So, you're Apple, and you want to hire a director (in this case two) for a very important ad that you want to use to announce your transition to Intel chips, and you don't even research the prior work of the directors you hired? You have no idea what they did? You don't ask for a resume, portfolio? You just grab some guy off the street and tell him to shoot an ad for you multi-million dollar campaign?
That's the ad agency's job, not Apple's. As on all commercial shoots there must have been a few 30 somethings on the set from Apple's PR department, but these folks rarely know why they're there and they certainly don't have any creative control at this point. Prior to and post production I'm sure a few stills, samples, and art boards were shown to suits in both Apple's PR department and executive board - certainly none of them saw this coming.
I'm sure the PAs on the set for the Intel ad saw this coming a mile away - I bet a few of them listened to Such Great Heights on their iPods while watching the filming.
What exactly is the problem with having a highly similar Apple ad by the same director? The Postal Service video in question is now hilighted at the top of the iTunes music store and the song, "Such Great Heights" is now the Postal Service's top selling song at the store.
This kind of exposure is really expensive to purchase and it would seem that the band got this promotion for free. If I were the band or label I would be very supportive of this "connection" with the Apple ad.
So, you're Apple, and you want to hire a director (in this case two) for a very important ad that you want to use to announce your transition to Intel chips, and you don't even research the prior work of the directors you hired? You have no idea what they did? You don't ask for a resume, portfolio? You just grab some guy off the street and tell him to shoot an ad for you multi-million dollar campaign?
It seems a little strange to me that Apple had no idea what these guys did before they were hired. If they did, and this most certainly means they were aware of that video they shot for Postal Service, then they clearly gave them permission to re-create their work, all the way to the tiniest detail, to be re-used on the "new" ad.
Or it could be a string of unbelievable coincidences too. The directores forgot about the video they shot for Postal Service, and Apple never bothered to ask them for a portfolio. Lugz is actually the secret name for Apple and they specialize in iPod Boots. It's possible.
I know you'd like us all to join you in your conjecture (and some will) but I won't. You may well be correct (it matters very little except to Apple, their ad agency and anyone who's creative "property" may or may not have been swiped), but you are simply asserting presumptions as facts. Admit it.
you are simply asserting presumptions as facts. Admit it.
This is my opinion based on some very reliable and relevant data. Wether you think they're correct or not is totally irrelevant: what is relevant is that I can and do have an opinion, and you are in no position to tell me what I'm trying to assert or wether I should admit to doing something or not. Leave that for other, higher authorities to pursue if such a need arises. However:
You can't deny the similariy, no, scratch that, you can't deny that it's the same ad: just reloaded.
You can't deny that Apple deems it OK to continue advertising, in lieu of their problems with other ads they had (Lugz).
You can't deny that they either did not bother to check the portfolio of the directors they hired (in which case, it is their mistake, and they should correct it), or they did check it, saw the ad they made, and deemed it OK to re-make it without even asking for permission from the label/Postal Service.
You can't also deny the fact that this is not the first time they've been acussed of re-using prior ideas and ads, wether they used the same director(s) or not.
Watch the ad/video I posted. And draw your own conclusions. Tell us your opinion about what you think might have happened, and if it sounds valid, I might even buy it. That's much better than knee-jerk reactions.
This is my opinion based on some very reliable and relevant data. Wether you think they're correct or not is totally irrelevant: what is relevant is that I can and do have an opinion, and you are in no position to tell me what I'm trying to assert or wether I should admit to doing something or not.
Well, the only "reliable" data is the similarity between the videos and the fact that they were both done by the same producer. Your assertions about exactly how Apple acted are conjecture at this point. And you are welcome to the opinion that they have acted in bad faith.
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
You can't deny that they either did not bother to check the portfolio of the directors they hired (in which case, it is their mistake, and they should correct it), or they did check it, saw the ad they made, and deemed it OK to re-make it without even asking for permission from the label/Postal Service.
I don't. You are correct. But you are automatically assuming the latter and seem to be asserting it as indisputable fact.
1. there are striking similarities between the videos
2. they were both produced by the same people (according to The Postal Service's record company)
3. it wasn't licensed in any form (according to The Postal Service's record company)
What other facts would help in knowing better what has transpired?
1. When was each produced?
2. When was each released?
( the answer to the relative production/release dates is implied in the statements from the The Postal Service's record company representative but some details here would be greatly helpful )
3. Who at Apple, the ad agency and the production company knew about each video, what did they know about them and when did they know it.
4. Is anyone required to obtain permission to produce one or the other video?
( these last two questions may be the most important )
I can see how Apple might not have known of the video. That this puts "Jake and Xander" in a very bad light, though. I can't imagine many people wanting to work with them after this.
Not at all. A band does not own a video unless they are the creative force that made it. The writer has total complete creative ownership of the video (minus the music), or a savvy producer can get rights assigned to them contractually if they weren't already the credited writer. This is the same as straight music. A band does not own a song, the composer & lyricist own the song and are the only people that need to be consulted about new versions of a song.
