If Apple really did complain, it's almost certainly misuse of corporate logos. Apple has to protect their trademarks or they lose them. The Apple brand is worth a TON of money which they have to protect.
Apple didn't complain about the other people who make fun of them - because the others didn't misuse Apple's trademarks by making their jokes look like a real Apple ad.
You folks are the ones who need to lighten up.
Good thing the supremes hold that parody and satire can qualify as fair use. Wouldn't want people misconstruing the law to make an irrational point. There is no reason to believe that was their complaint at all.
We don't know if Apple actually even complained. Likely they didn't and Degeneres created the complaint as a segue for her next bit, which was a tongue in cheek apology. If Degeneres was being honest in saying that they did complain, then it is entirely likely she was honest when she said their complaint was "They thought I made it look like it's hard to use".
Dammit, I wish people trying to 'defend' Apple would stop and think if they are helping or hurting.
No where in the article does it state that Apple 'demanded an apology'. It just says they contacted her. Apple typically doesn't make poor PR decisions, and I suspect this is being portrayed as something it's not.
"representatives from Apple contacted her regarding a parody commercial she had aired on her program."
I'm sure the haters will get bent all out of shape and read more into this than what's actually printed there, but she seemed fine with Apple, and still praised the products afterward. I doubt seriously they were heavy handed or anything of the sort.
Ellen might have been straying into a bit of misrepresentation here. It's not actually satire or parody, which are situations that no reasonable person would believe to be true. Ellen depicted the iPhone as hard to use (regardless of her intent), aping the Apple-style commercial, and then followed up with the iPhone 3G and Apple logos. We've got potential copyright issues, libel issues, etc.
Tell that to the many, many YouTube videos that make fun of Apple products through fake commercials. Some of them are almost direct copies of Apple's with all the same logos, similar actors, and similar scripts. They reach out to millions of viewers. Also see my Letterman comment I'm going to make below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
If Apple really did complain, it's almost certainly misuse of corporate logos. Apple has to protect their trademarks or they lose them. The Apple brand is worth a TON of money which they have to protect.
Apple didn't complain about the other people who make fun of them - because the others didn't misuse Apple's trademarks by making their jokes look like a real Apple ad.
You folks are the ones who need to lighten up.
What about The Daily Show bit where Jon Stewart "misued" an actual iPad to "make" salsa? Or when David Letterman tried to show off showing pictures on the iPad, but got fed up with it not doing what he wanted and proceeded to lick the screen?
1- It doesn't sound funny. 2- Apple is stupid for complaining 3- She is stupid for apologizing.
Yea I'm about here as well...
Edit...
Tho I do somewhat agree with people calling attention to the use of Apples logos etc... but lets remember, this was aired in the middle of her show... She didn't take out AD space in the World Series.. Those of you old... err.. mature enough to remember the '_real_ SNL' episodes, they did a TON of AD parodies and ... thinking back even then they did make the effort to change the name just enough to make sure you knew it was a parody.
What about The Daily Show bit where Jon Stewart "misued" an actual iPad to "make" salsa? Or when David Letterman tried to show off showing pictures on the iPad, but got fed up with it not doing what he wanted and proceeded to lick the screen?
No, I think it's you that needs to lighten up.
I guess you're missing the entire point - as usual.
Apple didn't care about Letterman or Stewart because they have the right to purchase a physical device and use it as a skeet target if they wish. For that matter, Apple had no objection to the company which put an iPad through their blender or the one which microwaved an iPad. Those are all fair use. In fact, you pretty well proved my point. It's not the use of an iPad to make a joke that Apple complained about (if they did actually complain, that is). It was the misleading use of Apple's logo to make it look like a real ad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Good thing the supremes hold that parody and satire can qualify as fair use. Wouldn't want people misconstruing the law to make an irrational point. There is no reason to believe that was their complaint at all.
