Jump to content


iTunes Eminem Ad


  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

#81 Guest_fredcamino_*

Guest_fredcamino_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 October 2005 - 10:45 PM

Oh yeah, that was long...hahaha!


AND it was about advertising! TSK TSK...

#82 Guest_govinda_*

Guest_govinda_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 October 2005 - 10:54 PM

My conscience is a heroic bearded man holding an AI toolbar.

I can live with that. :lol:

#83 Guest_martober_*

Guest_martober_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 October 2005 - 11:25 PM

I have no idea what martober is saying. It's all over the map. It's dripping off the map and onto the floor.

I am having a fair amount of difficulty trying to communicate clearly here, that much is true.

Less verbose:

Fact: iPod ad uses similar colours and visual themes to another ad

Proposal: Anyone suing would would lose

Future: Ad agencies operate the same

#84 Guest_George._*

Guest_George._*
  • Guests

Posted 26 October 2005 - 11:30 PM

iTunes Music Store just opened in Australia - tuesday. yeewwwwww finally!!!

also Apple are running the infamous Eminem spot here in Australia to promot iPods and Itunes.... saw it last night

#85 Guest_martober_*

Guest_martober_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 October 2005 - 11:43 PM

It's all over the map. It's dripping off the map and onto the floor.

Is it dripping in a clunky, badly animated way?

#86 Guest_parallax_*

Guest_parallax_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 October 2005 - 08:15 AM

I think we're back to trashcans filled with baby leprechauns, wich is the epitomy of originality.

#87 Guest_martober_*

Guest_martober_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 October 2005 - 09:24 AM

The account people, fer crissakes, even THEY wouldn't allow it at Fallon.


I just had a look at the Fallon website. Goto Our Work>Television>Best of Television> Fourth one down.

The "Citi Identity Theft" exploits an idea used by Gillian Wearing a British artist. A work titled Two into One formed part of her winning Turner Prize entry in 1997. It used the specific effect of dubbing sound of a totally different voice over live action. (She was also famously ripped off by a campaign advertising Volkswagen but I don't currently know who did that).

There is a concise opinion here on this subject we are discussing. If you want the legal perspective as to why agencies can copy artists work there is a good legal view here. If artists can't be protected by the (UK) law as it stands then I am sure other advertisers can't!

Edited by martober, 27 October 2005 - 09:46 AM.


#88 Guest_Awesome Swelles_*

Guest_Awesome Swelles_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 October 2005 - 11:11 AM

My guess is that if Norowzian came up again today, it would probably be decided differently. I think the case is probably right, as it says unless you can show literal copying then you have no case. But in other areas of copyright, the lines between literal and non-literal copying have been blurred and the question as to what constitutes a "substantial part" of the original work has been defined increasingly widely. Designer Guild was a case concerning similar wallpaper designs that went all the way to the House of Lords, and there we got three completely different tests for deciding whether there had been non-literal copying of a substantial part, none of which were particularly helpful because they found it difficult to express what "copying a substantial part" meant and each of the judges said something different. But they did rule in favour of Designer Guild.

so what is a substantial part? Can you separate parts of the original work, particularly those parts that demonstrate particular skill, and say that if it the other work copies those then it infringes, or is that similarity by excission? If you can express an idea in detail - such as the outline for a TV show - should that be protected? If I transform a 2d work into 3d is that copying? (yes for an architect's plans and no for a photograph).

The whole area is a bit of a mess and it really seems to depend on which judge decides the case rather than any underlying rationale.

#89 Guest_martober_*

Guest_martober_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 October 2005 - 04:07 PM

so what is a substantial part? Can you separate parts of the original work, particularly those parts that demonstrate particular skill

I would look at the Lugz ad and say the parts that demonstrated particular skill were the way the graffiti zips through the air in 3D and the 3D man. Neither elements are in the Apple spot.

#90 Guest_govinda_*

Guest_govinda_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 October 2005 - 04:08 PM

The guy who came up with the Citi Theft campaign is my friend Steve Driggs. Steve for the purpose of quick study is the ad equivalent of our Ted Gore--principled and prolific. If he knew of Ms. Wearing's work, knowing Steve, it'd be the shock of my life. He just doesn't roll that way. There have been a lot of music videos with this trick. One by Dave Matthews iirc, and knowing Steve and his tastes that'd be a much much more likely source. As for the look of it, maybe the DP was aware of Wearing, though more likely he was just using the desaturated style that's the current standard.

I'm rooting through Wearing's stuff now. This is cool. I can't rule it out, but really. I doubt it.

As for advertising taking artists' works, I'm going to go out to a weird place and try to do it quickly.

There are a series of sluices that channel art to the masses. Everything from Hokusai to Rockwell to Whistler to Da Vinci has landed in a weird place in pop culture--a phenomenon that Warhol played with. Advertising is one of those channels. I can't count how many times someone has used fine art as a conceptual base for their ad. Crass? Well, sure, but the net effect is that the cultural dialog is the better for it and has adapted better to change. If you held an image of Rodin's Thinker front of a Wal-Mart clerk from Wenatchee, she might know what it is and name the artist. That's a better situation than not.

But if someone were to animate my sister's friend Kim Dingle's work, she'd rightly feel ripped off. It's not fair to her. It does get her ideas into wider play, but at the expense of her own livelihood.

It's not like this is an easy issue. This is just a different spin, and probably one that'll bring up about ten howling exceptions. :D

#91 Guest_nextseason_*

Guest_nextseason_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 October 2005 - 04:13 PM

I would look at the Lugz ad and say the parts that demonstrated particular skill were the way the graffiti zips through the air in 3D and the 3D man. Neither elements are in the Apple spot.

