Watching the ad over the weekend, I got the impression that the actual display on the device was not being shown in the ads. It looked like they had faked the screenshots. It was too hard to read all the fine print in the disclaimers to see if they mentioned that.
The best thing about the Samesung's Gear is their "Crack marketing team's""innovative" advert which COPIES APPLE'S 6 year old iPhone Advert...LOL...LOL....LOL
Samesung just can't stop themselves from copying Apple...It's in their DNA....LOL
I suppose "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"
But I just wish they would copy some the good things about Apple ....like NOT CHEATING in benchmark tests....Why don't any of their "Crack marketing Team" warn Samsung that there is no surer way to destroy what's left of their tattered Brand Image than being branded a liar and a cheat - Shame on YOU Shamesung.
"Wrist-worn communicators were used in Star Trek: The Motion Picture and remained in use by some Starfleet installations and vessels during the time of The Wrath of Khan. However, the traditional handheld communicator returned in later films. The reason for the switch was not explained, but the non-canon source Mister Scott's Guide to the Enterprise offered the explanation that Starfleet discontinued use of the wrist-worn communicators when they were determined to be prone to repeated failures after suffering minor impacts."
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?
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?
Absolutely not! This is one area where Samsung can take from Apple without actually stealing any IP. Furthermore, it's the one area that Apple's competitors oddly don't take from Apple when they should. This ad isn't nearly as good as Apple's original iPhone ad but it's pretty damn good for Samsung.
PS: I thought Samsung wasn' going to push this watch. I thought it was just a shipping proof-of-concept for the few idiots that would buy it. This ad says otherwise.
Actually, in this case, the ad agency that created the original ad can sue the agency and the company that commissioned the new commercial due to copyright infringement. Happened recently when fashion photographer David LaChapelle sued Rhianna (and won) for a music video she had that was a blatant copy of concept he created in a photograph.
Wow. Samsung's mobile division is really a sad, sad place to be. Not even enough smarts to come up with an original ad? Prior to this, being exposed by tech sites as having artificially juiced up their smart phones' performance scores? Cheats... copycats... anything for market share. Hard to believe some people still reward this company by buying their phones. Who's the lemming now?
Actually, in this case, the ad agency that created the original ad can sue the agency and the company that commissioned the new commercial due to copyright infringement. Happened recently when fashion photographer David LaChapelle sued Rhianna (and won) for a music video she had that was a blatant copy of concept he created in a photograph.
Sure, anyone can sue anyone, but I'm not seeing the outright copyright infringement unless you have proof of the concept of using old clips as being owned by Apple or the ad agency they used.
Ever dealt with rights management? I have very little background in it. I've had to deal with sourcing artwork and stuff in the very distant past, but that wouldn't go anywhere. Copyright laws do not exactly protect you against someone else making something similar. They protect against someone duplicating the work with certain limitations. Can I ask what led you suggest this as something feasible?
As for all the tv clips, their ad agency would deal with usage fees associated with any of them. Samsung would just write a check.
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.
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.
Comments
Yeah, Apple would never sue Samsung. /s
Watching the ad over the weekend, I got the impression that the actual display on the device was not being shown in the ads. It looked like they had faked the screenshots. It was too hard to read all the fine print in the disclaimers to see if they mentioned that.
Dream on. Samsung hasn't got half the mindshare or brand cachet that Apple does, even if they sell more handsets by unit count.
What a joke!!!!
The best thing about the Samesung's Gear is their "Crack marketing team's" "innovative" advert which COPIES APPLE'S 6 year old iPhone Advert...LOL...LOL....LOL
Samesung just can't stop themselves from copying Apple...It's in their DNA....LOL
I suppose "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"
But I just wish they would copy some the good things about Apple ....like NOT CHEATING in benchmark tests....Why don't any of their "Crack marketing Team" warn Samsung that there is no surer way to destroy what's left of their tattered Brand Image than being branded a liar and a cheat - Shame on YOU Shamesung.
Not sure why they used a wrist communicator in some Star Trek movies. The communicator you usually see is the classic pocket-device.
I missed the "Beam me up Scotty" feature on a Shamesung Gear...LOL
I sometimes wonder if Apple's iWatch isn't necessarily a dedicated watch but rather a wearable device that happens to serve as a watch...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicator_(Star_Trek)
"Wrist-worn communicators were used in Star Trek: The Motion Picture and remained in use by some Starfleet installations and vessels during the time of The Wrath of Khan. However, the traditional handheld communicator returned in later films. The reason for the switch was not explained, but the non-canon source Mister Scott's Guide to the Enterprise offered the explanation that Starfleet discontinued use of the wrist-worn communicators when they were determined to be prone to repeated failures after suffering minor impacts."
Samsung could get mileage by reviving the "Intel Inside" ads, as in "Samsung Inside" the iPhone.
You can't seriously believe that Samsung could ever put "Samsung Inside' stickers on the iPhone.
He’s saying they could run ads touting the fact that Samsung-made processors are in the iPhone.
Except it’s probably forbidden in their contract.
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.
Excellent point. I can't recall Apple making the focus on the presenter on screen over the product.
Absolutely not! This is one area where Samsung can take from Apple without actually stealing any IP. Furthermore, it's the one area that Apple's competitors oddly don't take from Apple when they should. This ad isn't nearly as good as Apple's original iPhone ad but it's pretty damn good for Samsung.
PS: I thought Samsung wasn' going to push this watch. I thought it was just a shipping proof-of-concept for the few idiots that would buy it. This ad says otherwise.
Actually, in this case, the ad agency that created the original ad can sue the agency and the company that commissioned the new commercial due to copyright infringement. Happened recently when fashion photographer David LaChapelle sued Rhianna (and won) for a music video she had that was a blatant copy of concept he created in a photograph.
This doesn't really make sense. I suspect you're venting, but there is no way to patent a commercial.
No, but it's copyright infringement.
Sure, anyone can sue anyone, but I'm not seeing the outright copyright infringement unless you have proof of the concept of using old clips as being owned by Apple or the ad agency they used.
No, but it's copyright infringement.
Ever dealt with rights management? I have very little background in it. I've had to deal with sourcing artwork and stuff in the very distant past, but that wouldn't go anywhere. Copyright laws do not exactly protect you against someone else making something similar. They protect against someone duplicating the work with certain limitations. Can I ask what led you suggest this as something feasible?
As for all the tv clips, their ad agency would deal with usage fees associated with any of them. Samsung would just write a check.
The ad needs a big disclaimer:
WARNING OPERATION REQUIRES COMPATIBLE SAMSUNG PHABLET SOLD SEPARATELY.
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.
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.