We don't know if Apple actually even complained. Likely they didn't and Degeneres created the complaint as a segue for her next bit, which was a tongue in cheek apology. If Degeneres was being honest in saying that they did complain, then it is entirely likely she was honest when she said their complaint was "They thought I made it look like it's hard to use".
Dammit, I wish people trying to 'defend' Apple would stop and think if they are helping or hurting.
Sorry, but satire does not allow you to make an ad that looks exactly like a corporation's ad. The corporation has the right to defend their brand.
I don't know what (if anything) Apple said to Degeneres. I DO, however, know how to look at facts:
- Fact: Apple had no objection to Steward or Letterman or the Microwave people or the Blender guy.
- Fact. Degeneres issued an apology to Apple for her ad (claiming that Apple contacted her).
From those facts, it is apparent that something is different in the Degeneres case. The biggest difference is that everyone else made it clear that they were presenting their own opinions while hers made it look like an Apple ad.
Nothing to do with protecting Apple from comedians but remember Apple is a major sponsor of Idol where no doubt she is very well paid. So it was tactless for her to do the skit in the first place as it would be for any personality that makes money from a sponsor to make fun of their product. Perhaps this could explain the apology.
Sorry, but satire does not allow you to make an ad that looks exactly like a corporation's ad. The corporation has the right to defend their brand.
Sorry, but did you think that was an actual ad? Most sane people took it as a satirical take off of an Apple ad that poked fun at Ellen in a self deprecating way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I don't know what (if anything) Apple said to Degeneres. I DO, however, know how to look at facts:
- Fact: Apple had no objection to Steward or Letterman or the Microwave people or the Blender guy.
- Fact. Degeneres issued an apology to Apple for her ad (claiming that Apple contacted her).
From those facts, it is apparent that something is different in the Degeneres case. The biggest difference is that everyone else made it clear that they were presenting their own opinions while hers made it look like an Apple ad.
Do the math.
Well, let's look at your facts
1)-Not so much a fact as an assumption. Did Apple have no objection? You know this for a fact, or just assuming? Or did Steward and Letterman or the microwave and blender guys just laugh it off if they did and so we never heard about it? Not hearing about an inane objection is not that same as stating as fact that there was no objection. This is just logic. (You know, like all oranges come from trees doesn't mean all trees have oranges-logic is your friend).
-Did they even have an objection to Degeneres for that matter?
2) She certainly issued something. Whether it was a genuine apology or just another joke is up for debate. Perhaps she was poking fun at a bunch of tightass fans that wrote her condemning her 'ad'. Not everyone has a sense of humour.
-If Apple did complain and her apology was genuine, more likely Apple complained as an advertiser and not as a trademark holder. Trademarks used in parody and satire are well protected. It was clearly a joke...well, clear for most. Apple likely has lawyers that are good enough to understand that.
Math can informative, when used appropriately. Just like logic.
Nothing to do with protecting Apple from comedians but remember Apple is a major sponsor of Idol where no doubt she is very well paid. So it was tactless for her to do the skit in the first place as it would be for any personality that makes money from a sponsor to make fun of their product. Perhaps this could explain the apology.
You are likely right. If Apple complained at all, it was as an advertiser.
I don't think it is tactless her to do it, just because they are a sponsor. If she thought it was a worthwhile skit, it would sort of be selling out not to do it just because they are a sponsor. A sponsor buys your time and image. They might drop you if you piss them off, but I suppose integrity has a price.
I guess you're missing the entire point - as usual.
Apple didn't care about Letterman or Stewart because they have the right to purchase a physical device and use it as a skeet target if they wish. For that matter, Apple had no objection to the company which put an iPad through their blender or the one which microwaved an iPad. Those are all fair use. In fact, you pretty well proved my point. It's not the use of an iPad to make a joke that Apple complained about (if they did actually complain, that is). It was the misleading use of Apple's logo to make it look like a real ad.
Sorry, but satire does not allow you to make an ad that looks exactly like a corporation's ad. The corporation has the right to defend their brand.