Since the writer/producer were the ones that repackaged THEIR OWN WORK getting worked up about this is about as relevant as getting worked up over a band making a re-release cover of their own tune with a new lead singer. It's just so much vitriolic ignorance.
( the answer to the relative production/release dates is implied in the statements from the The Postal Service's record company representative but some details here would be greatly helpful )
This is a very important fact.
If the apple ad was produced 2nd, maybe they wanted to rework the concept for the video with a bigger budget and fully "realize" their dream or whatever.
I'm sure apple's 30 second commercial had a much larger budget than the 4 minute music video produced for a semi-popular band.
If the apple ad was produced 2nd, maybe they wanted to rework the concept for the video with a bigger budget and fully "realize" their dream or whatever.
Except that, legally, the video is owned by those who paid for it. It could be the band, the label, or bugs bunny. So it's kind of illegal to take the video somebody else owns, and just re-create it with a bigger budget. This of course assumes that the owner of the video is somebody other than the directors or Apple.
Now, if it's stock video that was pieced together, than things change. Depending on the licence, the video could be available to be licenced from Postal Service/label and could be re-used, either parts or its entirety. However, even if it was, we do know that Apple/the directors did not ask for a licence.
So the legal situation is quite unclear at this point. If the label purchased the copyright from the directors (as is almost always the case) than Apple is not in a good legal position. If the directors retained their copyright (which is possible, but not likely) then there's no problem neither for Apple nor for the directors.
The best thing that could happen was if Apple had to pull the ad and make a better one. It just doesn´t correspond to the tag line of "Setting processors free". I stated that earlier and now it makes much more sense. It doesn´t correspond to the tag line because the individual scenes was meant to correspond to opressed love between bunny suits.
Actually its normal that the creative companies owns THE COPYRIGHTS to the ideas and concepts they make. The record company in this case only owns THE PRODUCT which is the music video itself. The Music video can of course not be used directly by someone else. But if the creative company didn't agree to any special agreement, they have the right to use the same idea somewhere else.
The excact same thing happened to a music video by Norwegian Röyksopp, which was remade as a comercial for an Energy Company.
Comments
Originally posted by Gene Clean
So, you're Apple, and you want to hire a director (in this case two) for a very important ad that you want to use to announce your transition to Intel chips, and you don't even research the prior work of the directors you hired? You have no idea what they did? You don't ask for a resume, portfolio? You just grab some guy off the street and tell him to shoot an ad for you multi-million dollar campaign?
That's the ad agency's job, not Apple's. As on all commercial shoots there must have been a few 30 somethings on the set from Apple's PR department, but these folks rarely know why they're there and they certainly don't have any creative control at this point. Prior to and post production I'm sure a few stills, samples, and art boards were shown to suits in both Apple's PR department and executive board - certainly none of them saw this coming.
I'm sure the PAs on the set for the Intel ad saw this coming a mile away - I bet a few of them listened to Such Great Heights on their iPods while watching the filming.
This kind of exposure is really expensive to purchase and it would seem that the band got this promotion for free. If I were the band or label I would be very supportive of this "connection" with the Apple ad.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
So, you're Apple, and you want to hire a director (in this case two) for a very important ad that you want to use to announce your transition to Intel chips, and you don't even research the prior work of the directors you hired? You have no idea what they did? You don't ask for a resume, portfolio? You just grab some guy off the street and tell him to shoot an ad for you multi-million dollar campaign?
It seems a little strange to me that Apple had no idea what these guys did before they were hired. If they did, and this most certainly means they were aware of that video they shot for Postal Service, then they clearly gave them permission to re-create their work, all the way to the tiniest detail, to be re-used on the "new" ad.
Or it could be a string of unbelievable coincidences too. The directores forgot about the video they shot for Postal Service, and Apple never bothered to ask them for a portfolio. Lugz is actually the secret name for Apple and they specialize in iPod Boots. It's possible.
I know you'd like us all to join you in your conjecture (and some will) but I won't. You may well be correct (it matters very little except to Apple, their ad agency and anyone who's creative "property" may or may not have been swiped), but you are simply asserting presumptions as facts. Admit it.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
you are simply asserting presumptions as facts. Admit it.
This is my opinion based on some very reliable and relevant data. Wether you think they're correct or not is totally irrelevant: what is relevant is that I can and do have an opinion, and you are in no position to tell me what I'm trying to assert or wether I should admit to doing something or not. Leave that for other, higher authorities to pursue if such a need arises. However:
You can't deny the similariy, no, scratch that, you can't deny that it's the same ad: just reloaded.
You can't deny that Apple deems it OK to continue advertising, in lieu of their problems with other ads they had (Lugz).
You can't deny that they either did not bother to check the portfolio of the directors they hired (in which case, it is their mistake, and they should correct it), or they did check it, saw the ad they made, and deemed it OK to re-make it without even asking for permission from the label/Postal Service.
You can't also deny the fact that this is not the first time they've been acussed of re-using prior ideas and ads, wether they used the same director(s) or not.
