Top Nav

Subhead

Subhead

Subhead

Subhead

Top Space

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Sinful Colors

I've received lots of emails and comments on the blog in the past 48 hours regarding the Sinful Colors/blogger issue and, until now, I've chosen not to write a blog post about this and I also have been moderating comments regarding the matter (sorry if you posted comments and they were not approved). I wrote my last Sinful Colors post on this blog BEFORE the controversy was made public (or at least before I personally was made aware of it).

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, click here for more details.

The reason why I haven't wanted to discuss this until now is because I wanted to await a public response from Revlon/Sinful Colors/Mirage Cosmetics. Since Revlon addressed the issue on their Facebook page today, I now feel like I can write about this more fairly and in a calmer way than I would have been able to write about it two days ago.

That said....

The work that bloggers do behind the scenes to create just ONE photograph worthy of publication is immense. To have a photograph used in a brand's marketing materials without the consent of a blogger is absolutely inexcusable. It happens to me quite often (ebay, amazon, blogs, splogs) and sometimes it's so overwhelming that all I can do is curl up in a ball and cry over the thought of my hard work being used to line the pockets of a stranger who did nothing but a simple copy and paste.

So when a reputable brand that we all know and love uses and manipulates photos without a blogger's permission for their own marketing materials, it's enough to leave me speechless. I hope with all of the love and support in my heart that the two bloggers in question can reach an amicable agreement with Sinful Colors that works and feels right for them. I sincerely hope that they both settle for nothing less than what they feel they deserve.

As for a boycott of Sinful Colors, I think it's premature at this point because I don't know what Sinful Colors is ultimately going to do to make things right with the bloggers. If they can come to an agreement and the BLOGGERS are happy (that's all the really matters), then I think a boycott would be deemed unnecessary. But for me personally, it's too early to tell.

However, YOU, the consumer, are ultimately the judge here. If you feel passionately enough, based on the facts to date, to no longer purchase Sinful Colors products, by all means do what feels right to you. I would never cast judgement either way, and I respect every single person's opinion who is reading this post right now.

As for a boycott of Revlon, I feel that with the knowledge I have thus far, this is unjustified. As someone who worked for a small company that was purchased by a larger company, I can tell you that, for many years after an acquisition, the smaller company can, and often does, still function as an independent entity with the only real difference being who signs the paychecks. Therefore, it's extremely plausible that Revlon did not know about these marketing materials until the issue was brought to light in the public arena. I think the important question moving forward is: will Revlon demand more oversight in their future marketing materials? I think the obvious answer is yes (and they stated as much in their Facebook message).

If you'd like to leave a comment here, please keep your tone civil and respectful. Comments that attack what I've said, or what other readers say will NEVER be approved, so please do not even attempt that. I think it's important to discuss our feelings though, especially when it's about a brand many of us have been loyal to for a long time. So I encourage meaningful discussion if you'd like to express your feelings here.

Thanks for taking the time to read this,
G.

81 COMMENTS:

  1. I agree with you on the boycotting issue and the fact that Revlon would simply just not know.

    ReplyDelete
  2. While Sinful Colors' actions are inexcusable, I don't think a boycott is necessary at this point, nor do I feel everyone should be placing the blame on Revlon (even though they are the owners). Revlon is such a large corporation. It's possible many within Revlon didn't even know this pamphlet existed. It's also possible Sinful hired an outside agent to create this pamphlet, and perhaps they were the culprit. In any case, as long as they make it right with the bloggers and don't repeat these actions, I'll continue to buy from either brand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So nice to see you agree with what I wrote. Thanks for that. :)

      Delete
    2. Well said. I agree completely.

      Delete
    3. I was thinking what NeutraKris wrote (and I agree with you, G.). I would guess that Sinful Colors or Revlon contracted something to be designed off site and whoever did the job was careless or lazy and just grabbed stuff off the internet, and whoever OK'd it to publish was plain irresponsible. Not right, but it does happen. Hopefully Sinful/Revlon comes to agreement with these bloggers in terms of credit, or some kind of commission (or hopefully both). And hopefully they learn a lesson, that the beauty junkies are vigilant and this kind of thing won't slip by unnoticed!

