The design company, Logan, that produced this ad are the ones who look like idiots, as are the agency for pushing for it. They would be very aware of the Lugz Spot, created by rival and very well known company Psyop in 2002. Most people in the design community don't work in vacuums. I can only imagine TBWA/Chiat Day made reference to the Lugz ad, but Logan should have taken it a little less literally. It's very poor form to do such a high profile, shameless rip-off. They must be embarrassed about the spot, as it's not featured on their website alongside the previous work they've done for Apple.
They should be suing just the ad agency. When I was in advertising, we thought up the campaigns, the client approved them, or had them modified. But they didn't research them. So unless someone in Apple remembered having seen the Lutz ad, they aren't responsible. Actually, they aren't responsible even if someone there did see the ad.
Besides, this ad is years after the Lutz ad (which I don't even remember).
The whole image is Emimem's city creds. Orange is a "hot" color.
So the graphics fits within itself. Lutz or no Lutz. I think the ad would have been done this way anyway.
Besides, ad concepts are considered to be reusable and disposable.
What would happen if writers, song writers, TV, movies, artists, etc. couldn't reuse an idea that proved successful?
Could you imagine if the first time someone painted a subject, no one else was allowed to paint it, because that would be copying the idea?
I don't even think Apple could sue someone if they had a "similar" commercial to the iPods. Copyright exist to ensure that orginal works don't face unecessary competition. However you can't copyright "look and feel" as Apple found out years ago. Lugz has no case that they can win in a court of law. None of us watching that ad said
"OMG that looks just like the Lugz commercial"
If people don't remember your commercial then you have no case at all.
efficay of the lugz add is immaterial. it could have been made and presented in a vacuum. as long as they registered the copyright, they have recourse.
btw, copyright and registering the copyright are very different under the law.
being inspired by and a direct rip offs are two different things. similiar is different then rip off. there are alot of things that aren't rip offs but i think the lugz add was ripped off.
coincidence is also immaterial. apple's add could have been also made in a vacuum with no attempts to rip anyone off but that's also besides the point if the end result is a rip off.
...you want fair you got to a whore house. you want to get f^cked you go to court...
How do I protect my idea? Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work.
It cuts both ways. I expect to see an add someday that looks like the iPod adds but with a slight twist. I don't expect Apple to win that one as well. Copyright exists to compensate an artist for their work and prevent undue competition. However Apple sells computers and Lugz sells shoes. The damage Apple may have inflicted is miniscule if at all.
Lugz cannot win this case. I bet Apple's legal staff is 3x the size of Lugz. They better have Roy Black or Barry Scheck on retainer.
1. The colors are similar, but have a deeper contrast in the Apple ad.
2. The Apple ad adds white paint splashes on the ground as the first person is walking.
3. The Lugz ad is set in a subway, with a train and station furniture clearly visible, the Apple ad is set in a alley or urban playground.
4. The Lugz ad features one person, the Apple ad two.
5. The Lugz ad features the person break dancing and spinning on his back, the Apple ad has one character performing the rap song on a microphone and the other jumping around.
6. The Lugz ad has the person sticking his feet up in the air a few times and the camera freezing on them to show off the shoes, the Apple ad has the white iPod and white microphone permanently visible on the moving people.
7. The Lugz ad has a strong black graffiti motif playing through it, with lines and arrows prominently encircling the character, the Apple ad has white splashes of paint in the background.
In conclusion, the Apple ad was clearly *inspired* by the Lugz ad, but there are too many differences for it to be a clear copyright violation.
Otherwise, any car ad that shows two people sitting in the front seat smiling at how nicely the car rides on a tree lined road is a copyright violation.
main issue is the color palette. style and form of the ad would be okay, but having a similar color scheme unfortunately pushed it from "inspired by lugz" to "similar to lugz". whether lugz deserves royalties/ compensation/ etc, well, i don't know... \ apple should give them maybe 20-50 iPods for lugz marketing and promos
Copyright infringement it's not. If Apple had used footage from the Lugz ad in the iPod ad, then it would be. Apple got burned by Eminem for using his copyrighted song, re-recording it, and then using it in their own ad without permission. That's copyright infringement.
Trademark infringement it's not. If Apple had used the Lugz logo or something strikingly similar looking in the ad, then Lugz would have a case.
Idea infringement it IS. It is similar in color schemes, tone, etc., but none of that is illegal. This won't hit the courts, and if it does it won't go anywhere. Apple's lucky.
Copyright infringement it's not. If Apple had used footage from the Lugz ad in the iPod ad, then it would be. Apple got burned by Eminem for using his copyrighted song, re-recording it, and then using it in their own ad without permission. That's copyright infringement.
Trademark infringement it's not. If Apple had used the Lugz logo or something strikingly similar looking in the ad, then Lugz would have a case.
Idea infringement it IS. It is similar in color schemes, tone, etc., but none of that is illegal. This won't hit the courts, and if it does it won't go anywhere. Apple's lucky.
