hell you were talking about.

skeevywonder: I have adblock so I'm not seeing anything that I'd need eye bleach for.. I'd like to see this ad mentioned in the article though.

Dude, I have adblock as well. It wasn't an ad - it was in their "online videos" section to the right of the page. Those BASTARDS!

She's gonna have some nice tits.

Oh...and that "eye bleach" ad was nothing that none of you sick farkers hadn't seen before.

/not subby, btw.

DEAR GOD! That is not a weird and wacky online video, that thing is a hippo-whale!!!

HEY UMP! HOW ABOUT A WARNING?

skeevywonder: I have adblock so I'm not seeing anything that I'd need eye bleach for.

Same here. Would someone be so kind as to post the picture in question? I'd like to know if I'll need to up my supply of Manufactured Outrage^TM over it.

Thank you. Haunted Hell Wine Biatch is now permanently burned into my retinas.

Much more useful and less likely to get you fired link.

bottsicus

They may, but it'd be illegal.

I hope Virgin will get nailed for this big time. Arrogant bastards...

skeevywonder: I have adblock so I'm not seeing anything that I'd need eye bleach for.. I'd like to see this ad mentioned in the article though.

No you wouldn't.

8bit4life: Oh...and that "eye bleach" ad was nothing that none of you sick farkers hadn't seen before.

/not subby, btw.

This is true. It's still not something we need to see. And I deliberately keep out of any "fat" themed thread for just that reason.

8bit4life:

Thanks. I was just going to ask...

Re: the pic - If I had that picture used in a national ad campaign, I'd be pissed too. She looks like a dork.

Needs a new caption... Buttsecks? Two times!

It's interesting they took the time to photoshop the Adidas logo from her hat, but failed to get her permission for the photo. And by interesting I mean stupid.

Submitter I hate you so hard

NineInchNader: WTF was THAT!?

Ahh ahh aaaaauuuuuggggggghhhhh!

/Sam Kinison
//RIP, brotherman

Actually, I kind of hope the Devil is screaming in his face with the same ignorant, racist, unfunny rants Sam used to scream at his audience.

At least you didn't call him funnyman, because then I'd have no idea who the Hell you were talking about.

Lighten up, Francis.

Nope still don't see anything.

Oh...nevermind...

(Thank you kindly 8bit4life!)

I'd hit it.

I'd hit it in two years.

StandsWithAFist: Oh...nevermind...

(Thank you kindly 8bit4life!)

that's what I'm here for :)

/the googles...they work wonders.

Dean Frame: skeevywonder: I have adblock so I'm not seeing anything that I'd need eye bleach for.. I'd like to see this ad mentioned in the article though.

No you wouldn't.

Oh...the ad in the article, not the ad with the...um...yeah.

Sorry for the failure.

AddictedToFoobies: Re: the pic - If I had that picture used in a national ad campaign, I'd be pissed too. She looks like a dork.

Needs a new caption... Buttsecks? Two times!

Nah, needs photoshopping. The foregirl should be smoking a menthol, wearing a pimp hat and wielding a pimpstick in both hands.

howdoibegin: bottsicus

They may, but it'd be illegal.

Whats a little lawsuit among friends though?

I'd lay a legal smackdown on anybody using my photographs without my permission...especially for advertising. I could use a few new lenses and a new camera or two...so....make my day, punk.

Here's what you adblock folks are missing out on. I've blocked out the offending bits. And yes, that big blob of black just barely covers them. There were a lot of bits to offend. An awful lot.

Pericles: I hope Virgin will get nailed for this big time

Can I volunteer to nail virgins?

And now she's immortalized on Fark with buttsecks comments. I don't think that's what she was hoping for. Ah, well.

From the article's page: "Watch one of our weird and wacky online videos."

If those are representative of what "weird and wacky" means to these people, I am very, very scared.

/"pathetic and disgusting" seems more appropriate
//oh, and stealing photos is wrong, etc.

almejita: She's gonna have some nice tits.

Right now I just really hope you mean the young girl in the ad, not the wobbling pile of flesh in the right-hand column of TFA....

Regarding the picture posted by
8bit4life

Why reverse the image?
And why include the other girl's arm in the picture. There's clearly a very thin space of green foliage between the girl's elbow and the main girl's arm. To me, that's just sloppy editing.

BTW Free Text Virgin to Virgin.
Is there something humiliating about being a virgin?

The gods of greenlighting work in mysterious ways. That was a platypus.

The company said it had nothing to do with the advertisements.

How does that work?