      Delete
    4. This is exactly correct. I do freelance graphic design, and I'm often told by a client to just "find something on the web". Or I'm provided with images that are obviously stolen. As a small-time designer, I can't lose the work by taking a moral stand. I have even found out that designs I've done as mockups/samples are used for production, without my knowledge. Often a project goes through so many hands that the provenance of images is lost quickly.

      It's important to know how the industry works before launching a wide-spread assault. I would be shocked if Sinful Colors did that brochure in-house.

      Delete
    5. Agreed 100%. I'm not boycotting either brand - in this day and age, with so many specialized companies for creating pamphlets, reprographics, marketing/business development, graphic design, etc., only the individual responsible for actually taking those photos into their work is really to blame. I don't think it's representative of EITHER company as a whole - Sinful's many many promo displays always have their own original art on the promo and Revlon's use of their products on their spokeswomen prove that. The little nail art pamphlets, as far as I know, were a recent addition to the Sinful displays. A marketing effort turned bad? I don't know. But I love Sinful and Revlon regardless (though I believe that Revlon didn't know and Sinful even may not have known if they had outsourced for the pamphlets), and I do hope they make it right with the bloggers.

      Delete
    6. I agree. I worked doing page design for newspapers a while back, and while we were pretty vigilant -- you couldn't just "grab" stuff since we had to make sure the source/photographer was credited -- but with people doing more work in the same amount of time, it can get messy. I also freelance write and sometimes you're provided with contacts and data to start off with, and then other times you're starting from square one. Then, for using someone else's work, there is the attitude of "they put it on the Internet, so it's fine to use." Of course if you're a freelancer, writer, designer, photographer, a good editor, etc., you're usually more inclined to give credit or provide a link since you wouldn't want the same done to you. But an agency, a client, a publisher can have a different attitude. Pretty trumps honesty, sometimes.

      Delete
    7. vesperbeauty, I'm curious -- if you produce something with images you know or suspect to be stolen, doesn't that open you up for legal liability? I'm not making judgements here, just truly wondering.

      Delete
  3. I completely agree with you! I don't think any of these companies know how much work does go into creating high quality photos. And especially macro photos that are done to get the correct light and tone, a lot of work is put into it. It's unfortunate and I hope the bloggers and the company work it out. <3

    toni

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Especially for those of us who don't have the sophisticated software and equipment of big corporations! :)

      Delete
  4. I will not be boycotting Revlon since it appears they were not aware of the issue. I will however no longer buy from Sinful Colors...i think their behavior is inexcusable....even if it's the case of hiring an outside company they would have had final approval. I find it hard to believe no one at Sinful Colors questioned the fact that in one of the photos the hand is clearly holding a bottle from a rival brand. That should have been a huge red flag to whoever approved their marketing material.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said, Jen. I agree completely.

      Delete
    2. I TOTALLY respect your opinion on that, Jen.

      I chronically play devils advocate in all situations, so in this case, I can put myself in the situation of someone rushing to meet a deadline and overlooking something MAJOR (been there, done that). If a clueless intern designed the materials and the manager in charge simply ok 'd it without looking at it, that doesn't make it right by ANY means, but MAYBE it doesn't represent SC as a company.

      There is NO denying that whoever created the materials did an unethical, deceptive thing and needs to be held 100% accountable for their actions. But whether I feel it's indicative of the company as a whole remains to be seen.

      Another thing to consider: having worked though an acquisition and ultimately laid off due to redundancy (this was a few years ago), I can tell you that the work environment during a time of uncertainty really hampers your focus. I have no way of knowing this of course, but since the Revlon purchase was just last year, some SC employees MAY be very preoccupied wondering about the fate of their jobs, which is not an excuse, but could be a contributing factor as to how something so shameful could have happened.

      SC has been providing a quality product at an affordable price for many years, and while they've got to do A LOT to fix this, I really hope it's salvageable in the end.

      Delete
  5. I can't say things better than NeutraKris did, so I won't! I want the bloggers in question to be happy with however SC/Revlon chooses to make it right.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow, I just bought 14 bottles of Sinful Colors Professional Nail Polishes from Walgreens today, not knowing about this. This issue of stealing a bloggers photos (which had a watermark on it).... for a nail polish that wasn't even their own colors is really disappointing.

