or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung ad gets applause for copying Apple?s iPhone spot from 2007
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung ad gets applause for copying Apple?s iPhone spot from 2007 - Page 3

post #81 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by WardC View Post
 

I see a HUGE lawsuit coming. The kind that will put Sumscum out of business ONCE and FOR ALL. They are really going down the wrong path with this one. This is infringement.

 

Nope.   I'm no fan of Samsung, but there's no infringement when you copy the style or concept of an ad that played years ago.    For all we know, it might have even come out of the same agency.     There's no confusion.  No one who sees that ad will think that it's for an Apple product.      I think it makes Samsung look pathetic (for those in the know, although Samsung is probably counting on the fact that no one will remember the Apple ad), but it's not something they're going to get sued over, just laughed at. 

 

I really wonder why Samsung feels the need to constantly copy (and steal from) Apple.   It doesn't appear to me that they steal designs for their TVs, which are actually quite unique.   They're not copying Sony or Panasonic.   If they're able to make their TVs unique I really wonder why it doesn't even seem like they try to vary from Apple's designs, right down to the packaging. 

post #82 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Who said Sammy even obtained the rights?

 

I work in the area of rights management and there is no doubt in my mind that they got and paid for the rights to those clips.  

Copying the concept of Apple's commercial can't get them sued, but you can't even use clips like that in a not-for-profit documentary without permission.   Using them to sell a product is about as big a violation as you can make.     There's a few old movies in which the original copyrights weren't renewed and are now in the public domain (like the silent "Phantom of the Opera", for which Universal didn't bother to renew the copyright in 1953), but aside from those few, you HAVE to pay for the rights to clips or soundtrack elements or you get sued very big time if you don't.   Hanna-Barbera ("The Jetsons") and Star Trek are very well protected.   If they didn't have the rights there would have already been a "cease and desist" order sent.         

post #83 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

... For all we know, it might have even come out of the same agency. ...

If it is out of the same agency, they will be up for the most stupid agency award!

Future prospective client company to agency rep: "fI we give you our business and work with you to develop our ad campaign, how do we know you won't turn around and sell the same concept to one of our competitors to use against us, as you did with Apple and Samsung?"

Agency rep (with fingers crossed) to prospective client: "Oh no, we wouldn't. We could could never do that twice."

1wink.gif
post #84 of 101

The Galaxy Gear poster, fit man's hand wearing suit holding Note 3, sure I get that, but then he's wearing a clown watch ... 

post #85 of 101

Though I have no love for Samsung I think it's very hypocritical to call Samsung out on this commercial when it wasn't Apple's idea from the start, they borrowed/stoled it from Christian Marclays. When Apple asked Marclay if they could use his concept he said no, Apple used it anyway. The lawyer for Marclays stated that there wasn't anything that could have been done, so I don't think Apple has a case either nor do I think they should pursue one since it wasn't their's from the beginning.

 

http://blogs.walkerart.org/centerpoints/2007/03/29/christian-marclays-new-iphone-ad/


Edited by Relic - 10/8/13 at 5:35am
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #86 of 101
omg, and I thought the commercial looked really cool, I never saw this iPhone ad!
post #87 of 101

Between the "awesome" ad and the fire sale they're doing with T-Mobile (30% off), I'm sure many will jump all over this... then most will return it...

 

http://www.tmonews.com/2013/10/public-service-annoucement-use-coupon-code-to-receive-30-off-samsung-galaxy-gear/

post #88 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedGeminiPA View Post
 

Between the "awesome" ad and the fire sale they're doing with T-Mobile (30% off), I'm sure many will jump all over this... then most will return it...

 

http://www.tmonews.com/2013/10/public-service-annoucement-use-coupon-code-to-receive-30-off-samsung-galaxy-gear/

I agree, though I don't think it's it the execution of the device that is the problem it is the entire concept of a smart watch that I think to be a failure. I haven't had a chance to play with one but I have messed around with a I'm Watch. Yes it was interesting but I lost total interest in about 10 minutes. Just couldn't see me wearing, wanting or using one. Apple may have a better design and software and will defiantly sell a lot of them to the Apple faithful in the beginning but I foresee a lot of people leaving them behind on their night stands after a week maybe even a day of use. I might be wrong but how many people actually wear watches anymore, if I do it's for nice dinners or nights out on the town but then it's a Rolex. 