I don't know what (if anything) Apple said to Degeneres. I DO, however, know how to look at facts:
- Fact: Apple had no objection to Steward or Letterman or the Microwave people or the Blender guy.
- Fact. Degeneres issued an apology to Apple for her ad (claiming that Apple contacted her).
From those facts, it is apparent that something is different in the Degeneres case. The biggest difference is that everyone else made it clear that they were presenting their own opinions while hers made it look like an Apple ad.
Do the math.
Parody is fine dude. no offense, but there are hundred's of commercial parodies out there. you are completely missing the point and are being silly to rationalize Apple's response.
this was a non event which is now something, all apple needed to do was keep their mouth shut and this joke would have never aired again.
Not sure who looks the bigger fool here, Apple for complaining or DeGeneres for apologizing.
Or the tech blogs for repeating this verbatim with no evidence that it even happened, or the people commenting on tech blogs with things like "Apple need to learn how to take a joke" when no one even knows if Apple called her at all.
The amount of play this non-event is getting is pretty amazing when you consider it was a comedy routine, that we don't even know is real. If Apple did contact her, we don't know who did, what they said, what she said back etc.
IMO the "biggest fools" award goes to everyone making anti-Apple comments on the forums based on third hand information about an event that may not have even happened.
Sorry, but did you think that was an actual ad? Most sane people took it as a satirical take off of an Apple ad that poked fun at Ellen in a self deprecating way.
Well, let's look at your facts
1)-Not so much a fact as an assumption. Did Apple have no objection? You know this for a fact, or just assuming? Or did Steward and Letterman or the microwave and blender guys just laugh it off if they did and so we never heard about it? Not hearing about an inane objection is not that same as stating as fact that there was no objection. This is just logic. (You know, like all oranges come from trees doesn't mean all trees have oranges-logic is your friend).
-Did they even have an objection to Degeneres for that matter?
2) She certainly issued something. Whether it was a genuine apology or just another joke is up for debate. Perhaps she was poking fun at a bunch of tightass fans that wrote her condemning her 'ad'. Not everyone has a sense of humour.
-If Apple did complain and her apology was genuine, more likely Apple complained as an advertiser and not as a trademark holder. Trademarks used in parody and satire are well protected. It was clearly a joke...well, clear for most. Apple likely has lawyers that are good enough to understand that.
Math can informative, when used appropriately. Just like logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchelljd
Parody is fine dude. no offense, but there are hundred's of commercial parodies out there. you are completely missing the point and are being silly to rationalize Apple's response.
this was a non event which is now something, all apple needed to do was keep their mouth shut and this joke would have never aired again.
You two beat me to the punch!
Clearly the "ellen" logo on the bottom and the audience laughing in the background logically means that this "ad" was shown during the middle of Ellen's show. Your (jragosta) argument would hold up more if this "ad" was shown without any warning during a normal commercial slot. Which it clearly was not.
Like Tulkas said, there are plenty of parodies of ads (as I've mentioned, see YouTube) that use the company logos.
jragosta, you clearly missed the point of the parody - as usual. Lighten up and smile more.
She has no integrity. If a comedienne makes jokes, apologizing about them afterwords, when they are not really objectionable, shows no class, no balls, and no courage.
Ellen's ad reminded me of those infomercials where they grossly exaggerate how bad the alternative to the product they're peddling is. John Stewart making salsa with his iPad was funny, Letterman not so much and Degeneres even less so. It seems every time I tune in to Letterman, he's less and less funny and though Ellen can be funny, her faux iPhone ad was a stretch. As others have mentioned, it was probably the use of the Apple logo that ruffled some feathers over in Cupertino.
Comments
If Apple really did complain, it's almost certainly misuse of corporate logos. Apple has to protect their trademarks or they lose them. The Apple brand is worth a TON of money which they have to protect.
Apple didn't complain about the other people who make fun of them - because the others didn't misuse Apple's trademarks by making their jokes look like a real Apple ad.
You folks are the ones who need to lighten up.
