The Anti-Advertising Agency » illegal advertising

Illegal Supergraphic Ad Removed From Historic Hollywood Hotel

Steve Lambert — Sat, 01 May 2010 15:52:46 +0000

During his 2009 election campaign, City Attorney Carmen Trutanich promised to crack down on anyone putting up illegal billboards and supergraphic signs. Continuing to make good on that promise, his office has gotten the owners of the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel to remove the latest in a series of illegal supergraphics that have covered the walls of the historic structure for the past four years.The sign removed advertised the Warner Bros. movie, “Clash of the Titans” and was installed last month by In Plain Sight Media. Most of the previous signs advertised H&M, a Swedish clothing company. A federal court lawsuit filed last year by the sign company and owners of the Hotel is still active.

via Unwrapped: Illegal Supergraphic Ad Removed From Historic Hollywood Hotel.

Movement Happening on Illegal Signs

Steve Lambert — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 02:19:50 +0000

March has been a bad time for illegal signs in LA. Finally Illegal Advertisers are going to jail. Here’s info on some of the latest:

LA Weekly profiles advertisers in Los Angeles, as well as AAA compatriot Public Ad Campaign’s Jordan Seiler. Here’s how it starts “Supergraphic multimillionaire Barry Rush couldn’t have been pleased to hear a few weeks ago that Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich had taken the audacious step of jailing a compatriot in arms, a Hollywood landlord who, for an undisclosed sum, cut a deal with a shadowy firm that draped an illegal supergraphic around a historic Hollywood Boulevard building.”
Following the arrest, Ban Billboard Blight reports that several illegal “supergraphic” billboards have come down. “It’s surely no coincidence that companies have been removing these signs after City Attorney Carmen Trutanich filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against one sign company and a number of property owners, engineered the arrest and jailing of a landlord in Hollywood who put up a huge illegal supergraphic on an historic Hollywood Blvd. office building, and issued arrest warrants for sign company executives and a property owner who allowed three illegal supergraphics on yet another Hollywood building.” And they seem to be coming down all over the city.
Fuel Outdoor has finally been removing their illegal signs after losing in court.
Ban Billboard Blight has also reported on NPA Outdoor’s illegal activity in Los Angeles. And Public Ad Campaign has reported the NPA Outdoor is leaving New York.

Dirty, Dirty, Dirty

Steve Lambert — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:57:38 +0000

The supergraphic sign above for the movie “Prince of Persia” on a Westwood office building is legally permitted as an on-site sign, which the L.A. sign code defines as a sign directing attention to a product or service generally sold or offered on the premises where the sign is located. There is no movie theater in the Wilshire Blvd. building, or the offices of the movie production company, so how can the sign be considered legally equivalent to the sign on the local hardware store or dry cleaners?

For an answer, one most go back more than a decade, when Michael McNeilly (the self-proclaimed artist responsible for the giant statue of liberty images around the city) put one of the “Lady Liberty” images on the side of the building at 10921 Wilshire Blvd. He was charged by the city with putting up the supergraphic without a permit, as well as violating a local zoning prohibition on any such signs in the Wilshire corridor from Beverly Hills to Santa Monica.

While that case worked its way through the court, McNeilly changed the sign to one he claimed to be a memorial to the New York firefighters who died on 9/11 in the World Trade Center collapse. Again, he was cited by the city, and this time filed a lawsuit in federal court with the aid of the ACLU, which asserted that McNeilly’s First Amendment right to free speech allowed him to erect the sign without city interference. Two years later, then L.A. City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo agreed to a settlement of that lawsuit that allowed McNeilly to keep signs on the 12-story wall of the building, as long as those signs fit the city’s definition of “on-site” signs.

According to the settlement, only current tenants of the building with “bona fide office space” conducting “bona fide business” would be allowed to place messages on the signs. Furthermore, those tenants would have to provide proof to the city that they were conducting such a business by having an employee present during normal working hours.

