http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/ Engadget Comments for Apple's ad sinks to such great lows http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
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... ]]>Feb 9th 2006 1:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/Feb 16th 2006 10:27AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
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). ]]>Jul 5th 2007 2:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/Jan 21st 2006 5:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
]]>Jan 21st 2006 5:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/Jan 21st 2006 5:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
This is my surprised face.]]>Jan 21st 2006 5:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/Jan 21st 2006 5:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
The directors, however, should have gave the Service a heads up. I think this is more poor form from them than from Apple. Honestly, though, it's tough for the Postal Service to say they totally got dissed for absolutely no reason:

Postal Service: "Hey we have a song about a relationship. We have a video about manufacturing microprocessors!"

Apple: "Hey, we have a computer with new microprocessors. We have a commercial about manufacturing microprocessors!"

Which makes more sense to you?

(As an aside, I like the Postal Service/Death Cab for Cutie just fine).
]]>Jan 21st 2006 5:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
Steve Jobs, at the MacWorld tradeshow, boasted: 'the new iMac [with] Intel processor is two to three times faster than the iMac G5.'

MacWorld magazine has reported http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/features/imaclabtest1/index.php that the real proformance increase was around 10-25%

All ripped from slashdot.org http://www.slashdot.org]]>Jan 21st 2006 5:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/May 19th 2010 6:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/Jan 21st 2006 5:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/Considering how lawsuit happy Stevie-J has been these last few years, I think it is only fair for the tables to be turned on them.
Even before I learned about this angle, I was pretty disappointed in Apple for dogging the very company that has put them in the position to double their market share over the next few years. I think it shows just how much of a class act Otellini is that he didn't walk back on stage after the ad played and crammed that bunny suit right up Steve's pompous ass.

Loyalty to business partners hasn't exactly been a strong suit of Apple's though anyhow. Look at how fast they bailed on Samsung.]]>Jan 21st 2006 5:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/Jan 21st 2006 5:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
Fishes,
narco. ]]>Jan 21st 2006 6:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
If you bought a limited edition painting from an artist (say, #2 of 10), you couldn't really be upset if 9 other people bought the other copies of the same work. But if you commissioned the artist to create a logo for your company, then that logo belongs to you, not the artist, and another company cannot buy the same logo from him and use it as their own.]]>Jan 21st 2006 6:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
Look at the Lugz/eminem itunes ad situation from a couple months ago. Lugz obviously didnt sue, and the ad is still on the air. It's because they have no case unless apple took the actual footage from the original work and used it in their commercial.

Ideas cannot be copyrighted, and the idea of a video of a clean room where microprocessors are made isn't something that can be sued over. sucessfully anyways...]]>Jan 21st 2006 6:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
Now, enough already! ]]>Jan 21st 2006 6:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
first, the original silhouette ipod ad ads were ripped from a seattle radio station..apples excuse: it was the same director..not our problem.

second, the eminem ad that blatantly ripped off a Lugz commercial. apples excuse: no comment

now this, ripping off the Postal Service music video. apples excuse: it was the same director..not our problem.

For a company who relies on their image as being creative, apple really needs to start being creative.]]>Jan 21st 2006 6:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/Jan 21st 2006 6:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
This is just some band I've never heard of trying to get free publicity. ]]>Jan 21st 2006 6:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/Postal Service´s lawyers said no.
They found out later that Apple also hired Postal Service´s lawyers, too.]]>Jan 21st 2006 6:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
crapple?
or
aphypocriteple
hmm]]>Jan 21st 2006 6:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
http://video.download.com/3800-11167_53-1100.html?tag=vdl_prefs_watch_tmp

Now I just need to watch the Apple commercial. Any links?]]>Jan 21st 2006 6:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/Jan 21st 2006 6:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
Could it be a coincidence that a song released 2 years ago would suddenly see their music video featured in one of the 3 banners of the iTunes store, at the same time there's a "controversy" involving Apple stealing somebody's music video?

Is it possible that the Apple/Josh & Xander are dumb enough to reuse the ad without consulting The Postal Service, or thinking The Postal Service won't find out about it?

Do you think The Postal Service is part of this "ooooh I'm soooo pissed off" publicity stunt? It's a beautiful headline that everyone loves to be furious about - "Corporate America stealing from Poor Creative Starving Artists"

Everyone of you suckers are so ducking fumb.]]>Jan 21st 2006 6:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/This just gives Apple more attention, although a bit more negative than positive.
if Apple paid the label and the band beforehand it wouldn't have been an issue, it's probably what Jobs should have done. Maybe for some legal reason it's perfectly fine to do what Apple did, but doesn't necessarily make it 'cool'. I can see how the band would be pissed to see their video copied on an ad regardless of the company. But the accusations of 'commercialization' make my cynical eyes roll.]]>Jan 21st 2006 6:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5600934255578934893&q=postal+service]]>Jan 21st 2006 6:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
http://www.apple.com/intel/ads/]]>Jan 21st 2006 6:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/Jan 21st 2006 6:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/Jan 21st 2006 6:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"

The directors for the original, were hired by Apple. This isn't imitation. And the band should shut up, they have nothing to do with the direction of the video.

So why the noise? Well.. guys like CNET need something to talk about and rinkydink bands like.. eh.. PostalService?.. need to keep this amazing publicity going...

And Apple? They're hands are clean. And the iMacs are fast.