Good thing the supremes hold that parody and satire can qualify as fair use. Wouldn't want people misconstruing the law to make an irrational point. There is no reason to believe that was their complaint at all.
We don't know if Apple actually even complained. Likely they didn't and Degeneres created the complaint as a segue for her next bit, which was a tongue in cheek apology. If Degeneres was being honest in saying that they did complain, then it is entirely likely she was honest when she said their complaint was "They thought I made it look like it's hard to use".
Dammit, I wish people trying to 'defend' Apple would stop and think if they are helping or hurting.
Either DeGeneres wasted her time trying to make a paraody and/or Apple should have just taken her shenanigans at face value which was basically zero.
"representatives from Apple contacted her regarding a parody commercial she had aired on her program."
I'm sure the haters will get bent all out of shape and read more into this than what's actually printed there, but she seemed fine with Apple, and still praised the products afterward. I doubt seriously they were heavy handed or anything of the sort.
Ellen D. is nothing but a lousy prop comic. I agree with anyone who said it wasn't funny, Apple should have ignored it, she shouldn't have apologized.
But she should apologize for being nothing but a lousy prop comic.
1) Do you know what a prop comic is?
2) Have you ever seen any of Ellen D's standup comedy?
Except that she wasn't making fun of the product, she was making fun of baby boomers using technology. And it was spot on.
Exactly. Even her apology was done in a self deprecating way which is her style of comedy.
Ellen might have been straying into a bit of misrepresentation here. It's not actually satire or parody, which are situations that no reasonable person would believe to be true. Ellen depicted the iPhone as hard to use (regardless of her intent), aping the Apple-style commercial, and then followed up with the iPhone 3G and Apple logos. We've got potential copyright issues, libel issues, etc.
Tell that to the many, many YouTube videos that make fun of Apple products through fake commercials. Some of them are almost direct copies of Apple's with all the same logos, similar actors, and similar scripts. They reach out to millions of viewers. Also see my Letterman comment I'm going to make below.
If Apple really did complain, it's almost certainly misuse of corporate logos. Apple has to protect their trademarks or they lose them. The Apple brand is worth a TON of money which they have to protect.
Apple didn't complain about the other people who make fun of them - because the others didn't misuse Apple's trademarks by making their jokes look like a real Apple ad.
You folks are the ones who need to lighten up.
What about The Daily Show bit where Jon Stewart "misued" an actual iPad to "make" salsa? Or when David Letterman tried to show off showing pictures on the iPad, but got fed up with it not doing what he wanted and proceeded to lick the screen?
No, I think it's you that needs to lighten up.
1- It doesn't sound funny. 2- Apple is stupid for complaining 3- She is stupid for apologizing.
Yea I'm about here as well...
Edit...
Tho I do somewhat agree with people calling attention to the use of Apples logos etc... but lets remember, this was aired in the middle of her show... She didn't take out AD space in the World Series.. Those of you old... err.. mature enough to remember the '_real_ SNL' episodes, they did a TON of AD parodies and ... thinking back even then they did make the effort to change the name just enough to make sure you knew it was a parody.
Little Chocolate Donuts gotta be my #1 ( such a waste....
What about The Daily Show bit where Jon Stewart "misued" an actual iPad to "make" salsa? Or when David Letterman tried to show off showing pictures on the iPad, but got fed up with it not doing what he wanted and proceeded to lick the screen?
No, I think it's you that needs to lighten up.
I guess you're missing the entire point - as usual.
Apple didn't care about Letterman or Stewart because they have the right to purchase a physical device and use it as a skeet target if they wish. For that matter, Apple had no objection to the company which put an iPad through their blender or the one which microwaved an iPad. Those are all fair use. In fact, you pretty well proved my point. It's not the use of an iPad to make a joke that Apple complained about (if they did actually complain, that is). It was the misleading use of Apple's logo to make it look like a real ad.
Good thing the supremes hold that parody and satire can qualify as fair use. Wouldn't want people misconstruing the law to make an irrational point. There is no reason to believe that was their complaint at all.
