http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/ Engadget Comments for Adgadget: Apple - flattered and photocopied http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2010 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/May 3rd 2007 9:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/lilabit@hotmail.com Thanks for your participation.]]>May 6th 2007 10:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/
Not my usual kind of post but I figured might as well have some fun seeing as its the end of the work day and all =;)]]>May 3rd 2007 7:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/May 3rd 2007 8:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/May 4th 2007 9:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/May 4th 2007 11:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/May 4th 2007 11:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/May 3rd 2007 8:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/
Marketing works!]]>May 3rd 2007 8:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/May 3rd 2007 8:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/
Funny how a company that accuses others of copying and sues anyone with "-pod" in it has so many copycat commercials. Do you think it'll backfire?]]>May 3rd 2007 8:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/May 3rd 2007 9:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/
And the Lugz and eminem ad were really not that similar. You might as well accuse every ad with orange in it of being a copycat as well.

But the iPhone and 'such great heights'.. yeah spurious rips. life imitating art. etc. etc.]]>May 4th 2007 1:24AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/How many OS' have you seen that look exactly alike? Phones? MP3 players? 5 hundred bazillion?
]]>May 3rd 2007 9:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/ I agree. The commercial was decent, but I honestly am not impressed by the iPhone. The hype surrounding this thing is huge, but according to a Cingular poll, only 6% of people were interested in buying it.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/05/01/iphonesurvey/index.php

And on top of this, have people forgotten the price? Okay, so a next-gen game system with superior stats, a Blu-Ray player (which is ridiculously cheap compared to others) and a practical media center isn't worth $500-600, but phone is? Ridiculous...and I am by no means supporting the PS3...]]>May 3rd 2007 9:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/May 3rd 2007 11:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/May 3rd 2007 9:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/
Selectively avoiding facts is about as bad as just making them up. It's pathetic that you need to sidestep the facts of an issue to try to bring it up as evidence. Your credibility is shot.

"While the iPhone commercial may have made Microsoft and Oscar viewers ask when exactly the "Wow" was supposed to start, it at least accomplished a few tasks error-free."

Ignoring the fact that you're writing about something that's months past and has little or no relevance at this point, your writing is tripe, has no flow, and in parts like the above quote, makes little sense. It may be time to go back and take another College English class.]]>May 3rd 2007 9:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/May 3rd 2007 10:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/
If argument-shifting information is only in a link and not in the article, as far as i'm concerned, it's selective evidence.

Maybe that's just me - but i sort of assume "maybe that's just me" is a presumed precursor to any comment. ]]>May 4th 2007 12:47AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/
1) TBWA Chiat team sees Marclay's obscure doc, realizes its value as an iPhone spot, talks to their producer, who talks with the broadcast legal department, who advises that they contact the director of the thing they want to rip off--even though they are exposing themselves to a lawsuit by doing so if Marclay refuses permission. He does, and Apple/Chiat goes ahead anyway.

OR

2) One of the TBWA Chiat creatives, the internal presentation deadline looming, says, "Hey, what if we just get scenes of famous movies where people are answering the phone and cut it all together. It's got a bunch of dead starf*cking, which Apple totally loves."

Advertising is one of the most useless, insidious and derivative industries around. I know. I work in it. But this...essay?... is ridiculous as a piece of journalism. She didn't contact Apple or Chiat for a comment. Marclay doesn't even suggest he has proof of being contacted by Chiat or Apple--and that's the real red flag.

No broadcast producer in their right mind would EVER contact the director of something the creatives ripped off. That's why when random people send unasked-for ad ideas to agencies or clients they immediately get a 'WE DON'T TAKE SPEC ADS' letter, because they don't want to be sued.

Similarities? Sure. Possible ripoff? Yeah, I can give you that. But the story that Marclay was actually contacted by Apple or Chiat? Gimme a break. And give the "prose" a break, too.]]>May 3rd 2007 10:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/quite correct. Last year I attended a recruiting session for a
popular ad agency during which they presented some of their work. Interestingly, they showed an ad they produced for a local radio station which featured a blacked out girl and guy dancing to music in front of a solid green background - sound
familiar? It should, as it appears to have formed the basis of the
iPod campaign. The presenter even commented on how they felt ripped
off. Knowing this, I find it tough to praise APPL on its originality whenever I see an iPod advert (which is often).]]>May 3rd 2007 10:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/
He's an established artist, sure (although that doesn't mean much monetarily, really) but his art primarily consists of sampling and manipulating films, records, and other media without any permission from the original artists, musicians or filmmakers. He steals for a living - so what if somebody steals from him? That's art, baby.

I imagine it would have hurt his street cred to take the money from Apple, but it probably would've hurt more if he got all up in arms about this. (Not to mention the legal fees.)]]>May 3rd 2007 10:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/May 3rd 2007 10:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/May 3rd 2007 10:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/03/adgadget-apple-flattered-and-photocopied/
I guess it depends on how you look at it — and whether you love, hate, or tolerate Apple — but the truth is, Marclay's piece was a rip-off of a number of other clip jobs. One, as I recall, was a sixty-second review of all of the great movies up until that year, 1984 or '85, if memory serves. It was followed by (and preceded by, as far as I know) dozens of other similar movie clip shorts. Maybe Apple, or its ad agency, stole the piece. Or maybe someone said, "Hey, remember that Oscar piece this/last/some other year?" and someone else said, "Hey, some guy did something just like that. Let's see if we can get the rights." And then Legal said, "Rights? RIGHTS? We don't got to get no stinkin' rights — Marclay don't own the stinkin' rights 'cause he ripped it off from somebody else." And so it goes.

Is anyone clean here?

The answer is no.]]>May 3rd 2007 11:06PM