On this last day of the month, we are shedding almost all seriousness to stand at attention while examining some recent London taxi cab humor — from the perspective of Lloyds Pharmacy — about treating the affliction of erectile dysfunction (ED) with six pound pills and a healthy dose of laughs:
One of the things I learned on my recent trip to London is the silly nickname for a prominent architectural structure, affectionately called The Gherkin (don’t you wonder how this name was received by the architects behind it)?
Part of what makes this ad so funny (to me) is that it would never fly on this side of the pond, which leaves me wondering why? Do we not have a sense of humor when it comes to ED?
Most of the humor surrounding ED in this neck of the woods comes from those who consistently ridicule the ED television advertisements, as this raunchy Jezebel piece demonstrates.
Or, would the ad not fly here because the architects might be more likely to sue? What might the possible causes of action be?
Perhaps our readers from Europe could explain why an advertisement like this doesn’t violate the “moral rights” of the creators, as such rights where recognized can permit an author of a protected work to “object to any distortion, modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author’s honor or reputation.” Would the results of an objection be different in France, Germany, and the U.K.?
Moral rights have not gotten much traction here in the U.S., on the theory that other legal claims adequately protect the rights intended by the above-quoted language of Article 6bis of the Berne Convention. If an advertisement like the one shown above were run here in the U.S., might that serve as the necessary catalyst for more robust protection of “moral rights” here in the U.S.?