Apple's ad sinks to such great lows
It has recently come to our attention that Apple Computers' new television commercial for the Intel chip features a shot-for-shot recreation of our video for 'Such Great Heights' made by the same filmmakers responsible for the original. We did not approve this commercialization and are extremely disappointed with both parties that this was executed without our consultation or consent.Was it an illegal move on Josh & Xander's (or Apple's) part to produce this ad? Depends on who ultimately owns the copyright to the original (probably SubPop), but either way it's pretty poor form. Seems like if Apple wants to avoid further criticism and the possibility of litigation -- and snag a little indie cred while they're at it -- they'll pull their ad and make things right. Likelihood of that happening? Slim -- unless they get a call from SubPop's lawyers, anyway.
[Via TUAW]
Reader Comments (Page 3 of 3)
Jonathan Zuniga @ Jan 22nd 2006 3:38AM
first of all i love Apple. and i love death cab for cutie and the lead singer's side project band postal service. i dont care about this. the only fought is that apple loved the look and they wanted that feel so they called up the directors. from their, the directors made their version. BUT, apple still has the final decision. therefore, it leads back to apple because they liked the postal service. so, apple knew what they were doing. as a fan of ben and postal service. it is not a PR stunt because it all started with apple.
but, i am not mad at anyone. i still love all parties involved in all of this. just get over it.
http://groups.myspace.com/engadgetreaders
flipper @ Jan 22nd 2006 4:59AM
Of all the things to slag off apple for you pick this? Who cares. Pick up on their dodgy performance stats, high hardware profit margins or anything else but advertising stinks for every company everywhere (PS am an ibook owner not a PC fanboy).
illingist trooper @ Jan 22nd 2006 5:00AM
So many of you people are simply spitting out vitriolic nonsense because you DON'T LIKE APPLE.
"I'm never going to consider buying an Apple product" WELL YOU NEVER WOULD HAVE ANYWAY, HATER
"D'ixar... It's pronounced 'Dicks Are.'" Where is this from exactly, guy? You didn't like Toy Story? Incredibles? YOU ARE REALLY REACHING FOR STRAWS HERE, HATER.
Personally, I think the directors and Apple have made legal, but ethically questionable moves here. I think there are a lot of similarities, but so many here are jumping on the band-wagon like Jaque Le Dique - deal with that. From many posts here, it's painfully clear you don't understand copyright law, or how ad agencies work.
You want unethical? Did Microsoft going all-out ballistic on Netscape stop you from buying your Dell and running Windows? Ripping off the Macintosh GUI experience? (Don't even start about Xerox labs... Apple was who Microsoft ripped off) No? How about squeaking out of a legitimate anti-trust lawsuit? Hmmm.
RD you sound really weird bringing 9/11 in to this; it's not patriotic to use Windows - Frankly it's not a good move to have all of the government on a single operating system that has been shown to have nearly daily security flaws - the entire gov. could get consumed by some cyber-attack. Rest assured that in the months following 9/11 millions of patriotic people followed the tragic news, donated money, and provided resources on Macintoshes as well as Windows boxes. I read about proper procedure for volunteering on my Mac and walked down to Chambers and Greenwich streets here in NYC, to help organize food and supplies on the 12th and 13th of September, 2001. So please, don't get all 'Apple is Al Queda' on us. By your standards, we should probably second-think using Windows because the terrorists might have read e-mails planning the attacks from Microsoft Entourage.
Geez.
Silly guys... Here's a thing I posted on another site before the knowledge that the directors were the same:
"So how about reaching back further, and comparing the 'clean room' look from previous intel ads? Perhaps make note of the Chris Cunningham Bjork video with the robots? Camera lifting out of a computer-circut to the 'real world?' Let's point back to 'Tron' or even the oft-maligned 'Hackers' for inspiration. Walking through a white workspace or hallway? Remember to Netflix 1971's 'THX 1138' and let's talk.
Placing shots side by side doesn't sell this case to me. Yes, I see the similarities; but I think with enough time we could find lots of commercials that have a person looking back in slow motion (Madonna's video for 'Rain,' anyone?). As for the side-by-side quicktime, and the 'same' shots: They're edited together out of context (the Postal Sevice video deals with a love story in a factory, and we're being shown cherry-picked shots out of order. The Apple one focuses on employees gingerly lifting a wafer from a machine to place in another machine. The way the woman looks at the man is quite different in the two.
