The use of the Apple logo is ballsy. Pretty sure Apple could nail them in court on that one.
The detailing of specific tech specs is a cheap shot. The entire holistic experience of an iPhone is far superior to any Android. Samsung has touted all these ridiculous features that no one uses because they do not work. Their facial recognition was horrific especially compared to FaceID. Samsung has a lot of quality control issues with high failure rates. The Snapdragon was smoked by the A11 Bionic CPU. Yes, the Intel radios suck compared to the Qualcomm and perhaps the S9 is slightly better on LTE but most people don't hit max speed anyway. Yes, there is no headphone jack but if you use the AirPods they are remarkably excellent. If you must use wired headphones use the lightning dongle, big deal. So what if you have to charge the iPhone and who cares if need to buy an iPad charger to quick charge and a 2.1 amp car USB adapter. Already got them.
Samsung ads, meh...
it is not ballsy, but stupid and illegal. Apple has to give a written permission for that.
All these ads are clearly a parody of Apple, which is protected.
To be more clear, parody is protected, satire is not.
A parody is a work created to mock, comment on, or make fun at an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation. Parody is protected as a form of “Fair Use”, a defense to claims of copyright infringement. Cases dealing with this issue, however, look to how much of the original work is taken, holding that only that minimum amount necessary to “conjure up” the original work may be taken. Courts have also held that the parody work must actually make fun of the original work or its author.
Satire, […] is primarily a literary genre or form in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement. Typically, a satire pokes fun at larger issues, rather than the original work or its author. Satire is NOT considered Fair Use when it copies an earlier work.
The use of the Apple logo is ballsy. Pretty sure Apple could nail them in court on that one.
The detailing of specific tech specs is a cheap shot. The entire holistic experience of an iPhone is far superior to any Android. Samsung has touted all these ridiculous features that no one uses because they do not work. Their facial recognition was horrific especially compared to FaceID. Samsung has a lot of quality control issues with high failure rates. The Snapdragon was smoked by the A11 Bionic CPU. Yes, the Intel radios suck compared to the Qualcomm and perhaps the S9 is slightly better on LTE but most people don't hit max speed anyway. Yes, there is no headphone jack but if you use the AirPods they are remarkably excellent. If you must use wired headphones use the lightning dongle, big deal. So what if you have to charge the iPhone and who cares if need to buy an iPad charger to quick charge and a 2.1 amp car USB adapter. Already got them.
Samsung ads, meh...
it is not ballsy, but stupid and illegal. Apple has to give a written permission for that.
Who isn't using bluetooth headphones these days? And also Samsung your phones explode when people use fast chargers, go figure that Apple didn't want to kill their batteries faster!
Also the iPhone X's camera is fantastic, and normal people don't know who DxO Mark is, and I don't think you're going to get anything more than a subjectively better picture out of the S9 ... which is still running slower than an iPhone 7.
The use of the Apple logo is ballsy. Pretty sure Apple could nail them in court on that one.
The detailing of specific tech specs is a cheap shot. The entire holistic experience of an iPhone is far superior to any Android. Samsung has touted all these ridiculous features that no one uses because they do not work. Their facial recognition was horrific especially compared to FaceID. Samsung has a lot of quality control issues with high failure rates. The Snapdragon was smoked by the A11 Bionic CPU. Yes, the Intel radios suck compared to the Qualcomm and perhaps the S9 is slightly better on LTE but most people don't hit max speed anyway. Yes, there is no headphone jack but if you use the AirPods they are remarkably excellent. If you must use wired headphones use the lightning dongle, big deal. So what if you have to charge the iPhone and who cares if need to buy an iPad charger to quick charge and a 2.1 amp car USB adapter. Already got them.
Samsung ads, meh...
it is not ballsy, but stupid and illegal. Apple has to give a written permission for that.
All these ads are clearly a parody of Apple, which is protected.
To be more clear, parody is protected, satire is not.
A parody is a work created to mock, comment on, or make fun at an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation. Parody is protected as a form of “Fair Use”, a defense to claims of copyright infringement. Cases dealing with this issue, however, look to how much of the original work is taken, holding that only that minimum amount necessary to “conjure up” the original work may be taken. Courts have also held that the parody work must actually make fun of the original work or its author.
