This looks more and more like Steve's legendary "**** 'em, they won't sue" tactic, because most companies (including Apple) are careful to cross t's and dot i's as far as this sort of thing goes. Considering how often it's blown up in his face, I marvel at his persistence.
Excuse my ignorance, but what are you referring to, specifically?
Here's a story this morning about it at the Mac Observer.
Looks pretty shady to me. Whether or not you like Eminem, you have to admit it's pretty brutal that he said NO and they used it anyway. They deserve to get sued.
(A copy of an e-mail between Chiat/Day and Eminem's music publisher is part of the court complaint, giving evidence that the ad agency knew rapper Eminem was not going to endorse the use of his song "Lose Yourself" in an iTunes TV spot.)
What is this so called evidence, floating around the web for. And couldn't somebody have found a clean scanner to copy the thing?
Originally posted by scavanger It's a prefectly valid claim, especially since it has to do with endorsement. Endorsement deals are big stuff...
Ah yes endorsement. I can't think of anybody I know who is so lacking in awareness of modern marketing techniques that they would conclude that in this ad eminem was endorsing iTMS, iPods or any other Apple products.
But let's stretch the bounds of credulity for a moment and assume a lot of people saw that ad and thought "oh eminem thinks iTMS is good". Why doesn't it work both ways? Vis "Apple thinks eminem is good".
Just because something is law doesn't mean it's a good law. I think it was Shakespeare who said something along the lines of some laws are more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
Whatever, more press for Apple. More press for Eminem. Apparently damages are said to be worth 'at least more than $75000' This story will quickly fade.
That 75K figure is just the statutory minimum amount of damages for a federal lawsuit based on diversity. You don't have to plead exactly what you're looking to get, so the provable damages might be much much higher.
I wonder if Apple can make hay about how much the Stones sold "Start Me Up" to MS for (wasn't that about $5mil?). $10mil seems like a lot of money for 20" of a little kid doing the song. IIRC, Billy G bought the song - i.e. the publishing rights - to Start Me Up, not a limited 20" license for a commercial. If that's true (and I can't make any warranties on that) then I would argue that em's damages are small, more on the order of the compulsory license fees charged to businesses that play music (like restaurants). I'd probably be wrong, but I'd argue it. I'm not an IP attorney.
I don't have any specifics at hand, but any book on Apple history will offer all the detail you ever wanted.
It's vintage Steve.
Let's name our company Apple, f*** Apple Records, they won't sue.
Let's name our new computer Macintosh, f*** Makintosh Audio, they won't sue.
Let's use a lightbulb as a Newton logo (forgot which company sued over that).
Let's have a kid sing Eminem, f*** Eminem, he won't sue...
-------------
Reading that letter, it's hardly conclusive evidence usage was rejected by Eminem's publisher. "In it's current form" could just been the way in which the Eminem song was used, not THAT is was used.
The permission to make a audio-only, sound recording of song or musical work. Mechanical rights applies to audio media only, and excludes film, TV or multimedia. A Compulsory Mechanical License allows you to make a sound recording without having to contact the copyright owner, provided you do not change the words or fundamental character of the music, and you pay the statutory mechanical rate.
Quote:
Music Clearance for Visual Media (Synchronization Rights)
The US copyright act distinguishes between recording music in audio media (i.e. records, tapes, CDs, etc.) and visual media (such as motion pictures and video), because of the potentially powerful effects of pairing music with images.
Consequently, Congress gave copyright owners the absolute and exclusive authority to permit, set fees for, or prohibit visual uses of music, because they can and do transform the meanings of songs.
Comments
This looks more and more like Steve's legendary "**** 'em, they won't sue" tactic, because most companies (including Apple) are careful to cross t's and dot i's as far as this sort of thing goes. Considering how often it's blown up in his face, I marvel at his persistence.
Excuse my ignorance, but what are you referring to, specifically?
Originally posted by murbot
Here's a story this morning about it at the Mac Observer.
Looks pretty shady to me. Whether or not you like Eminem, you have to admit it's pretty brutal that he said NO and they used it anyway. They deserve to get sued.
(A copy of an e-mail between Chiat/Day and Eminem's music publisher is part of the court complaint, giving evidence that the ad agency knew rapper Eminem was not going to endorse the use of his song "Lose Yourself" in an iTunes TV spot.)
What is this so called evidence, floating around the web for. And couldn't somebody have found a clean scanner to copy the thing?
Originally posted by murbot
yeah man, Detroiters gots ta be paid.
Originally posted by scavanger It's a prefectly valid claim, especially since it has to do with endorsement. Endorsement deals are big stuff...
Ah yes endorsement. I can't think of anybody I know who is so lacking in awareness of modern marketing techniques that they would conclude that in this ad eminem was endorsing iTMS, iPods or any other Apple products.
But let's stretch the bounds of credulity for a moment and assume a lot of people saw that ad and thought "oh eminem thinks iTMS is good". Why doesn't it work both ways? Vis "Apple thinks eminem is good".
Just because something is law doesn't mean it's a good law. I think it was Shakespeare who said something along the lines of some laws are more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
Originally posted by InactionMan
Whatever, more press for Apple. More press for Eminem. Apparently damages are said to be worth 'at least more than $75000' This story will quickly fade.
That 75K figure is just the statutory minimum amount of damages for a federal lawsuit based on diversity. You don't have to plead exactly what you're looking to get, so the provable damages might be much much higher.
I wonder if Apple can make hay about how much the Stones sold "Start Me Up" to MS for (wasn't that about $5mil?). $10mil seems like a lot of money for 20" of a little kid doing the song. IIRC, Billy G bought the song - i.e. the publishing rights - to Start Me Up, not a limited 20" license for a commercial. If that's true (and I can't make any warranties on that) then I would argue that em's damages are small, more on the order of the compulsory license fees charged to businesses that play music (like restaurants). I'd probably be wrong, but I'd argue it. I'm not an IP attorney.
Thoth
Originally posted by meilleure ami
Excuse my ignorance, but what are you referring to, specifically?
I don't have any specifics at hand, but any book on Apple history will offer all the detail you ever wanted.
It's vintage Steve.
Originally posted by Amorph
I don't have any specifics at hand, but any book on Apple history will offer all the detail you ever wanted.
It's vintage Steve.
Apple Records maybe ?
Originally posted by Amorph
I don't have any specifics at hand, but any book on Apple history will offer all the detail you ever wanted.
It's vintage Steve.
Let's name our company Apple, f*** Apple Records, they won't sue.
Let's name our new computer Macintosh, f*** Makintosh Audio, they won't sue.
Let's use a lightbulb as a Newton logo (forgot which company sued over that).
Let's have a kid sing Eminem, f*** Eminem, he won't sue...
-------------
Reading that letter, it's hardly conclusive evidence usage was rejected by Eminem's publisher. "In it's current form" could just been the way in which the Eminem song was used, not THAT is was used.
Barto
Mechanical Rights
The permission to make a audio-only, sound recording of song or musical work. Mechanical rights applies to audio media only, and excludes film, TV or multimedia. A Compulsory Mechanical License allows you to make a sound recording without having to contact the copyright owner, provided you do not change the words or fundamental character of the music, and you pay the statutory mechanical rate.
Music Clearance for Visual Media (Synchronization Rights)
The US copyright act distinguishes between recording music in audio media (i.e. records, tapes, CDs, etc.) and visual media (such as motion pictures and video), because of the potentially powerful effects of pairing music with images.
Consequently, Congress gave copyright owners the absolute and exclusive authority to permit, set fees for, or prohibit visual uses of music, because they can and do transform the meanings of songs.