The postal service video is great, but it also shows a 'clean' factory in just about the only way you can."
Now that I know it's the same directors, I simply feel they went for the fat check Apple and whatever ad agency offered. So take it in perspective: It's an ad, created on the coat-tails of a nice video that Apple and the creative agency apparently used as a 'style board.' Far worse things are happening.
You want to get sick your stomach and wonder where this world is heading?
Go watch 'The Corporation,' a chilling and infomative documentary on DVD and now available for free online at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=192012118972057552&q=chomsky&pr=goog-sl
Now THAT'S unethical stuff.
greg nash @ Jan 22nd 2006 5:30AM
"We did not approve this commercialization and are extremely disappointed with both parties that this was executed without our consultation or consent"
what a prick, its just a fucking advert
Joel @ Jan 22nd 2006 5:47AM
Most likely, the directors actually own the rights to the images in the original music video, and their contract with SubPop/The Postal Service to make the video gave them usage of those images for purposes of promoting the record "Such Great Heights."
Any other additional usage can be granted by the rights holders (the directors) as they see fit.
This is not unusual at all. This is the way the business works when you don't own the whole production company and instead hire freelance creatives to do a job as independent contractors.
If Apple had used The Postal Services MUSIC in the ad, this would have been unethical. The Postal Service owns the rights to their music because they created it, they don't own the rights to images they didn't create though. The creators of those images do.
In the photography world, for example, if you hire a photographer as an independent contractor (meaning he doesn't work for you on a full-time basis, and you don't have to pay him any benefits, and you aren't liable for any claims if an accident or injury occurs on the shoot, the photographer is,) the photographer owns the rights to the images he shoots for you and you are granted a release for only the usage specified. If you want exclusive usage, or unlimited usage, the price you have to pay goes way up (like at least 200% of a regular usage agreement typically) obviously, The Postal Service/SubPop chose not to pay this hefty charge, so they really don't have much leg to stand on.
You get the useage/exclusivity you PAY $$$ for.
Some photographers, ect. will simply keep their rights and won't sell them off for any amount of money. It's their prerogative, just like it is the prerogative of the art buyer to hire them or not based on that understanding.
Bultie @ Jan 22nd 2006 6:00AM
I dont think that apple stole anything.
How to promote a new chip? whithout the chip?
You can't! And just to remember the intel lab still looks the same as everyday.
So who you gonna call, if you wan to make a spot about a chip inside a lab? Yea the guys who made one alrady and which know how to do it!
SO if it looks the same blame the producers for non creativity, although the intel ad is much better and they've on a realy good job.
AND NO THE BAND DOES NOT MAKE ROCK OR POP ITS UGLY DAMN ELECTRONICPLIMPLIM ( not even good electronic)
labelexec @ Jan 22nd 2006 6:03AM
this is all part of the marketing campaign. enimem did it also with the last commercial. he didn't approve of it and then ends up in their commercial. it's all planned out for the media exposure. nothing short but smart.
Dot Flowers @ Jan 22nd 2006 6:19AM
Apple should just have used the song in the commercial. Then it would have looked like that Jag commercial with Sting.
skype_fan @ Jan 22nd 2006 6:43AM
Since Apple loves to sue, sue them to blood.
Tice @ Jan 22nd 2006 6:50AM
You know what?
I didn't know the "Postal Service Video" until now!I liked the Intel-Apple-Ad-Video.Now I know who the hell "Postal Service" is.Their songs are selling great now in iTMS.These director guys are lazy!Apple advertising agency was sleeping or didn't care.So do I!
That's it don't bother us with that anymore, please!
Brandon Halsne @ Jan 22nd 2006 6:50AM
Ok think about this, apple is probably one of the most
sue happy corporations in the united states, do you think with their lawyers that can come up with a legal case for just about everything would let this go if there was any legal problem?
Don't get me wrong i am not a big apple fan, but i actually think this is just good marketing on the part of both the postal service and apple, there just following in the footsteps of a certain online casino, doing something contraversial or just plain stupid to get themselves mentioned everywhere they can, i personally had never heard of postal service but have now visited their website and checked them out. This was just a scheme brought about by both parties involved to get themselves into the media in force, honestly would anything been said about either party about this commercial anywhere if there was no stink. This is just them taking advantage of the media's need to publish totally absurd stories.
