or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Eminem, Apple in settlement talks, ask for trial delay
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Eminem, Apple in settlement talks, ask for trial delay

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 
Apple and rap artist Eminem are looking to settle their legal dispute outside of court, but will need more time to do so.

Lawyers for Eminem's music label, Apple Computer and MTV have asked a federal judge to delay the trial schedule following settlement talks in the rappers copyright infringement suit, according to the Detroit News.

The lawsuit, which was filed in February by Eminem's publisher--Eight Mile Style-- alleges Apple used the song "Lose Yourself" in an advertisement without permission.

In the ad, a 10-year-old sings the lyrics to Eminem's Oscar-winning "Lose Yourself," which was also featured in the rapper's blockbuster flick, "8 Mile." The commercial aired on MTV for at least three months starting in July 2003 and also appeared on Apples Web site, the suit said.

The suit alleges that Apple sought Eminem's permission to use the song, but were turned down, with his lawyers saying even if (Eminem) were interested in endorsing a product, any endorsement deal would require a significant amount of money, possibly in excess of $10 million.

The suit also claims that Apple CEO, Steve Jobs, personally called Joel Martin, the manager of Ferndale-based Eight Mile Style, encouraging Martin and Eminem to "rethink their position" about using the song.

Lawyers for all sides reportedly told U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor this week that they have been engaging in negotiations of a stipulated protective order for several weeks now, in hopes of resolving the case.

Court records also show that "Both (sides) have expressed interest in continuing settlement discussions, but have not yet been able to reach any agreement."

The Detroit News says under the revised schedule, a trial date wouldn't be set until late 2005, with witness lists would be due Dec. 1. Both sides would reportedly be able to question up to 10 people before trial, which may include Eminem and Apple Computer CEO Steve Jobs.
post #2 of 31
Serves Apple right. I hope they have to pay 10 million dollars for being stupid. Not because they tried to get clearance, failed and used the song but rather because there are PLENTY of artists who'd love the exposure and could have been had for much less. Look at Steriogram's success with "Walkie Talkie Man".

I like Eminem but he's "sold out" to me. He'd better start rapping about living in a mansion in the burbs or something. I think he has the right to make money but damn 10 million for a snippet?

on an aside. Note how you haven't seen Chris Tucker in a movie. He's given up 20 million dollars a film to travel to Africa and other areas to help people with Aids. I got respect for someone who's heart has been touched that deeply. Eminem's greed speaks volumes about his character.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #3 of 31
I can't understand why Apple chose to use an Eminem song! I love hip-hop since I was 8 yo, but since when Eminem can be considered a hip-hop artist? Strictly commercial stuff made by a greedy, narrow-minded and sick whitey from the ghetto (at least, that's what he shows to be).

I am a white man and love hip-hop, but Vanilla Ice and Snow proved to the world that white men can't sing hip-hop. They should let it to the real guys in that business and limit themselves to listening. But that's only my opinion...

What I really mean is that some 10 yo boy singing some song made by a commercial artist that earns his money telling how bad her mother was is not something I want to see in an Apple ad! And I am sure no sane people on earth would want that.

Apple could have chosen De La Soul again, as they did in the "Rip, Mix, Burn" ad campaign. Even if they're not on some top-10 list. That is real hip-hop!

More than ever, I hate Eminem!
post #4 of 31
I would disagree with you Ice.

Growing up with Hip Hop I had respect for the Beastie Boys(they always did their own thing) and MC Serch. There have been a few other white hip hoppers that represented well IMO. I think Eminem has immense talent but honestly getting petty over a snippet from your song because folks don't want to pay millions is silly. I think Hailey's college tuition and then some is well paid by now.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #5 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by icebox_br
I can't understand why Apple chose to use an Eminem song! I love hip-hop since I was 8 yo, but since when Eminem can be considered a hip-hop artist? Strictly commercial stuff made by a greedy, narrow-minded and sick whitey from the ghetto (at least, that's what he shows to be).

First off, who cares if he's considered hip-hop or not. I don't think that in itself was a determining factor by apple.

