Eminem settles with Apple over ad
Eminem's music label has agreed to an undisclosed financial settlement with Apple in a lawsuit over copyright infringement claims.
In February of 2004, Eight Mile Style, Eminem's label, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Detroit against MTV, Apple, MTV's parent Viacom Inc. and advertising agency TBWA/Chiat/Day, claiming that Apple used one of the rapper's hit songs in an advertisement without permission.
Specifically, Apple featured a 10-year-old singing Eminem's Oscar-winning song "Lose Yourself" in an ad for its iPod and iTunes music products, which aired on MTV.
"The parties were able to reach an amicable resolution," Howard Hertz, a lawyer for Eight Mile Style and Eminem, told the Associated Press on Monday.
A lawyer for MTV and Viacom said case was "amicably resolved." Both declined to elaborate and a lawyer for Apple reportedly declined to comment.
In the suit, Eminem's lawyers alleged that Apple had originally sought the rapper's permission to use the song, but were turned down. Apple apparently proceeded without Eminem's blessing, even posting a copy of the finished ad on its Web site.
At the time, lawyers representing Eight Mile Style were quoted as saying: ?even if (Eminem) were interested in endorsing a product, any endorsement deal would require a significant amount of money, possibly in excess of $10 million.?
Word of the settlement was first reported by The Associated Press.
In February of 2004, Eight Mile Style, Eminem's label, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Detroit against MTV, Apple, MTV's parent Viacom Inc. and advertising agency TBWA/Chiat/Day, claiming that Apple used one of the rapper's hit songs in an advertisement without permission.
Specifically, Apple featured a 10-year-old singing Eminem's Oscar-winning song "Lose Yourself" in an ad for its iPod and iTunes music products, which aired on MTV.
"The parties were able to reach an amicable resolution," Howard Hertz, a lawyer for Eight Mile Style and Eminem, told the Associated Press on Monday.
A lawyer for MTV and Viacom said case was "amicably resolved." Both declined to elaborate and a lawyer for Apple reportedly declined to comment.
In the suit, Eminem's lawyers alleged that Apple had originally sought the rapper's permission to use the song, but were turned down. Apple apparently proceeded without Eminem's blessing, even posting a copy of the finished ad on its Web site.
At the time, lawyers representing Eight Mile Style were quoted as saying: ?even if (Eminem) were interested in endorsing a product, any endorsement deal would require a significant amount of money, possibly in excess of $10 million.?
Word of the settlement was first reported by The Associated Press.
Comments
DON'T STEAL MUSIC!!!
They paid because of it.
What I really want to see get cleared up is all these lawsuits about apple not supporting other stores, or their store not supporting other players, etc which is just a load of crap.
The tiger direct thing is also a load of crap.
The Apple Corps thing too. they should have taken that one to court a long time ago instead of settling, but hopefully they take this one to court and win.
If I had been Apple I would have gone through with the lawsuit and had called Eminem on the stand and made him explain how he felt his rights had been violated by Apple and the 10 year old boy. I don´t think the legal mumbojumbo would have looked good in front of his fans.
Originally posted by Anders
A little boy is singing a small part of the song? I really don´t like Apple - the company - but this lawsuit is so far out.
If I had been Apple I would have gone through with the lawsuit and had called Eminem on the stand and made him explain how he felt his rights had been violated by Apple and the 10 year old boy. I don´t think the legal mumbojumbo would have looked good in front of his fans.
It's a copyright violation plain and simple. As somone who creates for a living, someone using your work for their gain is bad news.
If anyone wanted to use my movie How to Live With a Vegan Without Killing Them I would sure like to get something out of it. Especially if they asked, and I said no, then they used it anyway.
I do not doubt it was a mistake and miscommunication somewhere. I'm sure they THOUGHT they had the rights secured, but a contract or license is the legal way to protect those people. What if it had been [insert your favorite band here] Than would it make a difference?
Originally posted by AppleInsider
At the time, lawyers representing Eight Mile Style were quoted as saying: ?even if (Eminem) were interested in endorsing a product, any endorsement deal would require a significant amount of money, possibly in excess of $10 million.?
Word of the settlement was first reported by The Associated Press.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
I'm sorry, how much?
Originally posted by Anders
A little boy is singing a small part of the song? I really don´t like Apple - the company - but this lawsuit is so far out.
What is it about Apple - the company - that you don't like? They're a pinnacle in the world of business successes, they hold quality and profit to the same standard, they work very very hard for the best interests of consumers (fair, simple pricing structures), and they deliver amazing products time and again. I can't think of a company I like more.
To stay on topic, I think this was a selfish move by Eminem, but he's a prick anyway... a genious when it comes to music and lyrics, though. The argument goes, however... why should Apple profit from Eminem's song? Now they haven't.
Originally posted by coolfactor
To stay on topic, I think this was a selfish move by Eminem, but he's a prick anyway... a genious when it comes to music and lyrics, though. [/B]
If Eminem is a "genious", I think I'm Albert Einstein...
Hopefully, Apple will learn from this incident and not deal with this type of low-quality thug again.
True though, there's much better music, but sometimes certain songs work well with certain types of ads. Apple's iPod ads have had great songs so far, and I'm sure this one worked out pretty good too.
Though the part where they use unauthorized tracks and yet at the same time sue other peoples asses when they use their products without a licence makes little sense to me. Very lame, indeed.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Though the part where they use unauthorized tracks and yet at the same time sue other peoples asses when they use their products without a licence makes little sense to me. Very lame, indeed.
I'm really wondering if it was a miscommunication somewhere. For all we know, Apple and Chiat/Day may have honestly believed they'd secured the rights to the song, only to have someone change their mind or find a loophole worthy of exploitation. Honestly, Apple wasn't planning on using the song without paying for it all along, were they? I doubt it.
?even if (Eminem) were interested in endorsing a product, any endorsement deal would require a significant amount of money, possibly in excess of $10 million.?
From Apple Dictionary:
en?dorse?ment (also dated indorsement)
noun
1) an act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something.
? a recommendation of a product in an advertisement.
A little kid singing an artist's (and I use that term losely) song in a commercial is NOT an endorsement. Even actually playing that person's song is not an endorsement, it's a licensing.
The artist appearing in the commercial, holding the product. THAT is an endorsement.
Once again Eminem proves that he's still just some stupid white kid from Detroit.
Originally posted by tak1108
It's a copyright violation plain and simple.
Was it really that clear that this was copyright infringement? A kid signing some lyrics may well have fallen within the bounds of fair use, if it was brief enough; if not, isn't there some sort of compulsory license available for cover tracks? Apple didn't actually play Eminem's song at all. I suspect they settled only to avoid a drawn-out legal fight, not because Eminem had such an open-and-shut case. As always, it would fascinating to know what the settlement actually was.
[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticise, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy... In short, we must often... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.
Don't be a copyright Nazi. Creative Commons
--B