AND SHAME ON YOU ENGADGET FOR FALLING FOR IT!!
armbrat @ Jan 22nd 2006 8:21AM
And, how ironic is this... one of the members of Postal Service (Jimmy Tamborello) used to be a member of a band called Dntel! Yes, that's a D.
Apple - "We need a cool idea to illustrate our partnership with Intel"
Ad Agency - "Dntel"?
Apple - "Who the hell are they? No, Intel - the chip guys."
Ad Agency (light bulb appears) - "Oh... of course. Well, we have this GREAT idea that will totally show off your new partnership!"
Chris @ Jan 22nd 2006 8:40AM
I can't believe that anyone would have an issue with the commercial. The commercial is about the creation of a microchip and features footage of how wafers get created. would bet that the majority of the footage is stock as having camera crews inside a clean room environment would cause concern for quality and possible manufacturing interruptions costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in delays.
OK side note... not that it mater... but what does a fab have to do with the song "Such Great Heights"?
terrelbot @ Jan 22nd 2006 10:04AM
You have to be kidding me. Apple made a new computer with a new microprocessor... so the video location is at, duh, a microprocessor plant? Come on guys? Im gonna go write a song about two birds and a grape and sing it on the moutain side highways that way no car company will ever get credit cause they are copying my music video!
adverlicious @ Jan 22nd 2006 10:08AM
FYI, here's a link to an archived set of Apple's iMac with Intel online ads:
http://adverlicio.us/tags/296
There's an RSS feed of this tag if you'd like to stay current as I update the site:
http://adverlicio.us/tags/296/feed
Jordan @ Jan 22nd 2006 10:44AM
the postal service sucks.
i'm dissappointd apple couldn't have at least ripped off a good band
Ben Popken @ Jan 22nd 2006 10:46AM
Yo, it was posted here before TUAW
http://gattacainc.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/01/applejack.html
Also link to side by side video comparison of all the stolen shots.
D.C. @ Jan 22nd 2006 11:02AM
Good song but I didn't care for the video. It actually fits the commercial better IMO...though I immediately thought of the band and wondered if there was a tie-in somehow. Felt like a throwback to those Intel guys in those suits dancing about and whatnot...
nathan @ Jan 22nd 2006 12:41PM
You guys need to get your information right.... as much as I love The Postal Service, Apple has no obligation to remove that ad. The music video and the ad are different enough that it doesnt matter that fucking much...
Just because Postal Service made a video close to that doesnt mean that ANYONE can ever make a commercial about computer chip making
TC @ Jan 22nd 2006 1:04PM
Does Apple have its marketing done inhouse or do they hire another firm to handle all their marketing?
Anyways, I thought the ad seemed appropriate but not that great. Just because Apple adheres to certain 'design ethics' for its products. It does not necessarily means this is use throughout the company. Apple is a huge growing corporation, it's all about the bottom line.
That said "But Apple is different: Steve Jobs is the Chief DESIGN Officer of Apple. How he can release such video without noticing that it is a rip is a mystery to me." You really think Steve jobs sits an approves every little detail of Apple operations, better yet, you think he's even aware of an indie band like Postal Service?
gf3 @ Jan 22nd 2006 1:05PM
shut-up, that was an amazing commercial
Jayaych @ Jan 22nd 2006 2:22PM
What does Jimmy have to say about it? I could care less if Ben Gibbard whines about it, but if Jimmy cares then it might matter. The funny thing is they don't mind when they commercialize their own songs in car or hospital commercials or when Death Cab was on the OC(!), but the Apple ad doesn't even have any of their copywrited material in it. Its not like Ben Gibbard produced and directed the music video. Posts like this are just trying to continue to stir up drama. I thought this was settled last week when I read about it on DIGG. Ben Gibbard is just being over opinionated as usual. Why would he really care anyway, he probably got a multi-million dollar signing bonus when Death Cab signed to Atlantic. He needs to hang on to his indie-cred while he still has any, oh wait there it went...Last word.
jarbles @ Jan 22nd 2006 2:37PM
take the demographic of users who "hate" macintosh, and are always looking for a reason to bash them... i.e. "they only have 1 button." or "OSX hides too much from the user..." then map that to the percentage of geeks who would actually take the time to post on an engadget message board, and you get?? 122?? I see about 122 comments here.
