Well done, Chad! I like the format.
Next, Linn's can do Google+ Hangouts on Air for the 5000+ member strong
//tinyurl.com/StampCollectingWindow Community !! ;-)
Apple Ad vs The Postal Service "Such Great Heights" video
Apple's new ad for the Intel iMac is looks strikingly familiar to anyone who has seen the video for Such Great Heights by the group The Postal Service. This is a ...
If you pay a director to do a work for you, then you basically buy the
rights to his creation. Kind of like an inventor or scientist, working for
a pharmaceutical company. If he then runs off and sells that exact same
creation, or a molecule-for-molecule recreation of it, then it is...
unethical to say the least. I might also point out that Apple is notorious
when it comes to cracking down and suing people, still I wouldn't lay too
much blame, if any, on Apple in this case, it is the director...
Quoted from Wikipedia. "In January 2006, ...Gibbard stated on the band's
website, "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."
It's no secret that the same design company directed both the video and the
commercial. The fucked up thing is, the postal service paid the company,
and then Apple paid them again for the same product reworked. I'm not an
Apple fangirl, but unless Apple saw the Postal Service video (I doubt) and
said I WANT THAT, then it was suggested by the advertising agency to Apple.
The bad feedback should go to the design agency that created the videos.
I know this is two years old, but what I am saying is that 1) Postal
service probably had no legal ground to sue, and 2) Why would the director
make the video if he was not getting paid? And if he's getting paid, who
are we to judge how much he wants to charge for his video ideas? Also,
apple would sue? They haven't even submitted a takedown notice for this
youtube video - and I doubt they are suing the uploader.
From Ben's website... "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."
While the concept is cool. It's only cool once. To be honest, Such Great
Heights would have been better suited by a different video anyway so Apple
can have it. But to make 6 or 7 figure salaries from both clients for
essentially the same thing is just lazy, uncreative, dull and kind of
insultingly stupid. Have some pride in your work boys, show us you can do
something else. Lame.
"haha apple is not desperate. Its a good commercial. the only reason why
apple isnt number one is because people are cheap bastards and they think
microsoft is better because thats what they've been using for so long. I am
switching. Getting ymself a 17" imac intel. apple is picking up and people
are starting ti realize that apple is way ahead of the other companies." Oh
so true.
haha apple is not desperate. Its a good commercial. the only reason why
apple isnt number one is because people are cheap bastards and they think
microsoft is better because thats what they've been using for so long. I am
switching. Getting ymself a 17" imac intel. apple is picking up and people
are starting ti realize that apple is way ahead of the other companies.
@blahehe I think you're confusing plagiarism with copyright infringement.
It's impossible to plagiarize your own work, whereas you can violate
copyright laws about work you've made it you don't have the rights to it.
Also, I am pretty sure this was all above board and legal, otherwise postal
service (or more likely their label) would have sued.
In order to sue The Postal Service would have to show damages. But the
incident made their sales and recognition explode. If someone made Apple's
sales go through the roof, they would not sue. Also, why sue Apple? Did
they know the director was repeating a previous project? If not, Apple is
just as much a victim as The Postal Service.
@nevermath The Postal Service has stated that Apple did not pay for the
rights to this video. I never said everybody should sue everyone for
everything. I just mean that if it were anyone using anything of Apple's
they would try to sue the crap out of them. We all know it.
@Jaegund How can this be plus 42? Postal Service almost certainly couldn't
sue. If this was the same director I would be willing to bet you dollars to
doughnuts that Apple paid for the rights to use whatever intellectual
property they needed to make this ad.
The Postal Service threatened to sue Apple and the director of the
commercial over what they believed was the commercialisation of their video
without their consultation or consent. The same guys directed the music
video and the ad