    I really think that now Revlon has found out that someone in Sinful Colors has done this... I think they will either get fired or seriously demoted to a different position. I am glad that the blogging community made it such an issue that the corporate has taken notice and action. I look forward to seeing what the results are from all of this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I too, love that the blogging community comes together in times like this.

      Delete
  7. As someone who works for a corporation that is own by another corporation I can say that Revlon would not have had any involvement. They are just a parent company, that like you said, signs their checks.

    As for all of the talk of boycotting, I thought about it for a second with SC, but honestly I'm not boycotting the whole brand over the mistake of a one or a few people. It never crossed my mind to boycott Revlon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed! I just really hope that SC releases a public statement about this and at least TRIES to make amends with its customers. We may never know EXACTLY what happened, but something is better than nothing.

      Delete
  8. I agree! Like you, I am also waiting to hear more before casting off Sinful Colors forever.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Personally, I just think it is pathetic, unethical, extremely unprofessional, and just wrong for Sinful Colors to take a bloggers photo. Being a blogger, even though my reader amount is a lot less than the the bloggers who had their photos taken, I know how much work it is to make ONE photo. To get the perfect lighting, to take the picture with the right setting, to edit the colors correctly, to add your watermark, etc, etc, etc. So for a company to take a bloggers photo is just wrong, know matter how you look at it, and no matter how you put it---it's just not right.

    I don't think a ginomous boycott is appropriate yet, just because I personally would LOVE to hear what Sinful Colors has to say about this, especially if they try to deny everything. But I do think that this shouldn't be swept under the rug, because it is a big deal. Every move a company makes shows the companys character, and doing something like this, ruins their company in my mind.

    Thanks for this post G!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think anyone here would disagree that this was terrible and unethical. But I think the question now is, do you blame a few people working within the company for these actions, or the company as a whole? For me personally, it really depends on how SC handles this moving forward with the bloggers themselves.

      Delete
  10. But this is not the only issue Revlon has, do you not care about the animal testing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This blog post is specifically addressing the SC/blogger matter and I'd like to keep it that way. i'm not going to get into ANY corporation's stance on animal testing, China, etc, on this post, but there are plenty of other blogs on the internet where you can have that dialogue. Thanks.

      Delete
  11. Wow.

    It would be bad enough to steal the idea, even worse to use the photo without permission, insane to remove the watermark, and downright horrible to photoshop the actual bloggers nails onto their model... and that is not even taking into consideration the blatant false advertising for the consumer. What the heck happened to common decency and morals? Do these companies really think they are untouchable and can do anything they want with no repercussions? I have to wonder if this is the first time, or simply the first time they got caught...

    I certainly hope the bloggers can find legal representation and sue. If the situation were reversed they would certainly be held liable both legally and financially, and it is only fair that the persons responsible be held just as accountable for not only the illegal use of the materials, but the time and trouble needed to pursue the issue. It is stealing and it is wrong period.. but considering how much publicity these bloggers give to companies when they demo/review their products.. most of the time for free or even with expenses coming out of their own pockets.. just makes it even more despicable.

    Really makes you look at the ads with a new perspective. We have known about the addition of false lashes, photoshopping and airbrushing, etc for some time. Now we know it may not even be the actual product used in the ad. They think we are stupid, and apparently will do anything to get our money. Leaves a real nasty taste in my mouth. If it wasn't for our faithful bloggers and Youtubers, we would all be in the dark.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely empathize with your passion regarding this matter, but again, I'm not sure if SC as a company should be blamed for this, or a small group of people working within the company. For me, that remains to be seen, but I appreciate your comment.

      Delete
  12. Thank you for this calm, informative and well thought out post. I love your blog and I was waiting to hear from you before making any kind of judgement. Time will tell what really happened and hopefull, the bloggers will be compensated and acknowledged for their hard work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you very much for that. :)

      Delete
  13. I can't make the call yet on a boycott of all Revlon products, but it's easy enough for me to boycott Sinful Colors because I personally think that their products are not the best value for me (drugstore, bargain bin, and prestige brands included)

    I also know how corporations operate after a merger, and think it fairly unlikely that the Revlon management knew that this could be happening, and that - except for any new outstanding style guide issues - Sinful Colors' marketing and soforth was pretty much left in the hands of those who had done it previously.

