Before you people start calling me a fanboy, yes, I agree that some of the games on Sony's consoles are fantastic, so I'm not trying to start a console war here. This has nothing to do with the games.

I was already thinking quite low of Sony after the graffiti and "ghetto" squirrel ads, DS bashing (only to get completely owned by it later on) and all of Ken Kutaragi's childish quotes. But THIS (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/07/04/ad-critic-sonys-racially-charged-psp-ad/) just takes the damn cake. What also amazes me is Sony's reaction. Instead of immediately firing whoever designed and agreed with those ads (with an optional kick in the face), they just spouted some Ken Kutaragi-worthy bullcrap:
All of the 100 or so images created for the campaign have been designed to show this contrast in colours of the PSPs , and have no other message or purpose.

And don't give me the "you're just taking it out of context" thing. Whoever designed that must have been completely brain-dead to not consider the fact that many people will find it terribly offensive.

Thats awful iggy.

Nasty Racist poster.

I want a white PSP!

*looks at ad*

On second thought....

How's that racist?

How's that racist?

You probably can't see the black man as it's quite blended in with the black background.

I can. I just don't see what's racist about it.

You probably can't see the black man as it's quite blended in with the black background.
Well, you can't quite see the black man because there's no black man... it's a woman.:p

I can. I just don't see what's racist about it.
A white woman appearing as the "superior" figure to the "old" black PSP color? Nope, nothing racist in that. :rolleyes:

She's not superior in all the pictures

She's not superior in all the pictures
It still showcases conflict between 'races' which is just as bad. Plus, associating white people with the 'new, improved' product is also pretty racist.

Where does it say that it's new and improved? And I don't see that as conflict.

If little plastic england flags can supposedly offend, this is just asking for trouble. It's deliberately using race as part of an advert, which is pretty damn stupid.

it must be racist because it has people of different ethnicity! what an outrage!!11one

I don't even see why they're bothering to make a White PSP in the first place.

Sony's lost everything it every stood for. When I was growing up the consoles were N64, GameBoy, PlayStation and I think the Dreamcast too but none of my friends had one. Then out came the PS2, leagues above the rest. Then the Xbox jumped in and arguably leapfrogged the PS2.

The Wii will clearly be the best seller of the Wii, Xbox 360 and PS3, and quite frankly I think the Xbox 360 will do better than the PS3. How can a company go from leading the way to that? (we'll have to wait and see if that happens though).

I don't see what Sony is trying to achieve by all these illegal things they are doing. I don't care if Sony make good products, I know they do, but I refuse to buy products from them until they stop their illegal activities.
How's that racist?
The ad is showing that white is better than black and involving two women. That implies that white people are better than black people, which is racist.

You know, I don't think it's actually claiming that white is better than black :confused:

How's that racist?
It's not racist. Not really. The new PSP is white, and the old one is black. The advert makes no statement about race at all -- merely uses it as a visual metaphor. The advert is not racist.

HOWEVER, it should have been patently obvious to the people who came up with it that people would consider it racist and be offended by it. It's pretty easy to see how someone could infer a white supremacy vibe from it. Maybe they did spot it -- maybe they're trying to be controversial, in which case they're basically deliberately setting out to offend people so that they can make more money, which is cynical and wrong -- or maybe they didn't realise, in which case they're morons. Either way they should be fired.

On the other hand, there's always a chance that they considered that and thought, no, we're not going to be told what to do by a bunch of oversensitive whiners, so we'll run whatever ad we please and if people are offended by it they can just not buy any PSPs, and if they complain to us we'll state our case to them and perhaps we can spark an intelligent debate. In which case, more power to them.

Personally, I'm not offended by it, so I officially don't care. This is not the lowest Sony have sunk. Not by a country fathom.

On the other hand, there's always a chance that they considered that and thought, no, we're not going to be told what to do by a bunch of oversensitive whiners, so we'll run whatever ad we please and if people are offended by it they can just not buy any PSPs, and if they complain to us we'll state our case to them and perhaps we can spark an intelligent debate. In which case, more power to them.
I think making people buy less PSPs and sparking debates about how Sony are racist isn't really going to give them more power.

That advert is not racist, it's just seen by people as racist because people take offense too easily. Had it been the other way around, that advert wouldn't have been noticed any more than some sort of hair products advert. It's a good thing they didn't show that one in America.