We don't know if Apple actually even complained. Likely they didn't and Degeneres created the complaint as a segue for her next bit, which was a tongue in cheek apology. If Degeneres was being honest in saying that they did complain, then it is entirely likely she was honest when she said their complaint was "They thought I made it look like it's hard to use".
Dammit, I wish people trying to 'defend' Apple would stop and think if they are helping or hurting.
Sorry, but satire does not allow you to make an ad that looks exactly like a corporation's ad. The corporation has the right to defend their brand.
I don't know what (if anything) Apple said to Degeneres. I DO, however, know how to look at facts:
- Fact: Apple had no objection to Steward or Letterman or the Microwave people or the Blender guy.
- Fact. Degeneres issued an apology to Apple for her ad (claiming that Apple contacted her).
From those facts, it is apparent that something is different in the Degeneres case. The biggest difference is that everyone else made it clear that they were presenting their own opinions while hers made it look like an Apple ad.
Do the math.
Nothing to do with protecting Apple from comedians but remember Apple is a major sponsor of Idol where no doubt she is very well paid. So it was tactless for her to do the skit in the first place as it would be for any personality that makes money from a sponsor to make fun of their product. Perhaps this could explain the apology.
Blog worthy insight Batman!!
Sorry, but satire does not allow you to make an ad that looks exactly like a corporation's ad. The corporation has the right to defend their brand.
Sorry, but did you think that was an actual ad? Most sane people took it as a satirical take off of an Apple ad that poked fun at Ellen in a self deprecating way.
I don't know what (if anything) Apple said to Degeneres. I DO, however, know how to look at facts:
- Fact: Apple had no objection to Steward or Letterman or the Microwave people or the Blender guy.
- Fact. Degeneres issued an apology to Apple for her ad (claiming that Apple contacted her).
From those facts, it is apparent that something is different in the Degeneres case. The biggest difference is that everyone else made it clear that they were presenting their own opinions while hers made it look like an Apple ad.
Do the math.
Well, let's look at your facts
1)-Not so much a fact as an assumption. Did Apple have no objection? You know this for a fact, or just assuming? Or did Steward and Letterman or the microwave and blender guys just laugh it off if they did and so we never heard about it? Not hearing about an inane objection is not that same as stating as fact that there was no objection. This is just logic. (You know, like all oranges come from trees doesn't mean all trees have oranges-logic is your friend).
-Did they even have an objection to Degeneres for that matter?
2) She certainly issued something. Whether it was a genuine apology or just another joke is up for debate. Perhaps she was poking fun at a bunch of tightass fans that wrote her condemning her 'ad'. Not everyone has a sense of humour.
-If Apple did complain and her apology was genuine, more likely Apple complained as an advertiser and not as a trademark holder. Trademarks used in parody and satire are well protected. It was clearly a joke...well, clear for most. Apple likely has lawyers that are good enough to understand that.
Math can informative, when used appropriately. Just like logic.
Nothing to do with protecting Apple from comedians but remember Apple is a major sponsor of Idol where no doubt she is very well paid. So it was tactless for her to do the skit in the first place as it would be for any personality that makes money from a sponsor to make fun of their product. Perhaps this could explain the apology.
You are likely right. If Apple complained at all, it was as an advertiser.
I don't think it is tactless her to do it, just because they are a sponsor. If she thought it was a worthwhile skit, it would sort of be selling out not to do it just because they are a sponsor. A sponsor buys your time and image. They might drop you if you piss them off, but I suppose integrity has a price.
Not sure who looks the bigger fool here, Apple for complaining or DeGeneres for apologizing.
Both are equally culpable of being dumbo's
Ellen for responding to their boneheaded complaint.
Apple for not knowing when a joke is a joke/parody.
when you are as successful as Apple, they are part of pop culture and fair game to make fun of.
besides, who hasn't made typos on their iphone???
I guess you're missing the entire point - as usual.