Second, it doesn't matter if you like him or not, he is (was?) very popular, so trying to use his song makes sense from a commercial standpoint. (You're argument about his stuff being commericial kind of explains why it would be used in one - you wouldn't use some way-out-of-the-box artist's work that no one's heard of nor only a few appreciate FOR A COMMERCIAL).
post #6 of 31
Commercial or not...like him personally or not...the fact still remains that apple knowingly used someone's song without permission.

Anyways I don't know if this whole music thing was worth getting into. Seems like all the money Apple has made from ITMS and Ipod is going right back with all these law suits
post #7 of 31
I've been following this story since it came out and one thing that surprised me about today's report is: where's TBWA(sp?)/Chiat Day in all this? (While they may have screwed up this time, keep in mind they did the famous "1984" commercial that's considered one of the all-time greats.)

They are the ad agency who made the commercial in question. This whole thing is really their problem. They're the ones who are supposed to be expert on copyright law to tell whether the use of "Lose Yourself" was fair. Unless they can show that they told Apple that they couldn't use it and Apple told them to go ahead anyway, the blame for this fiasco goes squarely on the shoulders of the ad agency. Case closed, at least from Apple's point of view.

It doesn't matter whether Eminem is a saint or a bastard, whether he is a hack or a genius, he created the song "Lose Yourself" (which won an Academy Award) and it's his prerogrative to use it as he sees fit and deny use to anyone else without cause.

Anyone who doesn't respect basic intellectual property rights is not worthy to participate in this debate. The real issue is who is to blame for this theft; from what I've seen Apple's liability should be minimal.
post #8 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by macFanDave
...it's his prerogrative to use it as he sees fit and deny use to anyone else without cause.

Anyone who doesn't respect basic intellectual property rights is not worthy to participate in this debate. The real issue is who is to blame for this theft; from what I've seen Apple's liability should be minimal.

What about samples? I don't know how much of the song was used, but if it was a sample then I think there's only a minor fee that is to be paid and that fee was set long ago.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #9 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
What about samples? I don't know how much of the song was used, but if it was a sample then I think there's only a minor fee that is to be paid and that fee was set long ago.

I know there are laws about "fair use" and when parts of works can be used for educational, satirical or critical purposes, but it seems to me that this case would have been thrown out long ago if the use were clearly legal.

I'm sure you are right about sampling (you didn't mention if permission needed to be granted or whether the sampler can just pay the fee and use it.) Getting perrmission to use works is also important -- oftentimes these are granted as a courtesy. Eminem explicitly refused to let his music be used for such purposes, so it will be interesting to hear how TBWA/Chiat Day deluded themselves into using it.
post #10 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by macFanDave
I know there are laws about "fair use" and when parts of works can be used for educational, satirical or critical purposes, but it seems to me that this case would have been thrown out long ago if the use were clearly legal.

I'm sure you are right about sampling (you didn't mention if permission needed to be granted or whether the sampler can just pay the fee and use it.) Getting perrmission to use works is also important -- oftentimes these are granted as a courtesy. Eminem explicitly refused to let his music be used for such purposes, so it will be interesting to hear how TBWA/Chiat Day deluded themselves into using it.

I don't even know if the amount of music they used was more or less than the length of a sample, but I thought it was important to note.

From what I understand you don't need to get permission for samples, you just pay the fee. And obviously samples are used for commercial (well, artistic) purposes, so I'm not sure how that would balance out either.

Lastly, if Eminem did explicitly refuse, then someone needs to be fired.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #11 of 31
They didn't even use a sample.

Literally, no sound was taken at all from the song.

It was a kid singing the lyrics for 30 seconds.

post #12 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by Steve
They didn't even use a sample.

Literally, no sound was taken at all from the song.

It was a kid singing the lyrics for 30 seconds.


Well that's f'd up. I don't know what the precedent is for this, but they didn't use his music, just the lyrics. I think ASCAP has fees associated with this as well, but I'm not sure if an artist has the right to veto some else using the song. Probably not (that means anyone willing to pay a set fee can make and sell a cover of an Eminem song).