    I'd like to be able to say "oh, this was probably just an intern, someone new out of college who had more enthusiasm for the project than knowledge of copyright" but I've dealt with plenty of late-30s-age management types who think that Google Images is a perfectly fine place to source artwork for their latest project, and never mind the Corporate Branding Department, because who needs them?

    I also hope that the bloggers don't settle for anything less than what any professional photographer would charge for the use of their images. But for the consumers who think that they can follow the directions on the insert and achieve those results, let alone achieve them with Sinfuls' polishes...wow. That situation needs to be redressed as well.

    (Posted twice because...I think Google ate my first attempt when I had to go sign in! Apologies for the double-post.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I absolutely agree with you regarding adequate compensation for the bloggers. When all is said and done, I just want these bloggers to feel good about what comes of this. Thanks for sharing. :)

      Delete
  14. The boycott isn't a forever thing, it was done so that Sinful Colors/Revlon would issue a public apology for their actions. I do think that because of this Sinful Colors will lose alot of business from the nail community, which is sad because it's so cheap and they've come out with some gorgeous colors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the info about that.

      Delete
  15. It was probably just some intern with no idea of what copyright is, thinking him/her were being original and creative by finding an exciting image... Small companies may not have PR, legal and marketing staff to check the materials thoroughly. I think it was an innocent mistake that will be fixed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd like to think the scenario you described is exactly what happened, but it will be frustrating if we never find out what truly happened (which could very well be the case). It will be interesting to see how SC handles this moving forward.

      Delete
  16. Speaking of profiting off the ideas of others... is it ethical that Revlon sells polishes that are clearly copies of very distinctive polishes from other brands? I sure don't know the answer, but it's something that has been on my mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Honestly, I agree!! I don't think it's wrong at all to make a "dupe" as we call it, but when they make such EXACT shades of Chanel and more expensive shades, I don't think that's right. I mean, Chanel came up with the color and shade, and Revlon just copies it. Awesome if you're on a budget but still want the color, but when you're looking at it, it's not a good thing to do. :)

      Delete
    2. Brands have been "duping" or "imitating" other brands' products since probably the beginning of the Industrial Age. I think this practice is understood within the business community and most would not find that unethical. If it were, we'd probably see a lot more lawsuits between brands than what we see today.

      Just my opinion, of course. :)

      Delete
    3. I'm no legal expert, but I believe it's impossible to trademark a color per se. A color NAME for a particular product, yes, but not the color itself. Otherwise, the world would have only one shirt of a particular shade, one pair of shoes, one car, and so forth. I personally am glad that various cosmetics companies come up with very similar shades to pricey Chanel and Dior polishes.

      Delete
    4. I, too, am no legal expert, but I do know that "Tiffany Blue" is a trademarked color under U.S. law. If you're interested, the U.S. case of "Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc." found that colors can be trademarked under certain conditions. In art school we learned about "International Klein Blue" being an example of a patented color under French law. Also, (a little less related), I believe last year Louboutin was denied a trademark on his red-soled heels in his lawsuit against YSL (in French court).

      Now, in all these examples, I *cannot* speak to the actual legal implications...to me it all seems...murky. Like, how are the names "Tiffany Blue" and "International Klein Blue" allowed to be designated hex triplets in computing? Just food for thought :)

      Delete
  17. I love the way you handled this complex issue and your responses. I, personally, think the internet is information overload. There is always so much more to stuff than people understand or care to understand...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks very much for that. And you're right--there's so much information out there, and so much can be misinterpreted. I have no doubt that what I wrote on this very blog post (or any of my blog posts) will be misread or misinterpreted by some, but that's just the nature of the internet. Sigh....

      Delete
  18. I hope that after this situation, that the marketing team for Sinful Colors will realize the benefits of including well known bloggers for their promotions and that they will follow the lead of other affordable brands like Wet N Wild to expand their base as well as fuel the fire for more opportunities for bloggers to gain their much deserved respect of these companies. It is my hope that bloggers will continue to progress and that they will shake the image of a "nerd" hiding behind their computer putting unreliable opinions out there for the world to see. I know that the more these companies and bloggers form reliable and lucrative relationships based on the truthful opinions of the every day consumer, the standards and quality of the products they offer will improve in the long run.

