Haha, guess which video is #1 on iTunes right now. I'm sure this band is really indignant about this whole thing.
So? It's not like they're getting part of the profit.
As for the band
Quote:
01/19/06
A Note from Ben
It has recently come to our attention that Apple Computers' new television commercial for the Intel chip features a shot-for-shot recreation of our video for 'Such Great Heights' made by the same filmmakers responsible for the original. We did not approve this commercialization and are extremely disappointed with both parties that this was executed without our consultation or consent. -Ben Gibbard, The Postal Service
A side by side comparison is more fair, in my opinion, as the Intel ad is what, 15 seconds? And the Postal Service is minutes long. Of course the TPS video is going to be 'different'... it includes more footage! But that doesn't change the fact that it's a re-created ad.
Just watch this comparison and see how 'distinctly similar' they are.
yes, again, my point still stands. keyframes and short clips are distinctly similar (heck, your link even makes note that they are clips). BUT if you watch both items, in their entirety as they were intended to be viewed, they are distinctly different in purpose and message. trust me, i'm not just drinking the kool-aid here. i wish i knew more about copyright laws here, though. i seem to vaguely recall that derivative works are okay so long as they are completely different in purpose and treatment of the original work.
anyone want to confirm or refute this, or shed some light?
BUT if you watch both items, in their entirety as they were intended to be viewed, they are distinctly different in purpose and message.
So that means that I can grab any one bestseller from Borders, take a chapter from it, re-arrange some lines, and here I have something that's shorter, and if they're both read in their entirety, they will be distinctly similar in their purpose and message.
So that means that I can grab any one bestseller from Borders, take a chapter from it, re-arrange some lines, and here I have something that's shorter, and if they're both read in their entirety, they will be distinctly similar in their purpose and message.
Or am I misunderstanding something?
i think there's a difference, but it depends without further details from your example. are the excerpts from the book you are grabbing being used in the development of a character? like are they reading the book, and the excerpts come out of that? i'm not saying you wouldn't have to get permission... i sincerely have no idea what the legality of it is. what i am saying, though, in this case with the commercial and video, they are entirely different beasts that borrow a similar theme and have several almost-identical frames for scenes, probably due to having the exact same directors.
edit: BUT, it would have helped apple avoid a black eye PR-wise if they had cleared this first. as with the eminem-case, apple seems to have this "better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" thing at the root of its culture. heck, the ceo of griffin said as much when they would make products, in an interview with engadget, he said that if they had bothered to ask apple permission to make some of the peripherals they have, they would have never seen the light of day. instead, they made them, brought them over, apple went "cool!" and that was the end of it. like i said, it seems to be part of apple's culture these days...
Ummm...well...because the ad is not "a shot for shot recreation" of the video. In fact, mischaracterization is a bit soft. That statement is an out right lie.
In fact, mischaracterization is a bit soft. That statement is an out right lie.
Right, because, looking at the ad + video, I don't see 2 identical shots at all. As a matter of fact, one talks about monkeys in Sahara, wehereas the other is concerned with donkeys in Guatemala.
Comments
its a childish way to look at it but i dont care so ha!
this band should be greatful cuz they have nothing else coming for them in the future.
there, done.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
In the end...who really cares?
If you don't care, you are welcome not to participate in this thread.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
If you don't care, you are welcome not to participate in this thread.
Thanks. I'll remember that.
Originally posted by Elixir
ooh no this band is terrible, absolutely terrible.
its a childish way to look at it but i dont care so ha!
this band should be greatful cuz they have nothing else coming for them in the future.
there, done.
I accept your surrender
Originally posted by BRussell
Haha, guess which video is #1 on iTunes right now. I'm sure this band is really indignant about this whole thing.
So? It's not like they're getting part of the profit.
As for the band
01/19/06
A Note from Ben
It has recently come to our attention that Apple Computers' new television commercial for the Intel chip features a shot-for-shot recreation of our video for 'Such Great Heights' made by the same filmmakers responsible for the original. We did not approve this commercialization and are extremely disappointed with both parties that this was executed without our consultation or consent. -Ben Gibbard, The Postal Service
Originally posted by Gene Clean
A side by side comparison is more fair, in my opinion, as the Intel ad is what, 15 seconds? And the Postal Service is minutes long. Of course the TPS video is going to be 'different'... it includes more footage! But that doesn't change the fact that it's a re-created ad.
Just watch this comparison and see how 'distinctly similar' they are.
Side by Side comparison
yes, again, my point still stands. keyframes and short clips are distinctly similar (heck, your link even makes note that they are clips). BUT if you watch both items, in their entirety as they were intended to be viewed, they are distinctly different in purpose and message. trust me, i'm not just drinking the kool-aid here. i wish i knew more about copyright laws here, though. i seem to vaguely recall that derivative works are okay so long as they are completely different in purpose and treatment of the original work.
anyone want to confirm or refute this, or shed some light?
Apple Computers' new television commercial for the Intel chip features a shot-for-shot recreation of our video for 'Such Great Heights'
This strikes me as a mischaracterization.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This strikes me as a mischaracterization.
Why?
Originally posted by rok
BUT if you watch both items, in their entirety as they were intended to be viewed, they are distinctly different in purpose and message.
So that means that I can grab any one bestseller from Borders, take a chapter from it, re-arrange some lines, and here I have something that's shorter, and if they're both read in their entirety, they will be distinctly similar in their purpose and message.
Or am I misunderstanding something?
Originally posted by Gene Clean
So that means that I can grab any one bestseller from Borders, take a chapter from it, re-arrange some lines, and here I have something that's shorter, and if they're both read in their entirety, they will be distinctly similar in their purpose and message.
Or am I misunderstanding something?
i think there's a difference, but it depends without further details from your example. are the excerpts from the book you are grabbing being used in the development of a character? like are they reading the book, and the excerpts come out of that? i'm not saying you wouldn't have to get permission... i sincerely have no idea what the legality of it is. what i am saying, though, in this case with the commercial and video, they are entirely different beasts that borrow a similar theme and have several almost-identical frames for scenes, probably due to having the exact same directors.
edit: BUT, it would have helped apple avoid a black eye PR-wise if they had cleared this first. as with the eminem-case, apple seems to have this "better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" thing at the root of its culture. heck, the ceo of griffin said as much when they would make products, in an interview with engadget, he said that if they had bothered to ask apple permission to make some of the peripherals they have, they would have never seen the light of day. instead, they made them, brought them over, apple went "cool!" and that was the end of it. like i said, it seems to be part of apple's culture these days...
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Why?
Ummm...well...because the ad is not "a shot for shot recreation" of the video. In fact, mischaracterization is a bit soft. That statement is an out right lie.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
In fact, mischaracterization is a bit soft. That statement is an out right lie.
Right, because, looking at the ad + video, I don't see 2 identical shots at all. As a matter of fact, one talks about monkeys in Sahara, wehereas the other is concerned with donkeys in Guatemala.
Come on...