« Putting their fear of the King into words | Main | Not quite the last judgment, but close »
Is Eminem/Apple ad something we've seen before?
|
|
October 17, 2005 | Permalink |
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Watch the Eminem video here.
http://adsoftheworld.com/media/tv/itunes_eminem
Good catch. The first time I watched this commercial I could swear I have seen it somewhere. So, this is it. No wonder the link at Apple is down...
Posted by: ivan | Oct 17, 2005 10:58:54 AM
Apple Tries to "Think Different"...
But Fails!
It's really crappy that a client like Apple got sold something so derivative. Whoever the agency was, and whoever the animation people were should feel bad for copying so blatantly. Maybe if they were some small local client you could get away with it but thier such a massive client.
Posted by: think similar | Oct 17, 2005 1:00:54 PM
apple kinda got away from their successful campaign and did something really crappy.
I could have done a better job
:P
Posted by: Haroon | Oct 17, 2005 1:13:50 PM
It's not apples fault. It would be the agency that did this ad. TWBA New York, I blieve. People also said that Apple copied the original ipod ads from the Flow 93.5 ads done by Taxi, Canada.
www.taxi.ca
And as you can see, it didn't really matter.
Posted by: fred | Oct 17, 2005 1:56:31 PM
Checked out that Flow stuff on that website, yeah, it's definitely close but at least the Apple stuff used different colors and changed the vibe a bit. You could see the creatives using that as a jumping off point. With the Eminem spot, the team seems to have used the exact same color, the same gritty urban environment, similar camera moves etc.
You would think that they would at least change the color a tiny bit.
And your right, in the long run it doesn't matter and those big, desperate, creatively bankrupt agencies will freely copy anything they want if needed, but, just maybe, if people, the audience, make a big enough stink about it, they will think a bit harder before producing such a blatant rip off.
Posted by: think similar | Oct 17, 2005 3:06:46 PM
Was it by any chance done by the same agency or designer? Does anyone know?
Posted by: rob | Oct 17, 2005 3:41:57 PM
Apple's Ipod advertising has always been average and unoriginal at best. It's a poor product that requires fixing and replacing constantly, weak & simple advertising YET YOU ALL BUY THIS SHIT. I can't believe it. I have never and will never buy an ipod to feed this corporate whore giant when there's plenty of alternatives that are better quality and cheaper.
Posted by: meffid | Oct 17, 2005 3:55:06 PM
I think they're different enough. It's not like a silhouette over a sunset gradient can be owned by anyone. the Lugz version is much more elegant IMHO.
Now if people will just chill with the hundred-layer animation effects like Microsoft is using with their 'Start something' campaign...
Posted by: Sasha Pave | Oct 17, 2005 4:09:59 PM
If my web rummaging is correct the Lugz spot was done by a company called PSYOP back in 2000 and the company who did the rip off is some Los Angeles company by the name Logan. I have heard that the agency on the Apple job was TBWA\Chiat\Day in LA.
Posted by: think similar | Oct 17, 2005 4:12:46 PM
Sasha,
I agree that nobody can own a sunset gradient, but, I do think you can own, or should be able to own, a specific yellow to orange gradient on a uniquely textured surface, through a gritty urban 3d environment with painterly graffiti elements flying around as sillhuetted hip hop characters do their thing.
To my eye the similarities are painfully close and it's unfortunate that such a prestigious client buys into such re-used stuff.
Posted by: think similar | Oct 17, 2005 4:29:46 PM
meffid-
Hate much? If you've never owned an ipod, how do you know how crappy they are?
Enjoy your "non-corporate" Microsoft player. Creative Zen Sleek roolz!
Posted by: 1080p | Oct 17, 2005 5:31:11 PM
U guyz are a TRIP!
Let me get this straight, Apple used a good add and did their own thing with it and that makes, what, the original and new work "bad"? Apple should be spanked for copying - no question. But it does not mean the new ad is a poor product.
Like the ad? Don't like the ad? Fine. But technically I think the ad is good and takes the Lugs one to a new level. It also uses a different dancing style (Krumping) that integrate into the audio much better. The Apple one is better. A derivative work, yes, but better just the same. Just like the Flow 93.5 ads done by Taxi, Apple has taken (stolen?) an idea and run with it.
Which one of you has only created non-derivative work? I, for one, would like to see it. Does this excuse theft? Nope. But y'all need to lighten up.
Posted by: Foo Foo | Oct 17, 2005 6:12:47 PM
the flow ads taxi did are better than the apple ads.
Hell, apples version isn't even advertising, it's design at the most.
Posted by: Liam | Oct 17, 2005 6:24:13 PM
This style of ad is a natural progression from the original silhouette adverts, and a great treatment at that! If pressed, I could find a few more moving image works with similar design themes. That does not make them rips.
Posted by: Rhett | Oct 17, 2005 7:30:31 PM
Duh, it's the SAME DESIGNER who ripped off HIMSELF. This happens all the time, when people come to a designer or artist and say, "Do something like you did for Brand X"
Apple and the artist should've strived for better though.
Posted by: the man | Oct 17, 2005 8:56:15 PM
"It's a poor product that requires fixing and replacing constantly"
Um, yeah.