Watch the ad/video I posted. And draw your own conclusions. Tell us your opinion about what you think might have happened, and if it sounds valid, I might even buy it. That's much better than knee-jerk reactions.
Any publicity is good publicity. I'm sure they're not too "upset."
Particularly the woman who looks up with a slight smile toward the end-- to my eye it appears to be the same actor in both shots.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
They do look alike, but I'm not sure if they're the same person.
Hmmmm...... possibly just a casting preference for a "type" by the directors.
On the other hand, if you've basically already done the piece and you're just replicating it, why not get the same people, if they're available?
Originally posted by Gene Clean
This is my opinion based on some very reliable and relevant data. Wether you think they're correct or not is totally irrelevant: what is relevant is that I can and do have an opinion, and you are in no position to tell me what I'm trying to assert or wether I should admit to doing something or not.
Well, the only "reliable" data is the similarity between the videos and the fact that they were both done by the same producer. Your assertions about exactly how Apple acted are conjecture at this point. And you are welcome to the opinion that they have acted in bad faith.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
You can't deny that they either did not bother to check the portfolio of the directors they hired (in which case, it is their mistake, and they should correct it), or they did check it, saw the ad they made, and deemed it OK to re-make it without even asking for permission from the label/Postal Service.
I don't. You are correct. But you are automatically assuming the latter and seem to be asserting it as indisputable fact.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Watch the ad/video I posted.
I have.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
That's much better than knee-jerk reactions.
My knee isn't jerking at all.
1. there are striking similarities between the videos
2. they were both produced by the same people (according to The Postal Service's record company)
3. it wasn't licensed in any form (according to The Postal Service's record company)
What other facts would help in knowing better what has transpired?
1. When was each produced?
2. When was each released?
( the answer to the relative production/release dates is implied in the statements from the The Postal Service's record company representative but some details here would be greatly helpful )
3. Who at Apple, the ad agency and the production company knew about each video, what did they know about them and when did they know it.
4. Is anyone required to obtain permission to produce one or the other video?
( these last two questions may be the most important )
Originally posted by MrSparkle
I can see how Apple might not have known of the video. That this puts "Jake and Xander" in a very bad light, though. I can't imagine many people wanting to work with them after this.
Not at all. A band does not own a video unless they are the creative force that made it. The writer has total complete creative ownership of the video (minus the music), or a savvy producer can get rights assigned to them contractually if they weren't already the credited writer. This is the same as straight music. A band does not own a song, the composer & lyricist own the song and are the only people that need to be consulted about new versions of a song.
Since the writer/producer were the ones that repackaged THEIR OWN WORK getting worked up about this is about as relevant as getting worked up over a band making a re-release cover of their own tune with a new lead singer. It's just so much vitriolic ignorance.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
1. When was each produced?
2. When was each released?
( the answer to the relative production/release dates is implied in the statements from the The Postal Service's record company representative but some details here would be greatly helpful )
This is a very important fact.
If the apple ad was produced 2nd, maybe they wanted to rework the concept for the video with a bigger budget and fully "realize" their dream or whatever.
I'm sure apple's 30 second commercial had a much larger budget than the 4 minute music video produced for a semi-popular band.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Apparently there's something here that I'm missing. Pardon me for looking like an idiot.
Don't worry.
Originally posted by tacojohn
This is a very important fact.
If the apple ad was produced 2nd, maybe they wanted to rework the concept for the video with a bigger budget and fully "realize" their dream or whatever.
Except that, legally, the video is owned by those who paid for it. It could be the band, the label, or bugs bunny. So it's kind of illegal to take the video somebody else owns, and just re-create it with a bigger budget. This of course assumes that the owner of the video is somebody other than the directors or Apple.
Now, if it's stock video that was pieced together, than things change. Depending on the licence, the video could be available to be licenced from Postal Service/label and could be re-used, either parts or its entirety. However, even if it was, we do know that Apple/the directors did not ask for a licence.
So the legal situation is quite unclear at this point. If the label purchased the copyright from the directors (as is almost always the case) than Apple is not in a good legal position. If the directors retained their copyright (which is possible, but not likely) then there's no problem neither for Apple nor for the directors.
Originally posted by Anders
The best thing that could happen was if Apple had to pull the ad and make a better one.
Which I actually hope happens. I think it is a dumb ad. They can do better.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Yes, and that version (by Iron & Wine) is also on the Garden State movie soundtrack. That's where I first learned of the song.
The original by the postal service was in the trailer for that movie.
apparently apple placed the song on its main itunes page and its the number 1 song downloaded lmao.
personally, if i was the band members i'd be happy as fuck to ever be on an apple commercial or page.
they should be thankful.
apple could have went to the band for backing though, i'm sure neither band member would have rejected it.
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/152...headlines=true
The excact same thing happened to a music video by Norwegian Röyksopp, which was remade as a comercial for an Energy Company.
Originally posted by Elixir
apparently apple placed the song on its main itunes page and its the number 1 song downloaded lmao.
personally, if i was the band members i'd be happy as fuck to ever be on an apple commercial or page.
they should be thankful.
Not everything in this world is about commercialism.