But again, commercial vs. artistic use could be the deciding factor.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #13 of 31
macfan, you are wrong on this one. the ad agency is not responsible for this. i work at an ad agency and the client (apple) makes the ultimate decision. It is our job to inform them of any possible copyright infringement, but if the client says go, you go. the client is the one who pays you

other than that, i hate eminem. he is a punk who has skills, but is stuck up and thinks he more than he is. he's only human, not a god. he needs to get his attitude in check.
post #14 of 31
A little kid singing along (badly) to a song? It's pathetic that anyone thinks this entitles someone to any money whatsoever.

All legal challenges are essentially bringing the power of a gun to bear on a dispute. So basically, they are pointing a gun and saying, "You showed people a kid singing along to some headphones, pay up or else."

Not a society I'm proud to be living in.
post #15 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by otherguy
...the client (apple) makes the ultimate decision. It is our job to inform them of any possible copyright infringement, but if the client says go, you go. the client is the one who pays you

I'm not wrong and I am not disagreeing with your statement, but I have not seen anything that said that the ad agency warned Apple it was wrong, but Apple said go ahead anyway.

So, if TWBA/Chiat Day said it was OK, then it is INDEED their fault. However, if Apple ignored their warning, it would be Apple's fault. Please show me where the ad agency alerted Apple to potential problems and I'll accept the liability (I am an Apple stockholder so ultimately I will pay for my company's misdeeds.)
post #16 of 31
I would be money that Apple's lawyers are going to argue fair use.

You "have" to get permission from an artist to sample and in many cases pay their fee for the sample. However, as Steve succinctly pointed out, there was no sample but rather sung lyrics for less than 10 seconds.

The performer singing the lyrics is undoubtedly not a professional singer(perhaps a dancer but obviously not a singer) and not one musical note was taken from the orignal performance.

Apple threaded the line here but I do not believe they are guilty. Copyright does not exist to prevent fair use it exists to ensure that there is adequate protection so that artists can profit from their orginal works. Fair Use principals hold that if a performance(satire, parody etc) does not interfere with the copyright holders ability to profit from their work then that usage is ok.

What Eminem's legal beagle is trying to say is that they own the keys and even the citizen on MTV that decides to sing a couple bars of their favorite tune are in copyright violation. That's just not the case. Copyright is not your license to collect money in perpetuity.

Apple could lose this case or they could win. I still feel that Apple should be ashamed though..there are plenty of more deserving artists that could have been highlighted.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #17 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Beastie Boys (...) and MC Serch

Damn! You're right. White men can rap. MC Serch was cool. I gotta be ashmed I forgot about the Beastie Boys.

Well, well... It still doesn't make Eminem any better. AFAICT, I am sure to let my son sing some MC Serch and even some Beastie Boys songs. But hey, my point is still valid: a 10-year-old singing some Eminem song is a bad sign. Very bad sign...

It's pop, it's on the top of many minds, but it's still nasty.

Cheers,
_iCeb0x_
post #18 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by macFanDave
It doesn't matter whether Eminem is a saint or a bastard, whether he is a hack or a genius, he created the song "Lose Yourself" (which won an Academy Award) and it's his prerogrative to use it as he sees fit and deny use to anyone else without cause.

So many right words. It's true. He wrote it, he deserves his money for the use of the excerpt. That's is very true to the American principles, which I admire...

But... How can some things be so right and other things be so wrong?!? That piece of crap wins an Academy Award?! Hey, Academy!! What the hell were you people on?


_iCeb0x_
post #19 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple threaded the line here but I do not believe they are guilty. Copyright does not exist to prevent fair use it exists to ensure that there is adequate protection so that artists can profit from their orginal works. Fair Use principals hold that if a performance(satire, parody etc) does not interfere with the copyright holders ability to profit from their work then that usage is ok.

What Eminem's legal beagle is trying to say is that they own the keys and even the citizen on MTV that decides to sing a couple bars of their favorite tune are in copyright violation. That's just not the case. Copyright is not your license to collect money in perpetuity.