]]>Jan 21st 2006 6:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
You cannot copyright ideas, but you can copyright the expression of those ideas. A shot for shot remake, if it is indeed the case, would be (ahem) a good case.

This isn't an issue of "look and feel," but rather a principle called "likelihood of confusion." While I'm not making a judgment over whether a jury would find that the commercial is either easily confused with the video or more likely, find that a reasonable person would think the band was somehow associated with or endorsed the product, but it would not be a frivolous suit in the eyes of a court if it was filed.

Check out Lyons v. Morris Costumes for an example. As an aside, even parodies can have legal consequences - Vanna White v. Samsung.]]>Jan 21st 2006 6:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
However, it doesn't matter if the band had anything to do with the direction of the video. If they hired the directors and as a result of the contract own the rights to the video, they'd have a case. Heck, if you just moved here from Antarctica and were given the exclusive rights, then you'd have a case against Apple and the directors. Your involvement in making the film doesn't mean anything in that case.]]>Jan 21st 2006 6:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/mwsf06/ the ad is in the last quarter of the speech... It's unfortunate that the guys who made both the video and the ad used the same footage, it may not be illegal but it does lack originality...]]>Jan 21st 2006 6:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/Jan 21st 2006 6:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
Every frame, from the moment the woman looks up to her colleague, to the moment the chip is in the picture, is exactly the same - same motion, same compositions, same colors, almost the same music - with the exception that the chip now writes Intel (with a more crisp image), and the actor is stripped out of her emotion, which hinted a love relationship in the original music video. It is easy to conclude that

With this stripped-down movie and without a word, it sounds like Apple is declaring that its cold white designs had triumphed emotion.

Apple is doing something that violated design ethics. If it's any other companies I won't care, I will just laugh. But Apple is a company that likes to emphasize on its own brilliant designs.

It is not that I like Postal Service or I hate Apple to make me stand on the side of the Postal Service. That the video directors actually had the guts to duplicate their work is another story, and shows that their creativity and design ethics are both near zero.

On the other side, shame on Apple which specifically asked these video directors to make a duplicate for its own new products. This is a giant blow to its corporate image, when it heralds its products for creative professionals. How can a company that sells video editing software have an ad that is a rip off of someone else's video? With such logic, is it true that a 'creative' giant can rip off less famous artists without being unethical about it? What is so creative about Apple when it rips off someone else's video (not to mention its slogan disses all other computer companies) in such a public manner?

Usually, it can be forgiven by saying that the designers of the products are not responsible for the marketing of them, since two departments are usually not very related in corporations. 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.

The comments on this issue in those sites such as Engadget or TUAW are horrible to read. Despite the zombie-like group of zealots with their arrogant attitudes argued how Apple is still right, it is of no help: No matter how designed the products are, they don’t make their users creative designers, they just make a bunch of arrogant socialites who uses iPod has the symbol of their social status.

If Apple does not apologize publicly for Such Great Mistake, I, as a creative professional, will be every bit disgusted when using an Apple - with the horror of using a hypocritical machine that one day may rip any designers' work - not to mention that I am already annoyed as hell by the incinerator fans of the PowerMac G5s.]]>Jan 21st 2006 6:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/Jan 21st 2006 7:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
I think Postal and Subpop should keep yelling (but not sue), welcome the free publicity, and sell a lot of videos on Itunes.

If I was Apple and they did have the gall to sue, I would pull them from itunes quicker then you can say Death Cab for Cutie.


]]>Jan 21st 2006 7:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/Jan 21st 2006 7:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
As far as Apple ripping off a music video... well, frankly, I could care less about that.]]>Jan 21st 2006 7:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
Now, if I were part of the band I'd make a big stink, too, publicity is everything. Good for them. ]]>Jan 21st 2006 7:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
Surely if your trying to make a new product stand out and look sophisticated, you need a unique and clever ad to do it?

Rehashing a music video and taking a cheap shot at pcs with a half hearted attempt at wit doesnt really seem to do the job.

And for the record Im not bothered about the whole Mac vs PC debate. ]]>Jan 21st 2006 7:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
Besides, tell everyone what SubPop got Johnny:

Well SubPop got front page rotation on the iTunes music store for their video, which folks could then download for $1.99 and SubPop got a nice chunk out of that. And of course folks were then free to go download a couple tracks as well and SubPop got a taste of that action too. Plus scads of other collateral attention to their label for having found the video artists first.

All that for something that was not "Shot for shot" a rip off. If SubPop has any angst on the deal its probably because their 8" wafers were dramatically smaller than Apple/Intel's 12" wafers. :-)
]]>Jan 21st 2006 7:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/Jan 21st 2006 7:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
5706223 Jan 12 01:26 intel20060110_h.640.mov
5032206 Jan 21 15:51 intel20060117_h.640.mov

I can't tell any difference between them from watching them. Maybe Apple took the subliminals out of the second one? ;-)]]>Jan 21st 2006 7:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
wow... really similar.]]>Jan 21st 2006 7:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
Just wondering if this isn't a planned 'dispute' to get free advertising for both the pop group and apple?

Whatever the case I can't believe there's a real dispute raging between the 2 if apple are promoting the video so heavily]]>Jan 21st 2006 7:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/Jan 21st 2006 7:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/21/apples-ad-sinks-to-such-great-lows/
http://imdb.com/name/nm0488561/]]>Jan 21st 2006 7:28PM