I don't even see why they're bothering to make a White PSP in the first place.because nintendo's new, improved DS is white. :rolleyes:

Ah, big deal. I think it's a silly thing to get all worked up about.

I don't even see why they're bothering to make a White PSP in the first place.
because nintendo's new, improved DS is white. :rolleyes:
No it's not. If you are going to bash Sony atleast get your facts straight.

On July 21, 2005, Sony announced during an event in Tokyo, Japan that there would be a ceramic white version of the PSP. This variation is the same as the black PSP except that it has higher, non-clear buttons and an improved volume system. It was released on September 15, 2005 in Japan and was later released in South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Australia, and Europe.

No it's not. If you are going to bash Sony atleast get your facts straight.wait, I was bashing sony? and the nintendo DS's latest installment ISN'T white?! I think you need to reword your post to make some form of sense, and quit making my post into something it's not.

edit: and also, what does your wiki quote have to do with ANYTHING? it's just the official version of the statements already made...

sigh, people realy are over sencitive.
If it was only the ad shown at the top then, yes, maybe; but its clearly not.

All the ads together show the white coming in and trying to find its place (reminds me of new kids at school), and the black fighting back to keep its place, and ends up with them both on the floor in some pseudo-kinky equalism.

As for why are they making a white PSP?
1. It looks good.
2. People are fickle, I know plenty of people who will go: OWG ROXORS!!! NEWNESS, MUST HAVE NEW WHITE PSP!!!!111! even though they already have a black one. How many people sold their Gamboys to get a new coloured gameboy mini? Or upgraded from a normal PS to a slimeline one? or even went for the new smaller DS to replace the older slightly bigger one? No one here perhaps, but one hell of a lot of people, easily enough for someone to change the material going into a machine. Its not going to cost sony any extra apart from advertising, so why wouldn't they?

I fail to see how bad advertising would put someone off somethig they want to buy, the thing stopping me from getting one is the still far to high price tag on it.

edit in reply to aku:
As far as I'm aware the smaller DS comes in both black and white, so does the Ipod... not that that matters.

edit in reply to aku:
As far as I'm aware the smaller DS comes in both black and white, so does the Ipod... not that that matters.the DS light has a black version?! I've not seen that one.

wait, I was bashing sony? and the nintendo DS's latest installment ISN'T white?! I think you need to reword your post to make some form of sense, and quit making my post into something it's not.

What? Who's "making my post into something it's not" here? I never said that Nintendo's new DS wasn't white.
You are 'bashing' Sony by implying they stole the idea from Nintendo.

Edit:
And no, there is no black DS lite. There is a black standard DS though.

What? Who's "making my post into something it's not" here? I never said that Nintendo's new DS wasn't white.
You are 'bashing' Sony by implying they stole the idea from Nintendo.

Edit:
And no, there is no black DS lite. There is a black standard DS though.k, where you posted, I had JUST written that nintendo's newest DS is white. just after that you said no it isn't. what was I SUPPOSED to think you meant?

and how do you know sony ISN'T stealing nintendo's idea? I can't prove it either way and honestly don't really care, but it's been known to happen, so would it really be that much of a stretch if it was because of the DS lite?

oh, and lastly, I'm not surprised there is one, but I've not seen a black normal DS either...my local shops suck.

maybe they represent colours, not races. merely- they might have two white people, one in a black t-shirt, one in a white t-shirt. but then they changed the black t-shirted one to a black man, to further establish the difference, then change the white one to a female to make them even more different. then, when the advert was ready, they didn't even notice what they'd done.

either that, or sony's marketing department is racist.

I know, I'm standing up for sony. I like all consoles, really. even the n-gage.

k, where you posted, I had JUST written that nintendo's newest DS is white. just after that you said no it isn't. what was I SUPPOSED to think you meant?

and how do you know sony ISN'T stealing nintendo's idea? I can't prove it either way and honestly don't really care, but it's been known to happen, so would it really be that much of a stretch if it was because of the DS lite?

oh, and lastly, I'm not surprised there is one, but I've not seen a black normal DS either...my local shops suck.

Look, you replied to SupSuper who said:
"I don't even see why they're bothering to make a White PSP in the first place"

In the reply you say:
"because nintendo's new, improved DS is white. :rolleyes:"

The word "because" makes all the difference.
My reply to that, was a reply to your theory, a reply to the word "because".

---------
I don't know that Sony isn't stealing the idea, but neither do you know that they are. And Sony did announce their white version first. And you made it sound like it was the other way around.