I have to say that I agree and I hope Apple holds out and what's-his-name loses. Of course, Apple would probably settle to keep/get his tunes in iTunes and to keep artists happy.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #20 of 31
http://boss.streamos.com/download/i...loseitclean.mp3

Thats a link to eminems new single if anyone cares.
Subpar for someone who was once a great lyricist
post #21 of 31
How easily they forget.

When Linux users started creating Aqua look-alike desktop themes for KDE and GNOME, Apple immediately started firing off cease and desist letters to anyone creating or hosting the themes. They also sent the letters to anyone using the word Aqua in their desktop themes.

Why? To protect their property. They're required to do this by law.

For this example, you could say that Aqua is to Mac OS X what lyrics are to a song. All parts are copyrighted, and protected under law.

Now, after being told no, Apple still used the lyrics from one of Eminem's songs to promote their products. These lyrics are protected under law.

This isn't a home movie of some kid singing an Eminem song, and his talent or lack thereof is irrelevant. This kid is an actor hired to sing this song. It has nothing to do with the kid. Fair Use does NOT apply here. This is a commerical business stealing the copyrighted materials from an artist to promote their products and MAKE MONEY. Regardless of how you feel about Eminem, it is illegal.

If someone steals your work in an effort to capitalise off of your work or image, you'd do the same thing. Just like Apple did to people making (free) themes. Just like Apple did to all the companies who made colorful computers AND TV'S that even remotely resembled the old iMacs several years back. It is the reason we have laws.

Apple protects their property, you can't have double standards and get mad at Eminem for protecting his. You call him a sell-out, but what products have you seen him endorse? Why do you think he's so mad about Apple using his fame to sell their products? Jessica Simpson selling pizza and breath mints, MC Hammer with a Saturday morning cartoon, LL Cool J selling Dr. Pepper, that's selling out. It could even be argued that any artist that signs a recording contract with a big label is selling out. Want the name of a band that doesn't sell out? Big Engine in Florida. Been going strong for 12+ years, and refuses to sign with a big label. They have thousands of fans, and do it all themselves, and have turned down many recording contracts.

Eminem's doing what any other artist would do, and has done many times in the past. It's not greed, it's common sense. It was wrong, Apple knows they're wrong, and if they weren't, they wouldn't be trying to settle out of court.
post #22 of 31
Fubuki you are confused.

Apple's Aqua interface is not open to fair use. It's not a performance. Please provide empirical evidence to support your claim that the person singing "lose yourself" was an actor expressly hired to sing. I don't think it can be done.

You are correct, copyright exists to ensure that the originator of the property is compensated. However music does come with fair usage that doesn't apply to say an computer interface so your comparison between Aqua and Lyrics is not valid.

Just as I am able to quote from texts without paying licenses others are allowed to satire, parody or perform very small snippets of copyrighted material. This really isn't an open and shut case at all for Eminem. This is very borderline and Apple stands just as much a chance of winning as they do losing.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #23 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by JK47
http://boss.streamos.com/download/i...loseitclean.mp3

Thats a link to eminems new single if anyone cares.
Subpar for someone who was once a great lyricist

Agreed ...not impressed at all with this latest track. His music is/has been on the decline since moving away from Dre. It's beginning to look like "The end is extremely f***ing nigh" for "E"
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #24 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleInsider
"any endorsement deal would require a significant amount of money, possibly in excess of $10 million.


That is a lot of money for the endorsement of white trash.

What is next, the Briteny Spears iMac?

Hummmmm.....eminem and Spears...theres a match made in well...you decide...
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #25 of 31
A hard lesson in copyright infrigment.

I'm quite sure that this has been filed under "lesson learned" by Steve & Co.

I think it would be cool if Apple used its commericals to boost young and upcoming acts. That might get them more pull with other artists once they see the power ITMS has to promote their music.

By the way, what is going on with the Beetles' Apple Corp vs Apple Computer lawsuit?
post #26 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Please provide empirical evidence to support your claim that the person singing "lose yourself" was an actor expressly hired to sing. I don't think it can be done.