This sounds pretty much on the money.
The color is really where most of the commonality comes in.
Eminem is basically doing his stage act in the commercial. No copyright violation there.
The background is also different.
It's a three dimentional version of Apples' other ads. A logical progression.
2D = music.
3D = video.
Oh, just remembered.
The 2 years number is likely how long it took to make up with Eminem and convince him to do an ad.
I hesitate to come in like wilco and accuse everyone of knowing nothing about this. But wow, is it hard not to.
I had to wait until I cleared before I could post, so this is late, sorry.
The Lugz ad, which was not remembered by anyone on this thread, is remembered in every single detail by every person who does motion graphics for a living. Most have seen it a dozen times; in fact, it's among the most famous spots ever done. When it appeared in 2001, on technical terms it knocked people on their asses. The toon-shaded 3D and the character animation in it have yet to be equalled (the Eminem ad was a sorry try at mimicking the cityscape). On styling terms, the Lugz spot congealed everything that was floating around in the 'urban culture' category of motion design, and then it raised it a level. To say that Lugz and psyop (the creators) doesn't have a beef here because you may not have seen their ad is rather like saying that Rembrandt doesn't have a beef against a forger because you don't know anything about Rembrandt. Hello. Please try again.
Now, I'm not trying to compare psyop to Rembrandt. That was just for the sake of shorthanding the situation for those posters here who seem to think they know it all without troubling themselves to learn even the first thing.
Chiat/Day, the ad agency who hired Logan for the Eminem spot, has used psyop in the past for an amazing Infiniti sales ad (see it at psyop.tv). Which is to say, the CDs at Chiat are well aware of psyop and the Lugz work--in fact, the psyop reel is sure to be in the production office at every quality ad agency around, along with BrandNewSchool, Logan, Shynola and the other top-tier motion houses.
By way of credentials, not to wave them about, I was an ad creative at the top shops in SF for six years, so yes, I know very well what's a rip and what's not. I've been in motion design for four years and currently moderate the largest forum for motion designers on the web, so yes, I've seen pretty much everything that's come down the pipe. On the day psyop's Lugz was released, much like their 'Bombay Sapphire Drift' and about five other things they've done (they're pretty much the best there is, aside from Shynola), the motion world stood still. Thousands of people simultaneously gasped, arrowed-through the quicktimes, and immediately stored them on their hard drives.
To put it bluntly, Chiat/Day, Logan and most likely Apple knew very well they were taking a big bite out of psyop's work. Logan has done enough other original and amazing stuff that they'll only take a minor hit to their rep. As for Apple and Chiat, they deserve every bit of the embarrassment that comes from this.
Comments
Originally posted by JeffDM
I have never heard of the shoe brand and probably never would have if it weren't for this controversy.
Ding Ding Ding!
It's the halo effect... things associated with iPod are cool... ergo, Lugz wants to tie-in, even via lawsuit.
Besides, this ad is years after the Lutz ad (which I don't even remember).
The whole image is Emimem's city creds. Orange is a "hot" color.
So the graphics fits within itself. Lutz or no Lutz. I think the ad would have been done this way anyway.
Besides, ad concepts are considered to be reusable and disposable.
What would happen if writers, song writers, TV, movies, artists, etc. couldn't reuse an idea that proved successful?
Could you imagine if the first time someone painted a subject, no one else was allowed to paint it, because that would be copying the idea?
There would be no content at all.
I don't even think Apple could sue someone if they had a "similar" commercial to the iPods. Copyright exist to ensure that orginal works don't face unecessary competition. However you can't copyright "look and feel" as Apple found out years ago. Lugz has no case that they can win in a court of law. None of us watching that ad said
"OMG that looks just like the Lugz commercial"
If people don't remember your commercial then you have no case at all.
btw, copyright and registering the copyright are very different under the law.
being inspired by and a direct rip offs are two different things. similiar is different then rip off. there are alot of things that aren't rip offs but i think the lugz add was ripped off.
coincidence is also immaterial. apple's add could have been also made in a vacuum with no attempts to rip anyone off but that's also besides the point if the end result is a rip off.
...you want fair you got to a whore house. you want to get f^cked you go to court...
lose lose.
my .02
chung
How do I protect my idea? Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work.
It cuts both ways. I expect to see an add someday that looks like the iPod adds but with a slight twist. I don't expect Apple to win that one as well. Copyright exists to compensate an artist for their work and prevent undue competition. However Apple sells computers and Lugz sells shoes. The damage Apple may have inflicted is miniscule if at all.
Lugz cannot win this case. I bet Apple's legal staff is 3x the size of Lugz. They better have Roy Black or Barry Scheck on retainer.
1. The colors are similar, but have a deeper contrast in the Apple ad.
2. The Apple ad adds white paint splashes on the ground as the first person is walking.
3. The Lugz ad is set in a subway, with a train and station furniture clearly visible, the Apple ad is set in a alley or urban playground.