The second apple drops a tack, OMMGASLDJALSJKDJKLSDJKL OMG ASJLKDLAJKSD OMG OASLKDJLAKSDJKSAJKLDAJSKLKJLSADJKLSAKLDJJKL STOP THE BOAT!!! HOLY SHITTTT!!!!!! EVERYONE LOOOK!!;asldasdjk
haha, it's so dumb.
jeff @ Jan 22nd 2006 2:44PM
hahah Apple haters are funny. like this commercial somehow proves Apple is evil and underhanded. you're dumb.
really, though, who cares? it's a commercial, both Apple AND Postal Service are getting more press now that there's this pathetic little "scandal" and everyone's happy.
If anything, (other than the obvious "this is a publicity stunt") all this really amounts to is that Josh & Xander were lazy and just re-used a previous idea they had, but for some crazy reason Apple will get the heat. They are a lucky bunch of self-plagerizing marketers if they get away with this untouched while Apple takes the blame. :P
Eric @ Jan 22nd 2006 3:08PM
frame for frame....
Joel @ Jan 22nd 2006 4:05PM
In addition to my comments above regarding usage, I'd also like to add that unless the band came up with the TREATMENT for the video themselves, which is basically like the screenplay for the video with storyboards, (which is almost never the case, usually the director of the video comes up with several treatments and the band/label picks among them,) the directors who came up with the treatment own that IP.
This of it this way: If Steven King writes a book or a screenplay, he can sell the rights to make that IP into a movie to a production company like Universal Pictures, but he can later sell that same IP to another company to make a video game based on that movie to a different company, or sell the IP to a comic book company like Marvel or DC to make a graphic novel or comic book based on that IP, or even sell the IP to a television network to make a series based on the story.
It happens all the time. This is no different.
If a company like Universal wanted EXCLUSIVE rights to Steven King's story, they'd have to pay a much larger amount of money for that exclusivity.
Since all but the most sensational big-budget pop acts' music videos are often made at very marginal (if any) profit for the director (most directors use music videos like these as an excuse to shoot something for their promo reels, not as a big payday,) an exclusivity agreement is never in the cards...neither SubPop nor The Postal Service should expect an exclusivity they never paid for.
JaEd @ Jan 22nd 2006 4:31PM
wow..... Im glad im not the only one to notice the similarity....honestly the first time i saw the comercial i thought it was The Postal Service's such great heights music video so for about 2.3 seconds i was astonished it was playing on (Cartoon Network?, Discovery Channel?, History Channel?); Cant recall which but whatever the case point is... Its so similar i thought it was the actual music video.
Nick Burns @ Jan 22nd 2006 5:51PM
Found at The Cult Of Mac Blog
http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/cultofmac/index.blog?entry_id=1391048
Sarah Moody of Sub Pop Records (http://www.subpop.com/), The Postal Service's Seattle record company, writes:
"... the Apple commercial is indeed very similar, it wasn't licensed in any form, and was made by the same directors as the Postal Service video. We weren't alerted to the fact that it existed until the day it came out."
-----------
So, since it wasn't licensed, everything is well and good.
Callum @ Jan 22nd 2006 5:54PM
unless the Postal Service's song is 30 seconds long, this is not a side-by-side comparison. it seems to me shooting inside one of those processor building plants is just very dull. there's some cool angles going on- grab what you can. if they were shot by the same director, that explains things.
It would all matter a lot more if the Postal Service were any good, but if the free downloads on their site are anything to go by... hmm, we'll see who lasts longer; another emo band or Apple.
and for the mac-haters; isn't it funny even the name "Apple" isn't original WOOO they totally ripped that off the Bible, and woooo the Beatles rock. John is dead, so's M$- take a look around, its a white world now.
Special_K @ Jan 22nd 2006 7:34PM
Okay, here's what we do know.
*Apple's Ad was shot by the director as TPS' Video
*Apple's Ad was shot in the Intel facilities
*TPS's was shot in Skyworks' facilities
*Most processor facilities look the same
*30 seconds of TPS' video bears a striking resemblence to Apple's ad
What does this tell us? The director went to Skyworks' facilities, navigated his way around the whole labirynth of robots and little processor making doodads and got some good looking shots. Apple then asked the same director, who had experience making good looking videos in processor manufacturing cleanrooms (a very specific skillset), to make an ad for them in a processor manufacturing cleanroom. The director used his prior knowledge of shooting videos in a cleanroom to help him find good shots of the wafer making process and used these shots in the ad, in order to exemplify the manufacturing process.