Apple didn't care about Letterman or Stewart because they have the right to purchase a physical device and use it as a skeet target if they wish. For that matter, Apple had no objection to the company which put an iPad through their blender or the one which microwaved an iPad. Those are all fair use. In fact, you pretty well proved my point. It's not the use of an iPad to make a joke that Apple complained about (if they did actually complain, that is). It was the misleading use of Apple's logo to make it look like a real ad.
Sorry, but satire does not allow you to make an ad that looks exactly like a corporation's ad. The corporation has the right to defend their brand.
I don't know what (if anything) Apple said to Degeneres. I DO, however, know how to look at facts:
- Fact: Apple had no objection to Steward or Letterman or the Microwave people or the Blender guy.
- Fact. Degeneres issued an apology to Apple for her ad (claiming that Apple contacted her).
From those facts, it is apparent that something is different in the Degeneres case. The biggest difference is that everyone else made it clear that they were presenting their own opinions while hers made it look like an Apple ad.
Do the math.
Parody is fine dude. no offense, but there are hundred's of commercial parodies out there. you are completely missing the point and are being silly to rationalize Apple's response.
this was a non event which is now something, all apple needed to do was keep their mouth shut and this joke would have never aired again.
Not sure who looks the bigger fool here, Apple for complaining or DeGeneres for apologizing.
Or the tech blogs for repeating this verbatim with no evidence that it even happened, or the people commenting on tech blogs with things like "Apple need to learn how to take a joke" when no one even knows if Apple called her at all.
The amount of play this non-event is getting is pretty amazing when you consider it was a comedy routine, that we don't even know is real. If Apple did contact her, we don't know who did, what they said, what she said back etc.
IMO the "biggest fools" award goes to everyone making anti-Apple comments on the forums based on third hand information about an event that may not have even happened.
LMAO, I thought that it was funny. She couldn't work the iPhone because women have no eye to hand co-ordination.
Congratulations, you completely missed the actual funny-point of the ad and managed to make a bigoted remark at the same time.
Sorry, but did you think that was an actual ad? Most sane people took it as a satirical take off of an Apple ad that poked fun at Ellen in a self deprecating way.
Well, let's look at your facts
1)-Not so much a fact as an assumption. Did Apple have no objection? You know this for a fact, or just assuming? Or did Steward and Letterman or the microwave and blender guys just laugh it off if they did and so we never heard about it? Not hearing about an inane objection is not that same as stating as fact that there was no objection. This is just logic. (You know, like all oranges come from trees doesn't mean all trees have oranges-logic is your friend).
-Did they even have an objection to Degeneres for that matter?
2) She certainly issued something. Whether it was a genuine apology or just another joke is up for debate. Perhaps she was poking fun at a bunch of tightass fans that wrote her condemning her 'ad'. Not everyone has a sense of humour.
-If Apple did complain and her apology was genuine, more likely Apple complained as an advertiser and not as a trademark holder. Trademarks used in parody and satire are well protected. It was clearly a joke...well, clear for most. Apple likely has lawyers that are good enough to understand that.
Math can informative, when used appropriately. Just like logic.
Parody is fine dude. no offense, but there are hundred's of commercial parodies out there. you are completely missing the point and are being silly to rationalize Apple's response.
this was a non event which is now something, all apple needed to do was keep their mouth shut and this joke would have never aired again.
You two beat me to the punch!
Clearly the "ellen" logo on the bottom and the audience laughing in the background logically means that this "ad" was shown during the middle of Ellen's show. Your (jragosta) argument would hold up more if this "ad" was shown without any warning during a normal commercial slot. Which it clearly was not.
Like Tulkas said, there are plenty of parodies of ads (as I've mentioned, see YouTube) that use the company logos.
jragosta, you clearly missed the point of the parody - as usual.
She has no integrity. If a comedienne makes jokes, apologizing about them afterwords, when they are not really objectionable, shows no class, no balls, and no courage.
What a friggin wimp.