4. The Lugz ad features one person, the Apple ad two.
5. The Lugz ad features the person break dancing and spinning on his back, the Apple ad has one character performing the rap song on a microphone and the other jumping around.
6. The Lugz ad has the person sticking his feet up in the air a few times and the camera freezing on them to show off the shoes, the Apple ad has the white iPod and white microphone permanently visible on the moving people.
7. The Lugz ad has a strong black graffiti motif playing through it, with lines and arrows prominently encircling the character, the Apple ad has white splashes of paint in the background.
In conclusion, the Apple ad was clearly *inspired* by the Lugz ad, but there are too many differences for it to be a clear copyright violation.
Otherwise, any car ad that shows two people sitting in the front seat smiling at how nicely the car rides on a tree lined road is a copyright violation.
Lugz is doing this for the publicity.
Originally posted by aplnub
Does anyone else remember Steve saying they had been working on this 2 years in the webcast?
When (approximate date) did the Lugz commercial originally aire?
I thought Steve had said they had the idea and been wanting to do this for 5 years? Oh well, 2 years, 5 years, whatever.
Originally posted by wilco
Has there ever been a thread where so many people knew so little about what they were talking about?
Enlighten us, please.
Originally posted by wilco
Has there ever been a thread where so many people knew so little about what they were talking about?
that depends if you mean legally or morally.
Originally posted by wilco
Has there ever been a thread where so many people knew so little about what they were talking about?
Half of PO fits that bill... as do most of the speculation threads in advance of any MWSF
Originally posted by curiousuburb
Half of PO fits that bill... as do most of the speculation threads in advance of any MWSF
Well really, what would be the point if we only talked about what we know?
Trademark infringement it's not. If Apple had used the Lugz logo or something strikingly similar looking in the ad, then Lugz would have a case.
Idea infringement it IS. It is similar in color schemes, tone, etc., but none of that is illegal. This won't hit the courts, and if it does it won't go anywhere. Apple's lucky.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Copyright infringement it's not. If Apple had used footage from the Lugz ad in the iPod ad, then it would be. Apple got burned by Eminem for using his copyrighted song, re-recording it, and then using it in their own ad without permission. That's copyright infringement.
Trademark infringement it's not. If Apple had used the Lugz logo or something strikingly similar looking in the ad, then Lugz would have a case.
Idea infringement it IS. It is similar in color schemes, tone, etc., but none of that is illegal. This won't hit the courts, and if it does it won't go anywhere. Apple's lucky.
This sounds pretty much on the money.
The color is really where most of the commonality comes in.
Eminem is basically doing his stage act in the commercial. No copyright violation there.
The background is also different.
It's a three dimentional version of Apples' other ads. A logical progression.
2D = music.
3D = video.
Oh, just remembered.
The 2 years number is likely how long it took to make up with Eminem and convince him to do an ad.
I had to wait until I cleared before I could post, so this is late, sorry.
The Lugz ad, which was not remembered by anyone on this thread, is remembered in every single detail by every person who does motion graphics for a living. Most have seen it a dozen times; in fact, it's among the most famous spots ever done. When it appeared in 2001, on technical terms it knocked people on their asses. The toon-shaded 3D and the character animation in it have yet to be equalled (the Eminem ad was a sorry try at mimicking the cityscape). On styling terms, the Lugz spot congealed everything that was floating around in the 'urban culture' category of motion design, and then it raised it a level. To say that Lugz and psyop (the creators) doesn't have a beef here because you may not have seen their ad is rather like saying that Rembrandt doesn't have a beef against a forger because you don't know anything about Rembrandt. Hello. Please try again.
Now, I'm not trying to compare psyop to Rembrandt. That was just for the sake of shorthanding the situation for those posters here who seem to think they know it all without troubling themselves to learn even the first thing.
Chiat/Day, the ad agency who hired Logan for the Eminem spot, has used psyop in the past for an amazing Infiniti sales ad (see it at psyop.tv). Which is to say, the CDs at Chiat are well aware of psyop and the Lugz work--in fact, the psyop reel is sure to be in the production office at every quality ad agency around, along with BrandNewSchool, Logan, Shynola and the other top-tier motion houses.
By way of credentials, not to wave them about, I was an ad creative at the top shops in SF for six years, so yes, I know very well what's a rip and what's not. I've been in motion design for four years and currently moderate the largest forum for motion designers on the web, so yes, I've seen pretty much everything that's come down the pipe. On the day psyop's Lugz was released, much like their 'Bombay Sapphire Drift' and about five other things they've done (they're pretty much the best there is, aside from Shynola), the motion world stood still. Thousands of people simultaneously gasped, arrowed-through the quicktimes, and immediately stored them on their hard drives.
To put it bluntly, Chiat/Day, Logan and most likely Apple knew very well they were taking a big bite out of psyop's work. Logan has done enough other original and amazing stuff that they'll only take a minor hit to their rep. As for Apple and Chiat, they deserve every bit of the embarrassment that comes from this.