View Post

Dude... I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm trying to do you a favor...
Please just stop.

Just... Stop.

#92 Guest_govinda_*

Guest_govinda_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 October 2005 - 04:17 PM

I would look at the Lugz ad and say the parts that demonstrated particular skill were the way the graffiti zips through the air in 3D and the 3D man. Neither elements are in the Apple spot.

View Post

Wait, that's cart before horse, man. You don't start with the original and look to see if that's in the copy. :lol: The lack of those elements is proof only that it's a ripoff that didn't bother with the best of psyop's technique. If the copiers had copied the 3D, it'd be even worse, to the point of that ridiculous Chinese ripoff of Blind. But not having the 3D doesn't mean they didn't copy Lugz in every single other respect. You just found the only two things they didn't copy, imagine that....

#93 Guest_Awesome Swelles_*

Guest_Awesome Swelles_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 October 2005 - 05:10 PM

I would look at the Lugz ad and say the parts that demonstrated particular skill were the way the graffiti zips through the air in 3D and the 3D man. Neither elements are in the Apple spot.

View Post

Setting aside legal aspects, the point (of Govinda's vorpal sword) remains that Logan must have been aware of how similar the spot was to Lugz, and so too the others involved. Someone should have said something regardless of whether there was actual plagiarism or not.

I like to think though that letting Apple/Chiat/Logan/etc get away with this is a little like letting Larry Flynt bring pornography within free speech rights. You know that if Larry Flynt's protected then you're on pretty safe ground. I don't think any artist exists or existed in a cultural vacuum; people take other people's ideas and combine them, improve upon them and expose them to more people. If you want a vibrant culture then you need to let ideas travel freely. This may mean that some pretty shabby work slips through the net, but if it does then you know that your inspirations aren't going to come after you if you find success.

#94 Guest_jslicer_*

Guest_jslicer_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 October 2005 - 05:48 PM

The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.

-Albert Einstein-

#95 Guest_Douglas_*

Guest_Douglas_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 October 2005 - 05:50 PM

-5 for Apple--lately they insist on not caring about originality in their ads
-3 for Chiat--they don't mind settling for swiping ideas if the client is Apple.
-2 for Logan--they're not going to say no to the project, but they're culpable for it. Should they have made it somehow less like Lugz? Or was it, in their mind, a tribute that it reproduced the look?

But everyone's own Vorpal Sword may have different hit points on this.

View Post



My Vorpal Sword:

-5 for Chiat

I might excluded Apple completely just because I don't really expect much in terms of commercial genius from giant corporations. That said, I am quite fond of the overall design of their products. In exchange, I would put more negative points on the ad agency rating as I suspect they were the one's who were gung-ho over the idea of the Lugz spot in the first place. Giving Logan the benefit of the doubt with their commendable portfolio of original content and great animation, I could imagine them putting some sort of resistance in NOT going the "Lugz route" or even presenting alternate versions. Perhaps in the end they gave in to the fact that Apple is this giant client that everyone would love to work with, and the chance to do a project with Romanek is pretty cool in it's own right. Is there a possiblity in this case that the ad agency would have strong-armed ANY motion-graphics company into pulling so many references from the Lugz spot? I think it is really difficult, if this was the case, to abandon one of your biggest clients while refusing to do what they are asking and staking claim of artisitic integrity in the motion graphics business. I would like to think that everyone would have the ability to pull out of a project, no matter the scale of it, if they did not feel comfortable with the creative decisions being made, but I've never really been in that position with such a big client and large amount of cashola. As so many have told me in other threads on this site "it's just a business... it's not art... lighten up". Though I do not condone borrowing other's stylistic design choices for your own work, perhaps this falls into that "it's a business" scenario.

Edited by Douglas, 27 October 2005 - 06:01 PM.


#96 Guest_govinda_*

Guest_govinda_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 October 2005 - 06:30 PM

Yeah, the creative team at Chiat would normally originate the idea. But lately places like Motion Theory sound like they're pitching ad ideas based on graphic ideas, so there's a chance that Logan showed them this look at some point, for this job or maybe in the past for some other job. From the start, the art director at Chiat, if she's like every other art director, gives over a wall in her office to pinned-up reference grabs for the spot she's working on, and right in there will be screen shots from Lugz. A photo from that office wall with a Lugz pull would be a damning thing for public opinion at least. The whole ad chatter class would be swingin' those vorpal blades. :lol:

#97 Guest_parallax_*

Guest_parallax_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 October 2005 - 08:21 PM

Oh, and you can def. tell Romanek was involved, he brings sooooo much to the table on this job :|

*me thinks Romanek was only involved to loosen up Eminem in the first place. Sir Marshall Matters XVII needs a visionary director to further his creative endevours*

#98 Guest_Douglas_*

Guest_Douglas_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 October 2005 - 09:29 PM

I think Romanek was involved because Apple/Chait have liked working with him in the past, but I hear ya.

#99 Guest_yuppster_*

Guest_yuppster_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 October 2005 - 11:30 PM

I think Romanek was involved because Apple/Chait have liked working with him in the past, but I hear ya.

View Post

I posted the credits off AdCritic earlier in this thread... so there's no confusion. Romanek/Logan were the directors.

#100 Guest_govinda_*

Guest_govinda_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 October 2005 - 12:38 AM

I think he was saying 'because' in the sense of 'the only reason they went for Marc Romanek was...'




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users