Now look, you replied to SupSuper who said "I don't even see why they're bothering to make a White PSP in the first place"

In the reply you say:
because nintendo's new, improved DS is white. :rolleyes:

You are CLEARLY saying it's the reason by using the word because. The word "because" makes all the difference.

My reply to that, was a reply to your theory, again, replying to the "because" part.
Does the word "sarcasm" mean anything to you?

Does the word "sarcam" mean anything to you?
no. What's sarcam?

Does the word "sarcasm" mean anything to you?

It does. But I seriously doubt he is being sarcastic. It's more a case of "not getting it".

Unless of course you are being sarcastic by asking that, and therefor implying that this does indeed have nothing to do with sarcasm. Did I just catch you being clever?

I don't know that Sony isn't stealing the idea, but neither do you know that they are. And Sony did announce their white version first. And you made it sound like it was the other way around.fair point, but I'd like to point out that the PS3 controller was also announced first :p not disputing the main point, just the one tiny section

That depends on what you mean by announced :p

How the PS3 controller works wasn't revieled untill last E3 not at all long ago. But the fact that the PlayStation 3 has a controller was pretty much understood when they said first mentioned the PS3, so I guess you can call that an anouncement =P

Edit:
And no, there is no black DS lite. There is a black standard DS though.
Wrong: http://www.joystiq.com/2006/06/19/the-black-ds-lite-in-the-flesh/

Wrong: http://www.joystiq.com/2006/06/19/the-black-ds-lite-in-the-flesh/

Yup I was just about to post this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000FTQR8K/026-1006308-8647646?v=glance&n=300703

Seems odd to release it in just two colours when, say, the GBP, GBC and GBA (and AFAIK the GBM) could be got in pretty much any colour you liked.

Seems odd to release it in just two colours when, say, the GBP, GBC and GBA (and AFAIK the GBM) could be got in pretty much any colour you liked.
All the Gameboys except for the origional were released in multiple colours.

Gbm ?

Gbm ?
Game Boy Micro.
...I think.

Yea, I saw that a while ago; I think it's very showing of how racism is still around that people EXPECT these things to have racist connotations. IMO todays awareness of racism has meant people are more likely to see these things as racist, when at closer inspection they blatantly aren't.

Game Boy Micro.
...I think.Yep.

Well, what else would it be in context?

I think making people buy less PSPs and sparking debates about how Sony are racist isn't really going to give them more power.
You're being stupid. Or obtuse. It's hard to tell.

No, it won't, but that is neither what I meant nor what I said. I think that if Sony are prepared to risk controversy and a loss of sales to make a political statement, then they should have more power to do so.

Though it's probably academic anyhow, as they're almost certainly just being stupid.

The thing is anyone can say anything means anything, as long as they can prove it. When interpreting literature or media, as long as you back it up propperly there is no such thing as a wrong idea.

For example, I could say "that ad is racially offensive, as it shows conflict and issues of superiority between white and black". This is a fair point, as I have supplied reasons and they strengthen my statement.

However I could also say "that ad is not racially offensive, as it makes no statement about race at all and merely uses it as a visual metaphor" (Thank you AT). This too is a valid point. There are many reasons for and against this advert being racist, but in the end, it's all down to the beholder. Whether or not it offends you is up to you, personally I find it risky that sony have even allowed the possibility of someone getting offended and calling racist.

Sony knew exactly what they were doing with the ad. They're deliberately playing on racial discrimination to get attention, which is wrong. They knew the sort of stir-up that it would cause and still decided to do it.

Sony knew exactly what they were doing with the ad. They're deliberately playing on racial discrimination to get attention, which is wrong. They knew the sort of stir-up that it would cause and still decided to do it.
It isn't racist in the same what a white person not liking a black person isn't racist.

I disagree that they were playing on racism, I don't think that had anything to do with it. If it had been a white person in a black jacket instead of a black person, I doubt anyone would have cared in the least, or even given it a second look. This symbolises exactly the same thing, just with a black person the imagery is more complete.

I don't think, however, that they were unaware how it would be taken by some people. The reason they didn't show it in the USA or UK is because they knew the reaction it would get.

I don't think, however, that they were unaware how it would be taken by some people. The reason they didn't show it in the USA or UK is because they knew the reaction it would get.
If they knew that the ad would get a negative reaction in the US/UK, then why the hell would they release it anywhere? That implies that they DO know it's offensive, so they should get whatever is coming to them.