Satire, […] is primarily a literary genre or form in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement. Typically, a satire pokes fun at larger issues, rather than the original work or its author. Satire is NOT considered Fair Use when it copies an earlier work.
The use of the Apple logo is ballsy. Pretty sure Apple could nail them in court on that one.
The detailing of specific tech specs is a cheap shot. The entire holistic experience of an iPhone is far superior to any Android. Samsung has touted all these ridiculous features that no one uses because they do not work. Their facial recognition was horrific especially compared to FaceID. Samsung has a lot of quality control issues with high failure rates. The Snapdragon was smoked by the A11 Bionic CPU. Yes, the Intel radios suck compared to the Qualcomm and perhaps the S9 is slightly better on LTE but most people don't hit max speed anyway. Yes, there is no headphone jack but if you use the AirPods they are remarkably excellent. If you must use wired headphones use the lightning dongle, big deal. So what if you have to charge the iPhone and who cares if need to buy an iPad charger to quick charge and a 2.1 amp car USB adapter. Already got them.
Samsung ads, meh...
it is not ballsy, but stupid and illegal. Apple has to give a written permission for that.
I don't think Apple minds the free advertising!
True. Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake.
The use of the Apple logo is ballsy. Pretty sure Apple could nail them in court on that one.
The detailing of specific tech specs is a cheap shot. The entire holistic experience of an iPhone is far superior to any Android. Samsung has touted all these ridiculous features that no one uses because they do not work. Their facial recognition was horrific especially compared to FaceID. Samsung has a lot of quality control issues with high failure rates. The Snapdragon was smoked by the A11 Bionic CPU. Yes, the Intel radios suck compared to the Qualcomm and perhaps the S9 is slightly better on LTE but most people don't hit max speed anyway. Yes, there is no headphone jack but if you use the AirPods they are remarkably excellent. If you must use wired headphones use the lightning dongle, big deal. So what if you have to charge the iPhone and who cares if need to buy an iPad charger to quick charge and a 2.1 amp car USB adapter. Already got them.
Samsung ads, meh...
it is not ballsy, but stupid and illegal. Apple has to give a written permission for that.
All these ads are clearly a parody of Apple, which is protected.
To be more clear, parody is protected, satire is not.
A parody is a work created to mock, comment on, or make fun at an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation. Parody is protected as a form of “Fair Use”, a defense to claims of copyright infringement. Cases dealing with this issue, however, look to how much of the original work is taken, holding that only that minimum amount necessary to “conjure up” the original work may be taken. Courts have also held that the parody work must actually make fun of the original work or its author.
Satire, […] is primarily a literary genre or form in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement. Typically, a satire pokes fun at larger issues, rather than the original work or its author. Satire is NOT considered Fair Use when it copies an earlier work.
You dont need an actual Apple logo to perform a satire. Also, how do you distinguish a case of a bad satire from weak watered-down slander?
1) No idea why you stated that since we're talking about parody and what is allowable under the law, but you are technically correct that "you don't need an actual Apple logo to perform a satire."
2) I have no idea what your question is suppose to mean since, again, we're talking about parody, but I'll do my best to answer: Both satire and slander would not be allowable under the law, but each for different reasons.
3a) Here are a couple SNL skits using their right under the law to create ads that mock Apple and/or their products
3b) It's why SNL can also have their own version of Celebrity Jeopardy where a cantankerous Sean Connery can call Alex Trebek's mother a whore, and Robin Williams and Catherine Zeta-Jones are being fun of. You can choose to see these as slanderous, but under US law you're not correct.
I can't imagine the world you want to live in that would outlaw parody.
The use of the Apple logo is ballsy. Pretty sure Apple could nail them in court on that one.
