there is more to it...both videos were directed by the same duo...so i am not sure we can call it a rip-off since the same creative forces were involved...i just hate when someone has the opportunity to expose creativity to the masses, they repeat what's been already done;
Actually, it is a problem that goes beyond the mere use of 'pop culture' in marketing. Plagarism is still plagarism, even if you're stealing it from yourself. Also, since the directors were hired to create the original work for Ben, the control over the use of images lie with Ben, not the driectors.
i wonder if it's a question of ethics/moral or really plagiarism or legal copyright infringement;
if an architect designs a standard spec-office building for a developer, and then uses the same design (new drawings, but same basic design) for another spec-office building for another developer in another town, does that constitute copyright infringement!?
i agree...it's bad...bad move by the directors, bad move by apple....but is it illegal!? who owns the rights to a music video...the director, or the musician?....hmm...probably the record company...
simples has it right. would i have done such a thing? no. it would help my business in no way and actually probably hurts it. the question of legalities is of issue though. how were the contracts written and who owns the rights the videos? if the designers or videographers own it, they can do what the will with it. if the contract was written as 'work for hire', the client owns rights to the work. the right issue may be one of expense too. rights for still photography can be very high if you want to buy a photo outright so that no one else will ever use it. for instance, to buy rights for a photo fora certain use could cost say $5k, but if you want to buy the photo so that no one else can ever use it but you, you will pay and pay a lot. say possibly $40-50k. the reason is is that the client is asking the photographer to never make money off of that photo again. obviously this will vary from client to client, situation to situation, and contract to contract.
Apple Rip-off
See any similarities?
http://images.freshfjord.com/spunker/movies/thespunker.com.appleintelvspostalservice.mp4
http://gattacainc.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/01/applejack.html
yeah they are almost identical...
so what?
its not the first time that apple has harnessed the power of pop culture, and i doubt it will be the last.
there is more to it...both videos were directed by the same duo...so i am not sure we can call it a rip-off since the same creative forces were involved...i just hate when someone has the opportunity to expose creativity to the masses, they repeat what's been already done;
Ben Gibbard from the band has posted a response on their website:
postalservicemusic.net
Actually, it is a problem that goes beyond the mere use of 'pop culture' in marketing. Plagarism is still plagarism, even if you're stealing it from yourself. Also, since the directors were hired to create the original work for Ben, the control over the use of images lie with Ben, not the driectors.
i wonder if it's a question of ethics/moral or really plagiarism or legal copyright infringement;
if an architect designs a standard spec-office building for a developer, and then uses the same design (new drawings, but same basic design) for another spec-office building for another developer in another town, does that constitute copyright infringement!?
i agree...it's bad...bad move by the directors, bad move by apple....but is it illegal!? who owns the rights to a music video...the director, or the musician?....hmm...probably the record company...
wasn't there a similar story for the ipod ad with eminim?
simples has it right. would i have done such a thing? no. it would help my business in no way and actually probably hurts it. the question of legalities is of issue though. how were the contracts written and who owns the rights the videos? if the designers or videographers own it, they can do what the will with it. if the contract was written as 'work for hire', the client owns rights to the work. the right issue may be one of expense too. rights for still photography can be very high if you want to buy a photo outright so that no one else will ever use it. for instance, to buy rights for a photo fora certain use could cost say $5k, but if you want to buy the photo so that no one else can ever use it but you, you will pay and pay a lot. say possibly $40-50k. the reason is is that the client is asking the photographer to never make money off of that photo again. obviously this will vary from client to client, situation to situation, and contract to contract.
is it an issue of style? ie the filmmakers style if it is a signature style i mean...
just wondering...
did you watch the vid in first post above?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.