And as it has been said before, whatever the company says that the imagery is supposed to be (using race as a metaphor,) is irrelevant. What the public thinks when they see the ad is what's important, and in today's society, something like that ad will be interpreted as racist.

If they knew that the ad would get a negative reaction in the US/UK, then why the hell would they release it anywhere? That implies that they DO know it's offensive, so they should get whatever is coming to them.


What's coming to them is attention. Last time I checked, that was a good thing for a company's marketing department.

All in all everyone here's missing something vital: Any publicity is good publicity. It's been proven time and time again, at least on a large scale.

If I had to point out a single field of experties this race has evolved in most, it would have to be marketing [as sad as that makes me]. Judging by all the Sony ads I've seen, they're really good at it. Don't for a second think people posting "OH-NO-THEIR-RACISTS!" on internet forums wasn't exactly what they've planned, hah.

As for my personal opinion, I don't see anything wrong with these paticular advertisements. Definetley a lot better than the huge pink/yellow/cyan ones with a fat font advertising kitchen cleaning supplies we get here. Too provocative? You should see the stuff Japanese and Korean TV stations air. Sony's a league of gentlemen with piles of stashed style in comparison.

People who actively get offended by something as mild as this should consider a hobby that isn't as harsh on the stomach is basically what I'm trying to say. I suppose there are moral limits in marketing [not that there won't always be some crossing them], but this hardly comes near them.

When interpreting literature or media, as long as you back it up propperly there is no such thing as a wrong idea.
Well, no, that's not really true. When someone creates a work of literature they have some intention in mind, be it a message, or merely to tell a story. Sometimes they specifically intend to leave it open to interpretation (which personally I find quite lazy and vaccuous), but if they intend a specific message and you interpret it differently then that's the wrong idea.

Whose fault it is that you misinterpreted it is a different matter entirely.

Actually, looking further into this, it's not a very good ad. People may talk about it, but why would it make someone want a PSP? It doesn't actually sell the product, all it does is tell people that they're making a white one.

And I, for one, am getting tired of the whole "Any publicity is good" thing. I don't see how anyone who didn't really want a PSP would change their opinion after seeing this ad talked about on the news or something. It doesn't really sell the product, so the viral scheme doesn't really accomplish anything whatsoever. The only people who WILL buy a white PSP would be people who were going to do so beforehand, whether they saw the ad or not.

I still don't see how people branding Sony as racists will help sell PSPs.

Any publicity is good publicity though. As shown by the guy who tried to cheat his way to £1m on Who Wants to be a Millionnaire. He's writing books now and going on TV (from what I remember) - it seems to have done him some good.

However this ad is not headline news so any reaction to it isn't really going to do much good for Sony. The Wii would have been pretty high up in the news and it got a lot of publicity.

I still don't see how people branding Sony as racists will help sell PSPs.Might help them sell them to racists...

Sometimes they specifically intend to leave it open to interpretation (which personally I find quite lazy and vaccuous)I know the feeling. It really gets on my nerves when I look at something on dA and the Artist's Comments box says "...". Then when I complain on the dA Forums, some people agree but others say "Oh, they want to leave it open to interpretation and not influence their viewers' opinion". Which strikes me as defeating the object slightly.

Might help them sell them to racists...
It might have, except that it didn't show either race as a superior.

I admit I haven't read through this whole thread. I'm tired and going to bed, but I want to post my thoughts first. This is quoted from a guy named Tim Buckley, and I think he says what I think very well. And yeah, this is written from the perspective of an American, and I know lots of you are in Europe, but the point is the same:



"...Now at first glance, this stands to be a pretty offensive advertisement. That was my first reaction, definitely. However it's important to keep in mind that this advertisement isn't running in the US. It's a campaign over in Europe (Holland, if I recall correctly?) only. Why is that? Maybe because here in America we have such a history of racial tension, a history of slavery, an issue that divided our country in two in the face of war. So maybe it seems like a pretty harsh image to us, because we're extra sensitive to that sort of thing, perhaps out of shame, due to that part of our nation's history. (I'm not saying racism doesn't exist elsewhere around the world, but I'm not from elsewhere around the world, so I can't vouch for the feelings of different cultures.)

But the advertisement wasn't meant for us (America). It's probably not a mistake that Sony isn't running that particular campaign in the US. They may have felt it was more likely to be misinterpreted here. So I'm not sure I can condemn them as insensitive just because we Americans are so particularly prone to get our hackles up over things like this. It would sort of be like getting offended that a billboard in Japan is in Japanese, and I can't understand it.