Yesterday, we went to the office at mid-afternoon with a local community activist who has tried in the past to convince the city’s building department that the various signs that have been put up on the wall do not comply with those requirements. On the sixth floor, there was an office with the sign, “Sky Posters, a Creative Service Agency” beside the door. (Sky Posters is one of the terms used by McNeilly, who is president of a company called Skytag, Inc.) The door was locked, and knocks went unanswered. We spoke to a woman who was going into the office next door, and she said that in the four years she worked there she had never seen anyone enter or leave the Sky Posters office.

As we’ve pointed out in previous posts, McNeilly is a fraud. He claims to be an artist defending freedom of expression when the obvious fact that he is an entrepreneur making millions by putting up supergraphic signs wherever he can find willing property owners and then suing to block enforcement of the city’s ban on such signs. He has used one of the country’s most revered images—the statue of liberty—as a placeholder for signs hawking movies, TV shows, and other corporate products.

In 2008, he put up a huge “Lady Liberty” image on the opposite end of the Wilshire Blvd. building, and then sued the city in federal court and succeeded in getting a judge to order a preliminary injunction protecting it from city enforcement. Lady Liberty is long gone, of course, and now a Nike Ad featuring a 10-story image of Kobe Bryant greets pedestrians and motorists navigating the single most heavily-trafficked intersection in the entire city of L.A.

Nike ad featuring Kobe Bryant on east end of building. Credit: Curbed LA

Based on statements by media buyers and ad agency professionals, advertisers pay upwards of $100,000 a month for supergraphics like that in those kind of locations.

The “Prince of Persia” supergraphic on the west end of the building, visible from the 405 freeway almost half a mile away, made news two days ago when Curbed LA reported that the building owner was speaking out against a proposed development across the street that would block some views of the sign, including the one from the freeway. A statement, perhaps, on how valuable those views are for a sign that is “on-site” in name only.

via How Was This Eight-Story Supergraphic Ad For a Movie Permitted as an “On-Site” Sign?.

Owner Arrested For Hollywood Supergraphic Previously Cited For Sign Law Violations

Steve Lambert — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:50:44 +0000

Friday night’s arrest of Kayvan Setareh for allowing an 8-story supergraphic ad to be wrapped across three sides of an historic Hollywood building was not the first time the Pacific Palisades man has run afoul of the city’s sign code, according to building department records. In January, 2007, a citation was issued for an illegal supergraphic on the building at 6777 Hollywood Blvd, and In November, 2006, citations were issued for a total of four illegal supergraphics on another building owned by Setareh at 5858 Hollywood Blvd. As reported by the L.A. Times, the arrest of Setareh followed concerns that because there was no inspection of the gigantic ad’s attachment to the building it could come loose and cause injury to pedestrians and motorists in the busy street below.

via Owner Arrested For Hollywood Supergraphic Previously Cited For Sign Law Violations.

This makes me angry

Michael Mandiberg — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:26:31 +0000

This makes me wish I had a big fat marker with me to cover this up in something other than this insidious shit. And i don’t really ever have the impulse to tag.

Canal and Broadway. All you Chisel-tippers and KRINKers go after it.

Sign Companies, Property Owners, Advertising Agencies, Major Corporations Thumb Their Noses at L.A.’s New Off-Site Sign Ban

Steve Lambert — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:00:20 +0000

Almost a year after the L.A. City Council approved a moratorium on new off-site and supergraphic signs, and four months after it replaced that temporary measure with a permanent ban, advertisers and sign companies continue to wrap, hang, and otherwise display their multi-story supergraphic signs on the walls of buildings throughout the city.

So why are property owners and sign companies willing to risk open violation of the law, and advertising agencies and major corporations willing to look the other way? The answer is easy to surmise from the fact that a large supergraphic in a high-traffic location can generate upwards of $50,000 in monthly revenue, while the maximum fine for violating sign law provisions is $100 a day.

The City Attorney’s office has filed at least two civil suits under a public nuisance provision that allows fines of up to $2,500 a day, but those lawsuits are slowly moving through the courts and any resolution is likely to be months away, if not longer, depending upon appeals.