Obviously, unless you were there to see the money change hands, observe the contract, or other similar acts, you cannot provide empirical evidence for such an event, and why would anyone need to? It changes nothing. Apple approved the add, and used it to promote their brand and product.

Quote:
You are correct, copyright exists to ensure that the originator of the property is compensated. However music does come with fair usage that doesn't apply to say an computer interface so your comparison between Aqua and Lyrics is not valid.

Fair usage has nothing to do with this case. It's designed to protect the consumer. Examples include allowing consumers to make copies of media for their own personal backup (assuming they have a legal copy of the original), copying a TV show for later private in-home use, or singing a popular song. Doing any of the above for commerical gain however is not protected under fair use, and this is where I think people get confused. If you stand to gain from it, then you have to get permission. It's as simple as that.

Fair use does not give someone the right to use another persons work commerically without permission. Not samples. Not lyrics. If the child were to go on stage and perform the song in front of a school, this would be legal. For Apple to shoot a commerical and air it on TV to sell a product however, this is not legal, and is not protected under fair usage laws on any planet.

Also, I think you missed my point on Aqua. Please reread it. I wasn't comparing Aqua directly to music, or suggesting they're protected under similar laws. I was using it at as a tool to illustrate how Apple has done the same thing in the past that Eminem is doing now to protect their copyrighted materials. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:
Just as I am able to quote from texts without paying licenses others are allowed to satire, parody or perform very small snippets of copyrighted material.

This was not a parody or satire, so both points are irrelevant. Also, you quoting someone is not the same thing on any level as what Apple has done in this commerical, so again, this is an irrelevant point. You give good examples of fair use, and of how other laws such as those protecting parodies can be used, but none of them have anything to do with the case being discussed, or what actually happened.

I understand people's willingness to cheer for the home team and bash the villain, but don't let brand loyalty blind you to the facts.
post #27 of 31
After submitting that last article, I had to run to the store real quick. I heard Eminem's new song on the radio. What a catastrophy.

hmurchison, you don't have to worry about him rapping about being mad or living in the ghetto any more. I'm still not quite sure what he was rapping about though.
post #28 of 31
It's always easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission.
post #29 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by hegor
...

By the way, what is going on with the Beetles' Apple Corp vs Apple Computer lawsuit?

A hidden lawsuit? Tell me more.
" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Reply
" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Reply
post #30 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Fair Use principals hold that if a performance(satire, parody etc) does not interfere with the copyright holders ability to profit from their work then that usage is ok.

What Eminem's legal beagle is trying to say is that they own the keys and even the citizen on MTV that decides to sing a couple bars of their favorite tune are in copyright violation. That's just not the case. Copyright is not your license to collect money in perpetuity.

The difference here is that fair use becomes exponentially harder to prove when profit is involved. A live camera that happens to capture J. Random Person singing a song is one thing. A scripted, top-shelf commercial for a high-profile consumer product that features J. Random Person singing a song is another. For one thing, it doesn't quote the work as part of comment or criticism, and I'd love to see the argument that it's parody.

Apple can't credibly claim fair use. Given that, they're down to licensing the use of the song, and whether Eminem's terms are outrageous or not, they're his terms. As law and practice currently stand, he's entitled to name his price.

At any rate, this report confirms my assumption that both the $10 million price and the running of the commercial without permission boiled down to hardball negotiating tactics.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #31 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by Fubuki
How easily they forget.

When Linux users started creating Aqua look-alike desktop themes for KDE and GNOME, Apple immediately started firing off cease and desist letters to anyone creating or hosting the themes. They also sent the letters to anyone using the word Aqua in their desktop themes.

Why? To protect their property. They're required to do this by law.

FYI, at least in the US, copyright law no longer requires an active defense on the part of the copyright holder, as of the 1976 Copyright Act.

However, judges will take prolonged inaction as permission, or at least tolerance, so while you no longer lose your copyright altogether for failing to defend it, you can lose the ability to prosecute a particular case of infringment if you let it go on too long. Whence the C&D letter.

Trademark law still maintains the defend-it-or-lose-it standard.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Eminem, Apple in settlement talks, ask for trial delay