The detailing of specific tech specs is a cheap shot. The entire holistic experience of an iPhone is far superior to any Android. Samsung has touted all these ridiculous features that no one uses because they do not work. Their facial recognition was horrific especially compared to FaceID. Samsung has a lot of quality control issues with high failure rates. The Snapdragon was smoked by the A11 Bionic CPU. Yes, the Intel radios suck compared to the Qualcomm and perhaps the S9 is slightly better on LTE but most people don't hit max speed anyway. Yes, there is no headphone jack but if you use the AirPods they are remarkably excellent. If you must use wired headphones use the lightning dongle, big deal. So what if you have to charge the iPhone and who cares if need to buy an iPad charger to quick charge and a 2.1 amp car USB adapter. Already got them.
Samsung ads, meh...
it is not ballsy, but stupid and illegal. Apple has to give a written permission for that.
All these ads are clearly a parody of Apple, which is protected.
To be more clear, parody is protected, satire is not.
A parody is a work created to mock, comment on, or make fun at an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation. Parody is protected as a form of “Fair Use”, a defense to claims of copyright infringement. Cases dealing with this issue, however, look to how much of the original work is taken, holding that only that minimum amount necessary to “conjure up” the original work may be taken. Courts have also held that the parody work must actually make fun of the original work or its author.
Satire, […] is primarily a literary genre or form in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement. Typically, a satire pokes fun at larger issues, rather than the original work or its author. Satire is NOT considered Fair Use when it copies an earlier work.
You dont need an actual Apple logo to perform a satire. Also, how do you distinguish a case of a bad satire from weak watered-down slander?
1) No idea why you stated that since we're talking about parody and what is allowable under the law, but you are technically correct that "you don't need an actual Apple logo to perform a satire."
2) I have no idea what your question is suppose to mean since, again, we're talking about parody, but I'll do my best to answer: Both satire and slander would not be allowable under the law, but each for different reasons.
3a) Here are a couple SNL skits using their right under the law to create ads that mock Apple and/or their products
3b) It's why SNL can also have their own version of Celebrity Jeopardy where a cantankerous Sean Connery can call Alex Trebek's mother a whore, and Robin Williams and Catherine Zeta-Jones are being fun of. You can choose to see these as slanderous, but under US law you're not correct.
I can't imagine the world you want to live in that would outlaw parody.
The use of the Apple logo is ballsy. Pretty sure Apple could nail them in court on that one.
The detailing of specific tech specs is a cheap shot. The entire holistic experience of an iPhone is far superior to any Android. Samsung has touted all these ridiculous features that no one uses because they do not work. Their facial recognition was horrific especially compared to FaceID. Samsung has a lot of quality control issues with high failure rates. The Snapdragon was smoked by the A11 Bionic CPU. Yes, the Intel radios suck compared to the Qualcomm and perhaps the S9 is slightly better on LTE but most people don't hit max speed anyway. Yes, there is no headphone jack but if you use the AirPods they are remarkably excellent. If you must use wired headphones use the lightning dongle, big deal. So what if you have to charge the iPhone and who cares if need to buy an iPad charger to quick charge and a 2.1 amp car USB adapter. Already got them.
Samsung ads, meh...
it is not ballsy, but stupid and illegal. Apple has to give a written permission for that.
All these ads are clearly a parody of Apple, which is protected.
To be more clear, parody is protected, satire is not.
A parody is a work created to mock, comment on, or make fun at an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation. Parody is protected as a form of “Fair Use”, a defense to claims of copyright infringement. Cases dealing with this issue, however, look to how much of the original work is taken, holding that only that minimum amount necessary to “conjure up” the original work may be taken. Courts have also held that the parody work must actually make fun of the original work or its author.
Satire, […] is primarily a literary genre or form in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement. Typically, a satire pokes fun at larger issues, rather than the original work or its author. Satire is NOT considered Fair Use when it copies an earlier work.
You dont need an actual Apple logo to perform a satire. Also, how do you distinguish a case of a bad satire from weak watered-down slander?
1) No idea why you stated that since we're talking about parody and what is allowable under the law, but you are technically correct that "you don't need an actual Apple logo to perform a satire."
2) I have no idea what your question is suppose to mean since, again, we're talking about parody, but I'll do my best to answer: Both satire and slander would not be allowable under the law, but each for different reasons.