In the meantime, absent any sudden displays of social and civic responsibility on the part of the outdoor advertising industry, expect to see the city’s public spaces occupied by more and more of these huge sales pitches demanding the attention of everyone driving, walking, bicycling or otherwise moving past them.

via Sign Companies, Property Owners, Advertising Agencies, Major Corporations Thumb Their Noses at L.A.’s New Off-Site Sign Ban.

NY Street Art Takeover Mini Documentary

Steve Lambert — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:06:03 +0000

how did I not see this before?

Office Tenants Plagued by Series of Illegal Supergraphic Signs; Do the L.A. City Attorney and District Councilman Care?

Steve Lambert — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:03:11 +0000

Los Angeles, Toronto, San Francisco, New York; what big city has the outdoor advertising industry under control?

Last March, we reported on the case of an illegal supergraphic sign advertising Chase Bank installed over the second-floor office windows of a building at 7201 Melrose Ave. The city issued a citation to the building owner, Macculloch Properties of Brentwood, and in May referred that citation to the City Attorney’s office for criminal prosecution. The sign was then removed, but replaced in August by one advertising the TV show, Melrose Place. Then in October, a third supergraphic sign went up, this one advertising HTC cellphones. As of this writing, the sign was still in place.

Read the rest at: Office Tenants Plagued by Series of Illegal Supergraphic Signs; Do the L.A. City Attorney and District Councilman Care?.

Public Ad Campaign: Newest PAC Work

Steve Lambert — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 05:55:43 +0000

I woke up half drunk today cause last night was crazy! Had a feeling today needed to involve some art and a bit of takeover. Went to Da Vinci and bought some paper and voila. Art happens at all times of the day. PS: I met couple that is going to do their wedding photos in front of this piece if it is still up tomorrow. NPA, leave it up till tomorrow you bastards. This will be a fantastic moment for the bide and groom to be. 18th and 10th avenue, NEW YORK, 09-25-09.

via Public Ad Campaign: Newest PAC Work.

Confusing on several levels…

kelli — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:01:50 +0000

Welcome Kelli Anderson, our newest latest on the Anti-Advertising Agency site. Kelli worked on the New York Times Special Edition designing ads for Dr. Zizmor among other things. Welcome Kelli!

“For sale” realty signs are a familiar sight in post-real-estate-bubble Williamsburg. It was only a matter of time until some super clever ad exec co-opted this ubiquitous format for some good ol’ guerilla marketing. Well folks, that time has come. And the product for sale (a tv show which features Courtney Cox as a predatory “older” woman ) looks pretty ill-considered as well:

In a neighborhood already awash in actual foreclosure signs and vacant luxury condos, this is almost certainly meant to be a sick joke, right? Or else, borne out of some new type of cynical, afflicted optimism (“in sadness/opportunity,” “if lemons/lemonade,” etc.)? What will the neighbors think, after all?

In an interesting twist of unintentional comedy (or postmodern self-realization?), the content of the show follows a similar thematic trend:

Courtney Cox’s needy female protagonist [Is To] Sadness^TM

Meaningless flings with young studs [Is To] Opportunity^TM

It is an “empowering!^TM ” analogy.

Very disappointing stuff, considering the dearth of middle-aged female characters on TV. I guess they were just waiting for the right demeaning stereotype to come along…

Will someone please call that 877 number and see if the place is really for sale?

Bonus: Funny banter on the subject of the confusing “pumas/cougars/mountain lions” thing by The Hater podcast.

Update: Following the recent Brownstoner post on the faux-real estate/faux-cougar ads, several commentators questioned the signs’ legality. The NYC Department of Buildings prohibits signs at residential addresses that advertise products unrelated to that address, but permits signs that “direct attention to a business at the same location as the sign.” In other words, a [legitimate] “For Sale, Call Realtor” sign is permissible, while leasing your yard to Verizon (so they can shave their logo into the grass) would be illegal. This-parody-of-the-real-thing is ultimately NOT the real thing would inevitably fall into the illegal advertising category. See NYC’s Outdoor Sign Guidelines and the city’s definition of “Advertising Signs” for more information.