So a band or performer should strive for the obscurity (in the name of not selling out) that prevents their message getting out anytime good fortune comes calling? That's a recipie for mediocrity.
So a band or performer should strive for the obscurity (in the name of not selling out) that prevents their message getting out anytime good fortune comes calling? That's a recipie for mediocrity.
I wouldn't call their videos being plagiarized 'good fortune'. Plus some people value originality more than money.
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 copyright is owned by those who paid for it. Depending on their agreement, labels may or may not own the copyright to the video. Looking at the industry as a whole, this is almost always the case. We don't know if the directors retained the copyright, but as I said, looking at the industry and the way this kind of thing works, that is highly unlikely.
Quote:
The excact same thing happened to a music video by Norwegian Röyksopp, which was remade as a comercial for an Energy Company.
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 R?yksopp, which was remade as a comercial for an Energy Company.
thats prob what happened,
and so in that case YES the band should be greatful that apple gave them a nice boost
I wouldn't call their videos being plagiarized 'good fortune'. Plus some people value originality more than money.
You can't plagarize yourself if you are the content owner, then it is just reuse.
As has been said a couple times already, if the band didn't purchase the creative idea rights from the writer, the non-audio content of the video is not theirs to control. Typically music video creative rights (as opposed to revenue generation ownership of the actual video) are owned by the producer/director because they are the ones who are also the writers. This general concept is quite established across all flavors of media and has been for a VERY long time.
[B]You can't plagarize yourself if you are the content owner, then it is just reuse.
We don't know who the content owner is yet, but based on some of the reactions from the label representative, it's not the directors.
Quote:
As has been said a couple times already, if the band didn't purchase the creative idea rights from the writer, the non-audio content of the video is not theirs to control. Typically music videos are owned by the producer/director because they are the ones who are also the writers. This general concept is quite established across all flavors of media and has been for a VERY long time.
Wrong. Typically music videos are owned by those who paid for them. Copyright included. If the label didn't own the video, their representative would not say 'they did not ask for permission' because there would be no need to ask for a permission.
It is still unclear just exactly what happened and who's the owner, but all signs lead to the labels. Let's wait and see though.
We don't know who the content owner is yet, but based on some of the reactions from the label representative, it's not the directors.
Wrong. Typically music videos are owned by those who paid for them. Copyright included. If the label didn't own the video, their representative would not say 'they did not ask for permission' because there would be no need to ask for a permission.
It is still unclear just exactly what happened and who's the owner, but all signs lead to the labels. Let's wait and see though.
I agree on the wait and see. I don't put much stock in a PR rep statement about not asking for permission. Those mini-prepared statements are not nearly as well vetted as the contracts themselves are. And I'm not arguing who owns the video either, but who owns the idea or story the video is based on which are two separate things.
Maybe for musicians its different, but for architects, designers and graphic designers it is normal that the artist or creative company owns the rights to the ideas presented. The company who orders the work owns only the rights to the product itself, meaning that the artist can freely use the ideas elesewhere. (This is unless anything elese is agreen upon)
The video is Royksopp's "Remind Me". you can see it here:
It is common for me to have software developed specifically for our company but I don't have the rights to stop the company developing the software packages for us from reselling it to my competition unless I pay for exclusive rights.
Otherwise, I get a non-compete clause for X time and after that they can market to other companies. I would say that is what happened with the USPS ad.
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
look, spend two bucks and WATCH THE VIDEO. yes, there are some very distinct similarities. there are single-frame shots that are almost identical. but the video is VERY DIFFERENT from the ad. i'm not lying. just watch it. hell, if you're too cheap to spend the two bucks, just watch the 30-second preview, IN ITS ORIGINAL INTENDED CONTEXT, and see what i mean for yourself.
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.
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.
So, we've been over this. Come full circle. In the end...who really cares? There are so many relevant facts that are absent from our discussion here that it seems that it really warrants ending it until there are more available. This is between Apple, their ad agency, the video producers, record company and the band.
Comments
Originally posted by Hiro
So a band or performer should strive for the obscurity (in the name of not selling out) that prevents their message getting out anytime good fortune comes calling? That's a recipie for mediocrity.
I wouldn't call their videos being plagiarized 'good fortune'. Plus some people value originality more than money.
Originally posted by svin
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 copyright is owned by those who paid for it. Depending on their agreement, labels may or may not own the copyright to the video. Looking at the industry as a whole, this is almost always the case. We don't know if the directors retained the copyright, but as I said, looking at the industry and the way this kind of thing works, that is highly unlikely.