    ReplyDelete
  19. What happened at Sinful Colors is disgraceful. The employees who made the decisions that were made to steal, alter then publish those images need to lose their jobs and the bloggers whose property was stolen should be fairly compensated.

    I agree that a boycott at this point is a bit premature. While what happened was heinous, it seems that the parent company is now aware of the situation and will most likely step up or make Sinful Colors step up and do the right thing. If they don't, I'll be among the first to put out a clarion call for a boycott.

    I am willing to bet that the ad departments at Sinful Colors or any other polish/cosmetics company will think long and very hard about how and with what images they choose to promote their products in the future. And if that happens, then perhaps this whole situation will have served a real purpose.

    We'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  20. G,
    I think your post was thoroughly thought out and very well written. The statement was very fair to all involved and while it would be very easy for anyone to place blame on Revlon/SC, you took the high road and gave them the benefit of the doubt. You also addressed the plight of the bloggers in a very heartfelt manner, yet without losing your 'zen.' I want to commend you on an exceptional, professionally written post, but then again, I would not have expected anything less.
    Isis

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That really means a lot to me, Isis. Thank you so very much. xo

      Delete
  21. Thank you for your unbiased article G. I admit when i found out i was very angry and upset. i mean, HOW COULD THEY!?
    But after reading your article i did realize my emotions are overtaking rational thought, as they are doing for many other angry people commenting on revlons facebook. Its good to step out of the situation and out of our own biased emotions and see the picture as a whole.
    Had Revlon had the knowledge of blatant copyright infringement, they would not have Okay'd those pictures, thats practically saying yes to a lawsuit among other ramifications. Revlon like any other company in these times are watching their backs more then ever.
    Revlon is a company apart from the one person or team of people who did this.
    I will not be boycotting but i will be expecting a just and fair outcome to those affected.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Something to keep in mind: A lot of people have mentioned that they're planning on waiting to see how Revlon/SC handles this situation and "makes things right" to the bloggers whose photos were misused. That makes perfect sense, but please keep in mind that there's a strong possibility that we'll never know the specifics of how this is resolved. Revlon has already publicly admitted responsibility (good for them!) and indicated that they will work to fix the situation. There will likely be a monetary settlement of some sort, which almost certainly means that the bloggers involved will be required to sign non-disclosure agreements before receiving payment. They will probably be able to say that there was a settlement, but other than that they will not be legally able to discuss any of the details of the settlement or any other concessions that Revlon may make.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I've been buying Sinful nail polishes for years and am not about to boycott them over an error made involving one pamphlet. That just seems silly to me, like boycotting an entire brand because you had one terrible experience with one of their salespeople. As long as this doesn't become a trend, I really don't think it is an issue.
    As for boycotting Revlon over it, that is even sillier. Revlon is a HUGE company, and if anyone thinks that any sort of higher-up at Revlon would be involved in okaying images on a how-to pamphlet, they don't really know how these things work.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think the bloggers and company need to reach an agreement. I'm not going to boycott anything though. I think it was wrong of them to steal photos and use them without permission. I can't stand on my soapbox and get too angry though. A lot of brands purposely dupe other brands colors (Deborah Lippmann is a big one who has her colors duped constantly) and I know a lot of fans of polish buy the dupes because they are cheaper. The company that dupes the color is kind of stealing, no? I mean they didn't come up with the polish color, glitter or mixture idea, but make up their own batch and sell it anyway. Some of us buy it to save money, which in the end is supporting the cheaper brand, the one that stole the original design. I just think that as far as nail polish goes a lot of us are guilty of already supporting a form of stealing.