3a) Here are a couple SNL skits using their right under the law to create ads that mock Apple and/or their products
3b) It's why SNL can also have their own version of Celebrity Jeopardy where a cantankerous Sean Connery can call Alex Trebek's mother a whore, and Robin Williams and Catherine Zeta-Jones are being fun of. You can choose to see these as slanderous, but under US law you're not correct.
I can't imagine the world you want to live in that would outlaw parody.
That would be a terrible world.
But regardless, to me, there is a clear distinction between the case where parody is just a parody when a person doing it is not in direct competition to the company/entity/product being parodied, and a "parody" done in the attempt to gain marketing brownie points. The difference being - in one case, your product might benefit from saying hald-truths about your competitors product. Saying that it is a parody would be akin to saying "its a prank, bro" after it was clear that it wasn't.
Agree with the headphone jack ad: just got off a longer conference call, and I had the dongle connected to not run out of battery while on the call. Removing the headphone jack was not a good move. I don't care who else removed the headphone jack. Talking on the phone with headphones and charging at the same time is a basic use case, not a rare exception. It's an eye-sore and inconvenient.
So, you're the perfect candidate for the double-dongle. Lucky you. /s
Apple always has their own way of doing things, so it is what it is. Apple is interested in profits so consumers will have to pay for dongles. It is somewhat unfortunate how Apple is being run to gouge individuals. Apple should be gouging enterprise businesses as they might make more money that way. Both Amazon and Microsoft are making money hand over fist with their enterprise cloud businesses so they don't have to squeeze consumers to death.
Most iPhone customers use the headphones that come with the phone. A dongle is included if you want to use older headphones. I've had 3 iPhones and never did I buy any dongles. I also buy third party cables if needed.
When you make a phone that is worthy of an Apple fan, then I'll buy it. With Apple I'm buying not just the phone, but the ecosystem. I don't see a viable ecosystem with Samsung or Google for that matter. Yes, there are problems with Apple's walled garden, ie. The Photo cloud issue, the constant cloud back up requests, but I can live with these flaws. What I cannot live with is a phone that doesn't have smooth scrolling, a hacker's paradise garden, a super flawed app store that doesn't really review bad apps or being the product with every key stroke. And with the new iOS having group chat, I cannot see myself leaving the walled garden any time soon.
So go ahead and make your commercials. I think they're funny, especially the guy on the line with the iPhone X haircut. I cracked up when I saw it. I thought it was funny. But my friend thought, "wow I need a new phone." When your commercial makes an Apple user upgrade to another iPhone, you may have a problem.
One more thing.... I am appreciative that Apple is moving into its own chip manufacturing. I think that the Desktop and Laptop division are showing that companies racing to get better scores are doing so at a price. The latest Macbook Pro using the i9 Intel chip is falling to the same heat problems that Dell and Microsoft have noted. Due to the heat dissipation, the chips are heating up like fried eggs. I'm really surprised Apple fell into this trap on the laptop end.
What I think will happen with Apple is a return to the Steve Jobs small code - enhance the product through software approach. It's been the Apple way in the past and I hope that they return to it, especially on the phone side of things. ie. Don't put out wireless charging until all of the kinks have been worked out. Don't let the consumer be the beta tester. Nothing wrong with that.
Comments
To be more clear, parody is protected, satire is not.
2) I have no idea what your question is suppose to mean since, again, we're talking about parody, but I'll do my best to answer: Both satire and slander would not be allowable under the law, but each for different reasons.
3a) Here are a couple SNL skits using their right under the law to create ads that mock Apple and/or their products
3b) It's why SNL can also have their own version of Celebrity Jeopardy where a cantankerous Sean Connery can call Alex Trebek's mother a whore, and Robin Williams and Catherine Zeta-Jones are being fun of. You can choose to see these as slanderous, but under US law you're not correct.
I can't imagine the world you want to live in that would outlaw parody.
Companies make profits. Big shock.
MS just gouges people on Office subscriptions.
Well, I'm just saying, what a coincidence.
http://www.patentlyapple.com
https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2018/07/22/samsung-galaxy-note-9-release-date-price-cost-camera-galaxy-s10-s9/amp/