Based on conjecture, the two videos are simmilar because of their very nature: they both feature the chip making process. What one must realize is that the Postal Service video shows the entire chip making process, and that only maybe 30 seconds out of 270 second video bore any resemblence to the ad, ie. the director used 1/9th of the original footage, and ergo, the rest of the video is different from the ad. The director simply applied past experience (filming the wafer manufacturing process in a processor manufacturing facility's cleanroom) to a new situation. Furthermore, the side-by-side comparison presented by the prosecution is misleading in its manor of displaying the music video. It implies that the clip shown is one continuous section of the video, while it is actually a collage of many different shots spliced together to resemble the ad in question.
I rest my case
Dan @ Jan 22nd 2006 7:42PM
You critics of this "shot for shot" recreation need to get over yourselves.
1. Comparing Apple's position on other company's ripping off its product design is not even in the same ballpark as recreating a marketing concept. Do you people not watch television? Every other commercial that is aired is derivative or ripped off of some other commercial (especially if the original proved to have been effective.) The PS music video is a commercial for the band. PS does not lose money if someone else copies the style or even the exact shot composition from the original. It is a RECREATION.
2. Speaking as someone who has experience in the copyright arena, I can guarantee you that this, in no way, violates any copyright. Now, if Apple used the ORIGINAL footage without permission then this would be a violation, otherwise, no harm. "Look and Feel" or "confusion" issues have no bearing on commercial advertising. I could go out tomorrow and directly copy any commercial airing and be perfectly within my right to do so. The only possible area of litigation would be if my product was in the same industry as the commercial I copied. However, look at any car commercial and not the distinct similarities. I get confused all the time but that's the marketing biz for you.
3. Did Gus Van Sant get sued for doing a shot by shot recreation of Hitchcock's "Psycho". NO! You know why? Because it is simply a remake which sought to borrow on the popularity of the original. It's a blatent rip off but then, that's Hollywood for you. Van Sant's movie is all original in that the film is his, not Hitchcocks, Period.
4. Apple was obviously borrowing on a tried and true marketing device: exploit a bit of pop culture (in this case a music video) and reapply it to their product. This has been done countless times in commercial advertising and will continue to be so and violates no law or even code of ethics.
5. Look at how many companies are copying the iPod ads. Interestingly enough, Apple is not suing any of those companies. Why? because Apple does not make money from airing iPod ads. Postal Service likewise, makes no money selling its music video. The video was made to sell albums. Both are ads, both are originals. Now, if Creative did a shot by shot recreation of the iPod ads to promote their own player you might see a suit but the reason you never see this kind of blatant rip-off of a competitor's commercial is because it would end up reinforcing the brand image of the competitor and thus, would be counter-productive.
Rob Green @ Jan 23rd 2006 11:07AM
As a Postal Service fan that is currently on his second iPod (last one died a horrible clicky death), I have to say I'm disappointed that Apple and the ad agency responsible hadn't seen fit check this advert with anybody first.
They've pissed Intel off with their accusations about Intel processors now being used in something decent, and now they want to piss off a decent indie group by stealing ideas.
It'd be remarkable if Apple showed some actual originality, rather than marketing lots of products in white plastic boxes that tend to break all the time and have to be shipped back to another country just so they can tell you it's broken.
Maybe I can try and blag back stage passes at the Death Cab For Cutie gig in Glasgow this year, I'm sure Ben Gibbard and I could have a lot of fun jumping up and down on Powerbooks :o)
Eric Carroll @ Jan 23rd 2006 11:59AM
Yeah, as a Film-maker, I just don't understand taking the EXACT same shots... Even if they wanted to replicate the exact look and fell, they didn't have to use the same shots again... Honestly, change some angles, change the order of the cuts... SOMETHING...
Just a bizarre choice by "Josh and Xander"... Unless they made those choices as a result of Apple coming back to them with the "Such Great Heights" video and saying things like NO, like THIS!
But for some reason, I doubt that that is the case...
Krizoitz @ Jan 23rd 2006 12:08PM
Look, its this simple:
Apple's ad agency hired these guys to make an ad. They had allready done something similar, and most likely they owned the creative rights to use that similar (or even the exact same footage) again. Unless there was some deal with the band to actually own the IP rights to the ad, they are just blowing smoke. Maybe before people go off the handle blaming Apple (as so many bitter PC users are wont to do) they should get the FACTS.