    I do hope that the bloggers get something out of this, but people are going a little crazy. Some of the posts on facebook are kind of over the top. So as long as this is all resolved I think things will be fine. The most important thing here is that the bloggers get what they think is necessary out of this and Sinful Colors learns a lesson not to mess with the nail polish blogging community. ;) Thanks for your well thought out post that covered the situation professionally. :)

    ReplyDelete
  25. This is a tough one for me because Mary at Swatch and Learn is one of my favorite bloggers in the world. Her blog was my entry point into the polish world back around May of last year. I´ve contacted her directly and commented on her blog a lot, and she´s always been lovely. The idea that anyone would take advantage of her hard work is deeply disturbing to me because I consider her a friend. All that said, I will not be boycotting Sinful. I feel that boycotting a whole company is an extreme reaction to a mistake that probably only directly involved a small group of people within that company. Sinful is a polish brand that has consistently been putting out unique, beautiful colors at a great price in the year that I´ve followed nail polish. I feel I would be doing a disservice to myself and my budget if I dismissed them as a company completely. I hope that Revlon and Sinful will take steps to amply compensate the bloggers involved and that things are resolved to the those bloggers´ satisfaction.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I really respect this post, so much! It isn't full of judgement or anger like a lot of other posts I've read. I'm disappointed in SC for letting this happen. Whoever did it knew exactly what they were doing. I'm just glad Revlon made a statement about it, and are reaching out to the bloggers to help make things better. I will not boycott either company, as I don't feel there is any need for that. I will, however, be on the lookout for any more "mistakes" such as this one. If it ever happens again, then I might consider the purchases I make from this company very carefully.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I believe this might be a designer fault who created this. Graphic designers get a task and they have to do it in less than 24hs sometimes... who knows if the designer was a noob.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I will be boycotting all Revlon-owned products until and unless this is made right. I'm surprised and dismayed by the suggestion that it's the consumer's responsibility not to be unfair with the over-a-billion-[no typo]-dollars-in-annual-revenues company that will claim that they did not know that stealing is wrong.

    A private individual reposts my material on their blog, it's skeevy. A publically-traded company uses my material _for_ _profit_? That should be actionable. Copyright law protects against profitting from stolen material.

    ReplyDelete
  29. It's very upsetting to see things like that happen and the sad thing is whenever you post a picture on the internet you already know that someone somewhere will be using it whether you like it or not. I personally have never been a fan of Sinful colors even if I own a couple polishes from them but when a company shows lack of consideration and unethical practice, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with them. I hope that this problem gets resolved and won't happen again.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Wow, totally glad to have missed this hullabaloo. Good thing I've recently promised myself to go indie only except for Avon, Korres, or Wet n Wild!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Seeing as both the blogs concerned took down their posts about what happened, I'm guessing Sinful/Revlon really IS trying to make it right. And sometimes things like this really do slip through the cracks in a large company. Whoever actually decided to steal the images really is skeezy, but I doubt it was a large-scale conspiracy or anything. I also thought Revlon's apology on facebook sounded sincere, as well as being professional. They addressed the issue in a timely manner too, since they would have to hear about it, and then figure out who needed to be notified and what to do.

    I'm really amazed Sinful is able to put out so many great colors at such a cheap price, so unless they continue to steal pictures or do something worse, I will continue to buy and enjoy their products. I'm not saying it's wrong to boycott or to feel very strongly about this issue, but I personally don't feel the need to make a stand over this, since it's (hopefully) in the process of being resolved.

    Try to remember that judging from the current actions of the bloggers involved, something IS being done by the company to try to make amends for this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Generally, if you put it on the internet, it will be stolen. I know this from personal experience. However, this should be taken as a compliment rather than a scandal. If someone steals your images, it means that someone likes it enough to do so, when they know they can't obtain them legally. Copyright law also does not protect everything posted on the internet, so suing isn't always a magical cure all. Sad, but true.
    The people who used the images probably weren't affiliated with Revlon or Sinful Colors either. Best case scenario is the person is terminated, and Revlon cuts ties with the company in question. Worst case, nothing happens. Many of these graphic designs are one off contracts anyway, done quickly for short change. These particular graphics were probably produced many weeks ago before anyone noticed.
    Seeing as Revlon has apologized, I see no reason to boycott their nail polish. Besides, what would boycotting it do? Not much in terms of the amount of money coming in from each bottle purchased at the normal sale price of 2 dollars. Most people will never hear of this controversy and will continue purchasing as normal, since Sinful Colors is marketed towards kids and young adults, thrifty spenders who grab them as impulse purchases.

    TL;DR: Unless you are personally affected by this (having your images stolen) it's really not your business what goes on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry, I just don't agree. If I am a consumer, I have a right to know what the companies I am buying from are up to; it personally affects ALL consumers when a company steals, whether it is an honest mistake or not. Someone said in another comment they couldn't "afford" to lose a contract by standing up to something that was morally wrong. It is not JUST a moral issue, it is a very LEGAL issue.