The excact same thing happened to a music video by Norwegian Röyksopp, which was remade as a comercial for an Energy Company.
Which song was it: Sparks?
Originally posted by svin
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 R?yksopp, which was remade as a comercial for an Energy Company.
thats prob what happened,
and so in that case YES the band should be greatful that apple gave them a nice boost
Originally posted by Elixir
and so in that case YES the band should be greatful that apple gave them a nice boost
No, they SHOULD NOT be grateful that Apple re-used their videos for the sake of making more money.
Again: not everybody is into making money and commercialism.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
I wouldn't call their videos being plagiarized 'good fortune'. Plus some people value originality more than money.
You can't plagarize yourself if you are the content owner, then it is just reuse.
As has been said a couple times already, if the band didn't purchase the creative idea rights from the writer, the non-audio content of the video is not theirs to control. Typically music video creative rights (as opposed to revenue generation ownership of the actual video) are owned by the producer/director because they are the ones who are also the writers. This general concept is quite established across all flavors of media and has been for a VERY long time.
Originally posted by Hiro
[B]You can't plagarize yourself if you are the content owner, then it is just reuse.
We don't know who the content owner is yet, but based on some of the reactions from the label representative, it's not the directors.
As has been said a couple times already, if the band didn't purchase the creative idea rights from the writer, the non-audio content of the video is not theirs to control. Typically music videos are owned by the producer/director because they are the ones who are also the writers. This general concept is quite established across all flavors of media and has been for a VERY long time.
Wrong. Typically music videos are owned by those who paid for them. Copyright included. If the label didn't own the video, their representative would not say 'they did not ask for permission' because there would be no need to ask for a permission.
It is still unclear just exactly what happened and who's the owner, but all signs lead to the labels. Let's wait and see though.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
We don't know who the content owner is yet, but based on some of the reactions from the label representative, it's not the directors.
Wrong. Typically music videos are owned by those who paid for them. Copyright included. If the label didn't own the video, their representative would not say 'they did not ask for permission' because there would be no need to ask for a permission.
It is still unclear just exactly what happened and who's the owner, but all signs lead to the labels. Let's wait and see though.
I agree on the wait and see. I don't put much stock in a PR rep statement about not asking for permission. Those mini-prepared statements are not nearly as well vetted as the contracts themselves are. And I'm not arguing who owns the video either, but who owns the idea or story the video is based on which are two separate things.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
No, they SHOULD NOT be grateful that Apple re-used their videos for the sake of making more money.
Again: not everybody is into making money and commercialism.
eh, whatever you say.
if this was a band with real substance i'd agree with you
Originally posted by Elixir
eh, whatever you say.
if this was a band with real substance i'd agree with you
"Well. Apple may have broken some intellectual property laws but it doesn´t matter because this band sucks"
Sorry. Objectivity beats subjectivity.
BTW have you ever heard a Postal Service album? They are actually pretty good.
Originally posted by Elixir
if this was a band with real substance i'd agree with you
Or perhaps, if you had a better taste in music, I would agree with you. Alas,...
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Which song was it: Sparks?
Maybe for musicians its different, but for architects, designers and graphic designers it is normal that the artist or creative company owns the rights to the ideas presented. The company who orders the work owns only the rights to the product itself, meaning that the artist can freely use the ideas elesewhere. (This is unless anything elese is agreen upon)
The video is Royksopp's "Remind Me". you can see it here:
Remind Me
You can see the add for energy company Areva here:
Areva
Its an amazing video by the way!
the directors are called H5
H5
/
Otherwise, I get a non-compete clause for X time and after that they can market to other companies. I would say that is what happened with the USPS ad.
Originally posted by aplnub
I would say that is what happened with the USPS ad.
It's not USPS, it's a band called 'The Postal Service'.
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
http://www.postalservicemusic.net/
Originally posted by Gene Clean
It's not USPS, it's a band called 'The Postal Service'.
It was supposed to be a sly joke.
The Postal Service - Such Great Heights Video
Originally posted by rok
The Postal Service - Such Great Heights Video
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
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
So, we've been over this. Come full circle. In the end...who really cares? There are so many relevant facts that are absent from our discussion here that it seems that it really warrants ending it until there are more available. This is between Apple, their ad agency, the video producers, record company and the band.