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #89 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by city View Post

Samsung could get mileage by reviving the "Intel Inside" ads, as in "Samsung Inside" the iPhone.

Right. Because Apple participates in the "Intel Inside" co-branding program. Oh wait: they don't. Keep dreaming.

Indeed, that was a stupid comment. Besides, Apple pays Intel to not use their stickers on their hardware, which is mandatory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Looking at the image below, can anybody tell me if the focus is on the devices that Samsung proudly claims are so innovative, or whether it's on the little egotistical twit up on stage?




That's right.

There is only one correct answer.

Can't answer that before I understand why they would fold the flex display inwards, making it useless on a wrist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Though I have no love for Samsung I think it's very hypocritical to call Samsung out on this commercial when it wasn't Apple's idea from the start, they borrowed/stoled it from Christian Marclays. When Apple asked Marclay if they could use his concept he said no, Apple used it anyway. The lawyer for Marclays stated that there wasn't anything that could have been done, so I don't think Apple has a case either nor do I think they should pursue one since it wasn't their's from the beginning.


http://blogs.walkerart.org/centerpoints/2007/03/29/christian-marclays-new-iphone-ad/

Point taken. But do we know if Apple paid royalties for the use of these clips?
post #90 of 101
I'm baffled why they would copy an Apple ad so closely. I don't think it was so much because they couldn't come up with something else; rather I think they are hoping by mimicking the ad so closely people will think of the Gear in the same way they think of the iphone. If it wasn't for the "samsung" at the end you could probably show that commercial to an uninformed audience and they would think it was an Apple product given just the style of the ad (much less the exact copy of an ad) which very much screams Apple. In that regard Samsung may have accomplished what they set out to do, to attempt to blur the lines between the two products...until someone buys the product and it doesn't work as well as an Apple product should.
post #91 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


But do we know if Apple paid royalties for the use of these clips?

See my post above about whether Samsung paid.    There is no way Apple didn't pay for the rights to the clips.   They would have been sued by everyone who owns the rights if they didn't.    You can only get away not paying when you "steal" from public domain works.    All the works in the Samsung and Apple spots are well known and well-protected.   

post #92 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

But do we know if Apple paid royalties for the use of these clips?
See my post above about whether Samsung paid.    There is no way Apple didn't pay for the rights to the clips.   They would have been sued by everyone who owns the rights if they didn't.    You can only get away not paying when you "steal" from public domain works.    All the works in the Samsung and Apple spots are well known and well-protected.   

Indeed, paying for it would be expected. Thanks.
post #93 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Who said Sammy even obtained the rights?

This is a ridiculous assertion, which isn't something I would have expected from you. They don't even have to deal with it directly. Their ad agency would have included them as line items or invoices related to the job.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post
 

Though I have no love for Samsung I think it's very hypocritical to call Samsung out on this commercial when it wasn't Apple's idea from the start, they borrowed/stoled it from Christian Marclays. When Apple asked Marclay if they could use his concept he said no, Apple used it anyway. The lawyer for Marclays stated that there wasn't anything that could have been done, so I don't think Apple has a case either nor do I think they should pursue one since it wasn't their's from the beginning.

 

http://blogs.walkerart.org/centerpoints/2007/03/29/christian-marclays-new-iphone-ad/

I was actually wondering if anyone would post that here.

post #94 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

This is a ridiculous assertion, which isn't something I would have expected from you. They don't even have to deal with it directly. Their ad agency would have included them as line items or invoices related to the job.

Relax, I was joking. The MPAA and whatever the TV assoc. is called takes these things seriously. But Sammy being Sammy...
post #95 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Relax, I was joking. The MPAA and whatever the TV assoc. is called takes these things seriously. But Sammy being Sammy...

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with those orgs. It's the content owners who would be suing.
post #96 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Relax, I was joking. The MPAA and whatever the TV assoc. is called takes these things seriously. But Sammy being Sammy...


Blarg. I'm so used to reading that kind of comment on here that I've lost the ability to discern jokes :(. As for Sammy being Sammy, as I mentioned it's likely filtered through their ad agency.

post #97 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I was actually wondering if anyone would post that here.

I have to wonder if Christian Marclays got permission from each and every owner for the content he used for his 1995 film Telephones. That seems like a tall order.
post #98 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post


I have to wonder if Christian Marclays got permission from each and every owner for the content he used for his 1995 film Telephones. That seems like a tall order.