It's just skin. Different colors, sure. And Sony has stated that their goal behind the advertisement was to focus on the contrasting colors (two other images from the campaign). So in that regard, using colors, what's the big deal about using a person with black skin and a person with white skin? It's just color.

It would be nice if we lived in a world where anyone looked at that billboard and all they saw was two people.

But, in America especially, you look at that billboard, and you see a white person in an assumed position of dominance over a black person, and immediately alarms go off in your head. Everything we learned in history class about the 1800's comes flooding into our minds, along with a healthy dose of guilt, and we apply our own demons to the image. We attach 150 years of racial tension to the image, and condemn it for our history, not because of any message it's actually delivering.

Which really is just two people representing two handheld video game consoles."


I bolded that one phrase because I think that's one of the most important points here. Isn't it racist in itself to view the billboard as racist? How can you say the billboard is being divisive, unless you already see the division in your own mind? What if it was two white people? Would it be a problem? I think not. But how can you see a difference between two white people and one black person and one white person, unless you yourself are racist? If black and white (and all other races) are perfectly equal, then it wouldn't matter. Think about it for a moment.


<edit> I just realized, Tim Buckley also added the following after the above quoted text:

"No one is offended that the billboard suggests a precursor to violence. No one is offended that it's two women involved in violence. If it had been two white women, one in a white suit, one in a black suit, nobody would say a thing.

Furthermore, nobody has said word one about the version of the ad where the black woman is dominating the white woman. And I'm willing to bet that if that image had been on the billboard instead, nobody would have said a thing. At least not publicly.

So ask yourself, honestly, why it's offensive to you. Because the billboard doesn't depict slavery. Not in the slightest. If the black woman was picking cotton, and the white woman was standing over her with a whip, then hell yes it would be offensive. But it's just two people squaring off, and one of them has the upper hand. So why does it matter to you which one that is?

Because if we really want to reach the level of equality in our society that we all say we do, we need to stop dwelling on the past. Slavery is abolished. Has been for a good long time. Not a single one of us Americans owned slaves, or was a slave. It was a horrible period in time, but it's over. Being oversensitive about things like this billboard is what's keeping this racial tension alive. If you ask yourself honestly, you may find that you don't actually think the billboard is offensive, but that you've just been taught it's offensive.

Stop making race a big deal, and race stops being a big deal.

(PS, Kudos to whoever designed the ad campaign for accomplishing exactly what was intended; to spark discussion and bring attention to Sony and the product)"

I bolded that one phrase because I think that's one of the most important points here. Isn't it racist in itself to view the billboard as racist? How can you say the billboard is being divisive, unless you already see the division in your own mind? What if it was two white people? Would it be a problem? I think not. But how can you see a difference between two white people and one black person and one white person, unless you yourself are racist? If black and white (and all other races) are perfectly equal, then it wouldn't matter. Think about it for a moment.
Very well put. To me, it's every bit as offensive to imply that there is an injustice because it features two racially different people (one of which is in a "dominant" position over another). It shows just as much division between races as the ad itself does. But it was dicey putting that ad out.
All that aside, I'm not rushing to defend Sony (I just don't think racism was on their minds; it is possible to contrast colors without implying white superiority). I'm a proud DS owner (though the fighting game selection on the PSP is getting nice) :p

People keep saying things like "It would be nice if we lived in a world where anyone looked at that billboard and all they saw was two people."
Well, guess what. We don't. Maybe sometime all racism will be eliminated and that won't be a problem, but in todays world, racism is real, and people will see it even if it wasn't intended. That's just the way it is.

Years and years of hatred and prejudice have a habit of getting ingrained into society. You can't blame some people for seeing that ad as racist, because it could easily be misinterpreted as such.

I should probably leave off now. I could talk about how culture is the cause of all of our beliefs and such, but that would be rambling, and people don't want to read that much.

If they knew that the ad would get a negative reaction in the US/UK, then why the hell would they release it anywhere? That implies that they DO know it's offensive, so they should get whatever is coming to them.

And as it has been said before, whatever the company says that the imagery is supposed to be (using race as a metaphor,) is irrelevant. What the public thinks when they see the ad is what's important, and in today's society, something like that ad will be interpreted as racist.
Yes, of course they know it would be seen as offensive here in our society, but that is irrelevant as they didn't release it here. One can infer from that that Dutch culture is much more tolerant and reasonable than ours is.
One can also infer that, what with its being released in Holland, it was intended for the Dutch, so what we think doesn't matter squat. If the Dutch people had a problem with it, that'd be different, but I haven't heard anything about that being true.
I fail to see how knowing how it would be taken in one place should stop it being shown in another.

