What's The Damage When An Ad Is Copied?
from the just-curious dept
Lots of folks are buzzing over the fact that the latest iPod commercial from Apple starring Eminem looks an awful lot like a commercial for boots from a few years ago. The still shots from each ad certainly do show a striking resemblance. However, while the ads may be similar, is there really grounds for any kind of lawsuit? From the article it sounds like some of the parties are angry about it, but the only discussion of suing is hinted at in the last line of the article where an exec at the company behind the first ad says that they're going to "take all the steps... to protect our rights." Just what rights are those? Is there really any confusion caused by the ads? Are people going to start thinking that Apple is endorsing the boots, or the boot company is endorsing Apple? If anything, Apple has a much stronger brand name than the boot company -- so this whole thing is probably giving the boot company a lot more publicity than any "harm" to their brand. It seems like yet another case where someone feels they need to protect their "intellectual property" because they can, rather than because it makes good business sense. Unless, of course, the company is counting on the fact that by stirring up the pot with lawsuit threats they're increasing the publicity, without having to actually having to file any lawsuit. Either way, if a lawsuit is filed, it may be quite difficult for the boot company to show any kind of damages. As a random aside, last we heard, Eminem was suing Apple over their use of one of his songs in a commercial. Apparently that situation was resolved.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Publicity Stunt?
To add to the fun, we could take every music group to court who mimics the Beatles formula for writing music (1 4 5 repeat) and tie up entire court system for years on end. The only benefit that I can see there is at least a few bands that I don't like would be taken off the streets and no longer able to write crappy music.
What this all boils down to is that these "executives" and "artists" need to suck it up and realize that there is a difference between an exact copy of a creation and something that looks almost like. These people aren't as special or cutting edge as they like to think they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same as copying any other creative work
It would be clear case if the same agency sold the same ad to two clients but these are two different agencies and the second claims that they "don't use third party ideas" or something to that effect in order to climb some moral high horse.
Its just a black eye for Apple when Jobs takes pride in announcing a new ad campaign which was cutting edge the first time around when it was commissioned for Lugz. I expect that someone at the apple ad agency will get the boot but I doubt that there's room for legal recourse.
but then, I'm not a lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
I like a lot your comments, and always have been struck by your ideas and insight. But sometimes you appear less than brilliant.
It's not Apple or Lugz that will have problems with these ads, but the advertisement companies themselves: they are different companies, and one has copied (or has taken excessive inspiration, if you prefer) from the other. If I were the other company, I would be extremely pissed off. And also, if I were Apple, I would also be extremely pissed off for this: Apple paid good money and got back a copy. Not good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Yeah, but if you read the article, it's the boot company that's threatening to sue, not the ad firm... So, you may say that makes me look "less than brilliant," but it's what's happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surely the smart thing to do ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Surely the smart thing to do ...
And while everyone likes to bash commercials, they are still covered by the same copyright protection as books, songs, and even what is written on this blog. And while I have not seen either commercial, from what you described it does not sound like "fair use" comes into play (it is not parody, it is not journalism, and it IS for commercial purposes).
Ultimately the issue will be decided in court, but it sounds to me that Apple (or its ad agency) screwed up. My guess is that, like the George Harrison copyright lawsuit that he lost (speaking of the Beetles above) it was a subconscious "oops" by the person at the ad agency and Apple will end up having to pay for the idea again.
It doesn't matter that "one brand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Surely the smart thing to do ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lugz/Apple/Eminem
I'm going to guess you've never worked in advertising. If you knew the hours and hours of work and creative energy that goes into the tiniest of spots you'd probably be a lot more sensitive to the issue.
As an aside, I HEART EMINEM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lugz/Apple/Eminem
I'm going to guess you've never worked in advertising. If you knew the hours and hours of work and creative energy that goes into the tiniest of spots you'd probably be a lot more sensitive to the issue.
It's not about "sensitivity" to the issue. We talk about this stuff all the time. I'm seriously asking where's the "harm" in this? It makes apple's agency look bad, and that's probably punishment enough. If the ad firm gets the reputation of taking ideas, fewer people may go to them for ads.
I fail to see why a legal solution to this matter is any better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AOL & NetZero
Well, NetZero copied that commerical, as far as it looked like the whole first half was the original copy, but when they looked out the window, there was a zoom in on a crowd holding up NetZero signs.
Apparently there was nothing mentioned about IP rights, and AOL launched a different AD while the NetZero one was still running. Apparently both have new ad campaigns now anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]