      Morals, and standing up for what is right, should not be an issue of convenience.

      Delete
    2. I respectfully disagree that to have something you own stolen is a compliment. I seriously doubt anyone here would consider it a compliment if someone stole an online photo of you or your child and Photoshopped it into pornography. An extreme example, and yes, once you put something up on the internet you can't control what happens to it, but that doesn't mean it's OK.

      Delete
  33. I do agree with you. I respect all the hard work bloggers and feel their work is under appreciated. Although, I do feel this is between the ones who were wronged and the ones who wronged them. If each party can come to an agreement then we should respect their decision. I really hate that this happened. I do not want to boycott SC, I am sure there was a reason Revlon acquired them. I love nailpolish and often post my pic, which often includes having used SC, on my FB page ( still too shy to post on a blog yet ;-) Hopefully this can serve as a reminder to all the proper way of getting great pictures and the steps that need to be taken. Thank you so much for your posts, they keep me up to date, otherwise I would have. It known about this. I do know that with this happening I have found more bloggers to follow that I had never known about before.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ok... the link says she has set the content to private. I have a vague idea what is going on from the comments, but that's it.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I don't know how I've been so behind on this nail news! I agree that boycotting revlon seems a bit much. I do not own any sinful colors polishes (to my knowledge they are not available in Canada) however I will not support the company regardless. This is so unethical on so many levels, and I still don't understand why they used a picture where the color club label is so visible

    ReplyDelete
  36. What I would like to see is a win/win for both parties involved.

    I adore both of the bloggers involved with this mess, and when I hit up the Sinful Colors sale I knew I saw the mani somewhere. I just couldn't place exactly where and by whom.

    I am your average nail polish user, often buy way more than I usually use (or have time for) and enjoy reading nail blogs. I admire their creativity and often swatches provided on nail blogs or other beauty blogs help me decide if I even want to hunt down a color, or if something just might work for me. Like I said I am a casual user of nail polish, and if I am persuaded by what I see, think of how many others like me are pushed off the buying fence by reading blogs.

    IMO if more nail companies owned up to reading nail/beauty blogs, and they were to showcase some bloggers artwork with proper acknowledgements this could be a match made in heaven!

    Boycotting is such a personal choice, and who am I to say what is right or wrong for someone. I can only make the choice that works best for me. And I admit, the quickness of Revlon and Sinful Colors taking action does work in their favor.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I do not believe Revlon has any hand in this, therefore I would not boycott them. Also, as many have stated, who knows how all of this came to be, who did what. To be honest I did consider boycotting Sinful Colors, but wanted to wait and see if the issue was publicly addressed. Now that it has been (and I sincerely hope they DO make this right with the bloggers) I don't feel the need to boycott, but I totally understand if someone else wanted to. Hopefully we won't see this happen again.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I think I will boycott Sinful Colors until I find out that a settlement has been reached with the bloggers. It's the only voice I have to let them know that I think what they did was wrong, so I will use it.

    And for those who think it's ridiculous that Sinful Colors uses a photo that doesn't even have their nail polish featured. They and other polish companies do that all the time in their displays and promotional materials. They use stock photos and photoshop in an approximation of their nail polish on the models nails. That's why it would be a match made in heaven if they would work out a deal with bloggers who do have excellent photos to use them in their ads and other materials...with their real polish being used!

    This is what I am talking about in the above, read the comments:
    http://lacquerlaine.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-drug-store-finds.html

    ReplyDelete
  39. I think this reaction is a bit excessive. And in comparison to the frenzy over the 99 cent sale, you would think none Of us had nothing in this world to worry about except this brand. They made a mistake, the company took responsibility. what is there left to discuss? The internet is a tricky Place And you cant control everything. Those Of you With clean hands can throw those stones, but i bet i wont hear a pebble fall.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Whoa.... I picked a heck of a day (yesterday) to stay away from my computer!

    I like and respect your take on this, G. I also hope that it is the bloggers in question who feel good (as good as they will be able to feel) about the ultimate resolution.