Bob Crane @ Jan 23rd 2006 1:29PM
The Postal Service is "upset" that Apple borrowed from their ideas? Sh*t, if Apple thought enough of something i came up with to borrow from it, i'd be jumping out of my skin! I'm sure the free promotion and "scandal" from this event will line the pockets of The Postal Service's members quite nicely.
The whole "Look and Feel" controversy was settled after Apple's own suit against Microsoft was gunned down. I'm actually surprised that MS hasn't released a line of personal MP3 players called the uPod.
Anyone who calls Apple "evil" has short-term memory. Check your history books. And Bill Gates's bank account(s).
The ZeroCorpse @ Jan 23rd 2006 2:44PM
Agree with #49. Apple is not an advertising agency. Apple makes computers. The ad agency that made this and showed it to Apple as their original creation are the ones who should be complained to.
Now, that being said, who cares. Seriously: The Postal who?
I'll buy Apple products, but I can safely say I'm not putting anything by the Postal whatsits on my iPod. Bland modern crap. No thanks.
wes @ Jan 23rd 2006 4:18PM
"If the postal service was so worried about indie cred and not selling out, why would they allow a cover of the song 'such great heights' (by another SubPop band, Iron & Wine) to appear in an M&Ms commercial all the time?"
such great heights was originally performed by phil collins, i'm sure the Postals had no say in that. -
sproket @ Jan 23rd 2006 4:23PM
Also, not mentioned here but even without paying any attention to the whole rip-off debacle. The voiceover by keifer southerland talking about intel chips doing "boring little tasks" up till now is another low for Apple.
Way to try to insult the technology you are about to use in your own product apple...
Not to mention that i wouldn't call the huge catalog of PC games that don't even exist on a Mac "dull little tasks".
Jobs even went as far as to lie about how well the chip performs in new macs stating it was 2-3 times faster than the G5, when tests have shown it more like 10% 15% faster.
Not only is Jobs an insulting pompus jerk, he is a liar on top of it.
wes @ Jan 23rd 2006 4:26PM
oops. i was thinking about against all odds when i posted the above, please ignore what i said.
dpm @ Jan 24th 2006 7:38PM
OK People! Listen up! Do any of you understand how the advertising business works? Let me lay it out for you:
A: Apple's ad agency is TBWA ChiatDay and has been for a very long time.
Chiat comes up with a set of pitches presented to Apple on storyboards and little spec videos. Let me repeat, Chiat comes up with the ads, NOT Apple! If you have an issue with this ad, take it up with Chiat at: karin.schaer@tbwachiat.com (She's in PR-let her have it!)
B: Apple's management decides which concept they like based on these pitches and Chiat moves forward by pulling from their pool of contracted directors to produce the final product. Now if anyone thinks that the folks at Apple have the time on their hands to investigate the original content percentage of the final idea, please join us in a little place we call........ Reality!
C: The directors of this commercial (FYI: many music video directors shoot commercials because they pay ten times as well) decided to use the same concept as the one used for The Postal Service, for whatever reason.
Question, were they forthcoming with Chiat and Apple about how the concept was used in the past? Did Apple corporate even know about the original music video? Who Knows! And really, Who Cares!
Please remember that advertising is not known for being a nurturing environment in which originality thrives, dah! If anyone deserves a hit for this it's ChiatDay since they get paid to deliver the ad product and should be on their stinkin toes after the whole stupid Eminem mess.
At the end of the day, Bush is tapping our phones, our soldiers are dying, etc.. so I think we all have other more pressing matters to fret about! Move on!
Vote4Pedro @ Jan 25th 2006 2:55PM
I really hate the postal service for charging us 2 additional cents for sending regular mail! :-P
Ben @ Feb 2nd 2006 2:10PM
I don't know what you're all talking about. It's so clear that the Apple ad is nothing like the video from the Postal Service (whose name in itself is infringing on a government agency!) - But check it out, in the apple ad the camera zooms out of a computer, the postal service zooms out of a satellite... it's like comparing Ice Ice Baby to Under Pressure.