Huh? Ad agencies handle that stuff on a regular basis. It's merely a matter of licensing the clips for a specific range of usage. You are not buying out the rights to a given clip. The fee is always dependent on how they will be used. Anyway do not assume that it wasn't done simply because it's a lot of work. This stuff happens all the time, even if it is not typically on that scale.

post #99 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


Huh? Ad agencies handle that stuff on a regular basis. It's merely a matter of licensing the clips for a specific range of usage. You are not buying out the rights to a given clip. The fee is always dependent on how they will be used. Anyway do not assume that it wasn't done simply because it's a lot of work. This stuff happens all the time, even if it is not typically on that scale.

I haven't assumed any such thing but it sounds like you assumed I did just as you assumed that he and Apple obtained all the proper licenses. Do you really know? I certain don't, hence the pondering.
post #100 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 


Huh? Ad agencies handle that stuff on a regular basis. It's merely a matter of licensing the clips for a specific range of usage. You are not buying out the rights to a given clip. The fee is always dependent on how they will be used. Anyway do not assume that it wasn't done simply because it's a lot of work. This stuff happens all the time, even if it is not typically on that scale.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post


I haven't assumed any such thing but it sounds like you assumed I did just as you assumed that he and Apple obtained all the proper licenses. Do you really know? I certain don't, hence the pondering.

Oh, it's easy to know because if companies don't get permission, there are lawsuits and we always seems to know when Apple gets sued.     I manage the development of rights management software for a living.    Every media, publishing, advertising and content development company, whether a licensee or licensor or both, have departments dedicated to this, whether they manage it using a spreadsheet or use enterprise software like the stuff that I work on.   Everything has a right associated to it.   And it all must be cleared.      

 

Sometimes companies do make mistakes in that they imply they have rights when they don't, but that usually is restricted to the cases where they've bought some rights, but use the content for a right they don't really have.   For example, let's say you bought the right to use some content on broadcast television.    Does that include cable TV?   Does it include VOD?   Does it include web distribution if it's streaming in real time just like the broadcast?     If you bought DVD rights, does that automatically include Blu-ray rights if you bought the DVD rights before Blu-ray existed?     Let's say you buy the right to some footage that has music in it.   Did the composer or performer sign away their rights in the media that you're now using it in?    

 

If you have a program or clip with music, the music (which is considered an elemental right) must be cleared separately from the program itself.    And if the music is from a recording, you have to clear both the publishing right (where the fees go to the publisher and/or the writers) and the performance right (where the fees go to the label).

 

When you watch a movie and there's a scene in someone's "apartment" and there's some poster on the wall in the background, if it's recognizable, even that has to be cleared (although I personally think that such passive uses should be fair use).   

 

Etc.      But it does get complicated and one can think that a clip is in the public domain and use it and have someone sue them anyway who claims to own the rights, but may not really.

 

When I read all these posts about, "did they get the rights?", it makes me laugh.    If it's something that's been seen on major media from a major company, believe me, they got the rights.    If they didn't, they would have had a "cease and desist" order or a lawsuit very quickly after first broadcast.    The only exception would be where the rights holder can't be found and the lawyer says they can take a risk and if someone sues, they'll find a way to settle.  

 

That's also why when some TV shows ("WKRP In Cincinnati" and "Crime Story" come to mind) go to home video, they lose their original music - the original music was licensed only for broadcast and it's now too expensive to license those hit songs for home video use.

post #101 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post


I haven't assumed any such thing but it sounds like you assumed I did just as you assumed that he and Apple obtained all the proper licenses. Do you really know? I certain don't, hence the pondering.


I implied that no large corporation or ad agency would merely assume they could get away without obtaining the appropriate licenses due to risk of litigation. In this case at least the majority of that content is owned by large companies with extensive legal resources. It's unlikely that anyone would play dumb with them. If any of these clips were not properly licensed, it would be due to mismanagement of the project, which would reflect poorly on both the producers of the advertisement once their clients became aware of it. Typically a job budget would include associated licensing costs. Adding costs of litigation would inevitably push it over budget, so while I can't explicitly prove that they obtained every license, I can say that it's extremely unlikely that someone in charge of the project wrote this off as an unimportant matter.

 

 

I would also point out that no team would be awarded a project of that magnitude without prior experience.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung ad gets applause for copying Apple?s iPhone spot from 2007