    I agree with others that the blogging community does a great job of looking out for one another, and I hope that this will continue. Look how people were able to "Keep them honest..." It's like certain eagle-eyed individuals helped do an "Anderson Cooper" on this company. --> Since I am late to the game, and the blogger's post has now gone private, I don't know how all this came to light. But I am guessing people saw a Sinful Colors pamphlet somewhere and recognized the pictures as belonging to some well-known bloggers.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I have a lot of Sinful Colors in my stash, and I'm not going to be getting rid of them. Until I hear this situation has been resolved to the satisfaction of the two bloggers involved, I'm not going to buy any more Sinful or feature the brand on my blog. I have no problem with Revlon; I think their response has been appropriate, and I believe they had no idea what was going on with this until it was brought to their attention.

    ReplyDelete
  42. In the grand scheme of things I realize you are just a blogger who reviews make-up products on the internet so I'm not quite sure why I feel so disappointed in you. I have always valued your opinion and thought of you as an honest reviewer but not anymore. Your satement "Comments that attack what I've said, or what other readers say will NEVER be approved, so please do not even attempt that. I think it's important to discuss our feelings though, especially when it's about a brand many of us have been loyal to for a long time. So I encourage meaningful discussion if you'd like to express your feelings..." basically says if I don't agree with you my comment won't be approved and skimming over your comments all I see is "I agree with you...." Now that I know that you sensor your readers comments and only post the things you agree with I won't be coming back. Good luck to you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nicole:

      The very fact that I could have deleted your comment, but chose to (happily) publish it, negates your argument. But in case you think I did that just to prove a point, I'll continue...

      The danger in "skimming" (your word, not mine) the comments on this post is that you can wrongfully accuse someone of doing something they did not, in any way, actually do.

      If you'd like to scroll back up and actually READ all of the comments on this post, you'll clearly see that I approved all of the comments that I 100% disagree with. In fact, I wrote a lengthy, civil response to a civil comment that took an opposing stance to my original blog post on this matter.

      If you need further proof of my NON-censorship, I'd be happy to point out the exact comments on this post that I disagree with. But I think if you actually read through the comments, this would become self-evident.

      Yes, I am "just a blogger" as you so clearly pointed out, however I do actually have a life outside of this blog, and that's why I haven't been able to reply to all of the comments on this post. As I pointed out in a past blog post, I'm behind on ALL comments right now (not just this post) and my responses in general stopped a few days ago (although I've been happily approving all comments since then.

      Given the last sentence in your comment, you probably won't be coming back to actually read this response, but if you do, I hope this clears up the issues you seem to have with me and my "censorship".

      To be a accused of censorship regarding this or any other blog post on this blog truly troubles me, since I have, from the very start, welcomed opposing points of view. You just could not be more wrong about this.

      Sincerely,
      G.

      Delete
    2. Nicole, reread what you quoted. G clearly said "attack". You can disagree with someone without attacking them and that's all she meant. If you read the comments you would see that several of us did disagree, but none of us attacked G or the other commenters. Just one example, I disagreed and stated that I would be boycotting Sinful Colors, until this has been resolved satisfactorily for the bloggers involved.

      Delete
    3. Thanks, Donna. I appreciate that.

      Delete
  43. I hope they make it right with the people they stole the pics from.

    & I was just in Walgreens today looking for something and saw the display. While the pamphlets weren't there, the models on the display all have the stolen pics shopped onto their nails. I thought they only did that with one pic, but it was all of them. So they have more to answer for than just those pamphlets.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I wouldn't have expected this from such a big company

    ReplyDelete
  45. I like how you've tried to handle this as neutrally as you could. Classy.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Why don't you edit your blog so that your photos cannot be copy and pasted? My blog prohibits right clicks on any images...

    ReplyDelete
  47. Sinful colours have been dropped by Boots (in the UK) and I can't get them anywhere now. I hope it's not because of the boycott or the bad publicity. If they've been taken off the market that would be disasterous.

    ReplyDelete

I love and encourage comments here at Nouveau Cheap, and I do not censor comments unless they violate my comment policy, which you can view here.

Please refrain from comments that contain:
• Links to your own blog or website
• Advertisements or referral links

Thanks very much for your help in keeping this a spam-free zone.

Linkwithin

Glam Mandatory