Flick @ Feb 5th 2006 3:10PM
Kinda funny that this is seen as "selling out". We want our artists to make it big and to catch on, but as soon as they do something that might bring them some nice royalties it's seen as "selling out". Was it an oversight on Apple's part or a gaff from the producer? Apple still is king in my book, and I'll still enjoy Postal Service.
ben @ Feb 9th 2006 1:04PM
A small problem with the Apple defenders in this instance. First off, we have a company with a history of ripping things off. (even the mouse was stolen from xerox and then claimed as their own)
Their "dancing silhouette" ad was stolen from a little company in Seattle or somewhere and they then went on to try and sue other companies for ripping of "their ad campaign"
Some here keep saying that Apple probably had no idea that the production team that made the ad had already done a music video exactly like it. A couple of simple questions can show how ignorant these comments are:
1. Has Apple ever worked with these particular people before? Nope.
2. So why did they choose them this time? Did they have any sample materials to provide Apple to convince them that they were the right team for the (lucrative) job? Just a music video.
3. Did Apple see the Such Great Heights video before approving the ad? They probably saw it before even asking the do to make their ad...it was almost certainly the [i]reason[/i] they were asked to do the ad.
4. What are the odds that a company like Apple would randomly choose a production house for an ad that is to feature the inside of a chip fab plant and cleansuited workers looking into each other's eyes without having known that this little company had just done a music video (for a pretty popular song) featuring the exact same content? Closer to zero than I care to examine.
5. People claiming that they've already "sold out" by putting their songs in various commercials need to realize that, because they maintain the rights to that song, they get royalty payments for its use. In the M&M commercial's particular case, Both TPS and Iron & Wine will get royalties. One for the writing credit and one for the performance credit, as the version of "such great heights" on the M&Ms commercial is the one performed by I&W.
6. Is anyone at fault for this in a purely legal sense? It's difficult to claim "parody" status when there is no pun or joke being imposed. Analogies to Rembrant comissioning a painting are not valid in the slightest. A more appropriate analogy: I pay my friend to write a jingle for my new TV show, "Meet Your Maker." I pay him outright for the entire jingle. He wrote it, but he sold it to me, rights and all, so if I want to sell the jingle later, I can do so, and there's nothing my friend can do about it. Well, 2 years later, my friend writes a jingle with the same melody and chords and sells it to microsoft to be their new slogan jingle for Windows 91. It can be argued (and has been successfully argued in past cases) that my copyright has been intentionally violated. Who I should draw my lawsuit against depends on the particulars of the case, but if I own the rights to the jingle, then I can get a court injunction against microsoft to stop them from using my copyrighted work without attribution.
Past cases where a court has ruled in the plaintiff's favor in a situation exactly like this? George Harrison's song "My Sweet Lord" sounded too much like "She's So Fine" and he lost the lawsuit. The Verve's "Bittersweet Symphony" sounded too much like the Rolling Stones song "The Last Time" and they lost the lawsuit. Willie Dickson's song "You Need Love" was copied by Led Zeppelin and changed into their famous "Whole Lotta Love" without Dickson's approval or consent. He went to court and Zep settled for a large, undisclosed sum.
Because in some of those instances, like the Verve's song, a sample was involved, it's reasonable to expect that someone other than the band themselves instigated the actual copying. In fact, it was probably a producer or mixing engineer who found the clip and stuck it in the song. It's even possible that the Verve didn't know where it came from. That they did was not asserted in the lawsuit against them. The producer, not part of the band, was not sued. The company that claimed the copyright for the music, the Verve, was sued.
I PROMISE you that Apple bought the entire rights to that ad. In essence, they purchased a stolen car. Look up what happens when you buy a stolen car if you want to know if Apple can be held liable for this...
Chad @ Feb 16th 2006 10:27AM
Thats a pretty pathetic song. Seems like just the kind of music apple and its customers would be into.
blindzero @ Jul 5th 2007 2:33PM
It all depends on who owns the rights to the music vid AND the footage. If the director still owns the footage or music video, he can re-do whatever he wants with the footage. It makes no difference WHATSOEVER. If he want's to cannibalize himself to make an ad, it's his perogative. I personally think it's a little hackish, but hey...it's still legal.
Even Kubrick used footage from things he shot for other films in later films. In those cases It was his footage. He even sold some of it out to other moviemakers to use for establishing shots.
If directors of the music vid didn't have the rights, the directors have very little scruples because they went through the trouble of resetting every shot the same (or used the exact same footage).