I agree with Horigan completely, very good points there.

If you ask yourself honestly, you may find that you don't actually think the billboard is offensive, but that you've just been taught it's offensive.

Yeah that pretty much sums up my oppinion right there. The rest is pretty sound too though.

That depends on what you mean by announced :p

How the PS3 controller works wasn't revieled untill last E3 not at all long ago. But the fact that the PlayStation 3 has a controller was pretty much understood when they said first mentioned the PS3, so I guess you can call that an anouncement =Pbefore all that sony had announced plans to make a motion-sensitive controller the likes of which they're releasing now. thing is, it was scrapped because they didn't think it would work or some such like that, but when nintendo released the wii controller idea, sony went back to their original idea and made it work.

and saying I'm wrong on this disputes about 80% of the gaming community, as tons of people use this fact as an argument/counterargument in many of the sony vs nintendo fan-boy arguments :p

I admit I haven't read through this whole thread. I'm tired and going to bed, but I want to post my thoughts first. This is quoted from a guy named Tim Buckley, and I think he says what I think very well. And yeah, this is written from the perspective of an American, and I know lots of you are in Europe, but the point is the same:





I was going to post a link to the very same thing. that was the point I was trying to make earlier- they represent colours, not people

OMG!!! What are Sony thinking? That doesn't make me wanna buy a White PSP. I have even seen some YTMND sites of this. Here's one: http://pspchoke.ytmnd.com/

According to my friend Jack who lives in Holland, the Dutch aren't so much tolerant as extremely intolerant of intolerance.

Well, atleast it's not as bad as Apple's old ad:

http://files.upl.silentwhisper.net/upload5/thinkdifferent.jpg

the DS light has a black version?! I've not seen that one.
in europe only...
you probably havn't heard of it because the americans don't get it.

and people, the DS lite has more improvements than the fact that it is smaller btw...go read some sites and get some info.

EDIT: and there is no black regular DS, as is said above, it's the new DS lite that is black.

Well, atleast it's not as bad as Apple's old ad:

http://files.upl.silentwhisper.net/upload5/thinkdifferent.jpg
Is it wrong to find that amusing?

Well, it did get a chuckle out of me too :p

Is it wrong to find that amusing?
Not really, it's meant to be funny. And I doubt anyone will find that offensive, as it's clearly designed for humour value. Take note, sony.

Well, atleast it's not as bad as Apple's old ad:

http://files.upl.silentwhisper.net/upload5/thinkdifferent.jpg
Actually that's fairly anti-racist.
And hell, it made me laugh.

Actually that's fairly anti-racist.
Racism and anti-racism are a lot more easily confused than most people realise.

heh, i liked it enough to save it. If some random black dude is willing to shoot the film/pictures then it cant be that bad. Esspessially when he looks so damn happy.

I don't think it's a real photo, if you look, everybody's eyes are the same, but with the iris modified.

I don't think it's a real photo, if you look, everybody's eyes are the same, but with the iris modified.is that even relevant?

is that even relevant?

Well, Plutonic sugested it was a photo. So I think my reply to that was rather relevant. But what do I know right?

Well, Plutonic sugested it was a photo. So I think my reply to that was rather relevant. But what do I know right?ah, didn't see how your post related to his, but I get it now (it's late for me, I need sleep). carry on.

I don't think it's a real photo, if you look, everybody's eyes are the same, but with the iris modified.

Perhaps, but I assume the guy knew what the photo of him was for... not be quite the same but still.

He would have been told what it was for if it wasn't a photo. The company could be open to legal action if they used his picture without his consent in something that was potentially offensive. Or if they'd used the picture without his consent in any case, for that matter.

He would have been told what it was for if it wasn't a photo. The company could be open to legal action if they used his picture without his consent in something that was potentially offensive. Or if they'd used the picture without his consent in any case, for that matter.
He'll have signed a release form before his photo was taken. That's standard practice -- I signed one when I was on TV -- and presumably his legal standing would depend on the content of that agreement. If it said they could use his photo for whatever the heck they wanted, then (a) they could put it in something far more racist than that, and (b) he probably wouldn't have signed it.