... 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."
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.
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.
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?
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 <span style="line-height:1.4em;">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.</span>
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Comments
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."
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 ...
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/
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/
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.
Indeed, that was a stupid comment. Besides, Apple pays Intel to not use their stickers on their hardware, which is mandatory.
Can't answer that before I understand why they would fold the flex display inwards, making it useless on a wrist.
Point taken. But do we know if Apple paid royalties for the use of these clips?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.