Posted by: M | Oct 17, 2005 9:20:11 PM
Your morons for thinking this is the first time a design has looked similar to another, appropriation is how design evolves. second if you've ever worked with a client before, which I'm geussing most of you haven't, they make requests. Color often being one of those requests. It's in a city Eminem being from Detroit not much of a stretch there. In addition those colors have been done many times try Shynola's Queens of the Stone Age Video, "Go with the Flow" which is great by the way, as well as Psyop's rip or should I say appropriation of that in there Ford commercial. look up their websites it's not that hard.
Posted by: ripper | Oct 17, 2005 10:05:59 PM
Foo Foo,
Why should people lighten up about it? The advertising industry is/should be about creative effort. Fresh ideas, unique visual approaches, and great writing are some of the things that people strive for. So when something doesn't make the mark when it so easily could have, I think it's important to call it out and say, "wahhh what a stinker"!
I mean if this industry was about making fast cars and some car company had all the money in the world to make a really fast car and ended up with the Pinto, people who were really into that industry would be like "what an incredibly crappy fast car, what were they thinking".
This is that situation in the ad industry, a great client with virtually bottomless pockets and some 'creatives' getting paid really good money came up with a uncreative visually appropriated spot. It's good to call it out.
Rhett,
If you can post some links to other spots or instances that are this close it would be a great. We all know there is a delicate fine line between inspiration and appropriation.
Maybe that's what this whole discussion is actually about.
Posted by: fresh | Oct 17, 2005 10:46:31 PM
Meffid-hate on Apple all you want. In fact, all of you hate on Apple all you want, but the thing is, no crappy (or good) add is what sells the iPod and Apple's other products. While Apple advertising is can certainly be accused of ripping off other ideas, its the innovative products they create that is the selling point. Before the iPod there were no mp3 players that "got" how to organize music on a digital media player. The clickwheel? Come on, that is pure genius. Yes, the battery life can be an issue in the iPod and Apple's laptops. But to buy and use Apple products is to make a lifestyle choice. You operate in a different environment, with software and hardware that is both practical and elegent. I mean, come ON! The iPod plays freaking videos! If that doesn't sell you nothing will.
Posted by: Owen | Oct 18, 2005 1:21:44 AM
It's not usually the creative people who make the decisions in advertising. I'm a CD for a large organization and many times our marketing director "forgets" to bring me into projects that end up on radio, TV and magazines. Unfortunately, if you don't have people who understand the value of their creatives (which seems to be the norm in my experience), you end up with ho-hum.
What I thought was really funny is that Jobs actually replayed this ad during his talk because he thought it was so cool. Even though I didn't recognize this copied style, it still didn't impress me for a repeat performance.
Advertising IS design by the way. I don't know of a single creative process (or any process for that matter) that doesn't include design at its heart. You'll get that after you've been doing it for 20 years.
Posted by: iLaugh | Oct 18, 2005 6:37:47 AM
Don't forget Dodge did something very similar to this for the Charger as well.
Posted by: Scatpack | Oct 18, 2005 9:34:56 AM
Scatpack,
By similar do you mean a yellow to orange gradient on a gritty texture within an rough black semitransparent 3d urban landscape with nearly silhouetted hip hop people dancing around with graffiti elements. Changing the people into cars is a relatively significant alteration compared to what these people have made.
IMHO it's not so much the yellow orange grad, or the silhouetted people, or the gritty 3d environment, or the 3d graffiti elements, or the dirty texture, it's the fact that ALL of these elements have been borrowed. Company’s as good as Logan and Chiat should be able to do better. This spot has a stunning lack of innovation amongst a deluge of appropriation.
And regarding “clients requests”, just because the client asks you to do something doesn't/shouldn't mean you should do it. In fact I feel that it is the director/designers job to play the high road and push as hard as possible to create something that resembles uniqueness. In this case maybe all that would have meant was a slight tweak of the color palate, or maybe making the environment more of an abandoned warehouse space, there are just so many was they could have steered it to be just the tiniest bit respectful of what has been made in the past.
And I agree that it's very important to call this situation out. It's sucks that this amount of appropriation happens and I doubt that anyone, other than Steve Jobs, is very proud to have thieved so blatantly. And maybe if the people that make these kinds of rip-offs can allow themselves to feel the appropriate amount of guilt, they will steer a bit wider from the style biting line the next time they see it coming.
Posted by: ipoo | Oct 18, 2005 11:59:51 AM
Intellectual Property:
the Legal Presidents
It seems that the underlying topic of this conversation is intellectual property. What is it and can you own it. The best case on the books regarding this matter that I can remember was from 1996. Basically Lebbeus Woods, this very cool conceptual architect recognized some of his designs in interrogation room from the 12 monkey’s the opening scene. The film's version although slightly tweaked was strikingly familiar, IMHO less similar that these two ads.
1996: The artist, Lebbeus Woods, obtained an injunction against a motion picture for infringing his copyrighted drawing "Neomechanical Tower (Upper) Chamber," in the Universal film 12 Monkeys. In the opening scenes of the film, the main character is brought into a room and seated in a chair attached to a vertical rail, which bears striking resemblance to Woods’ drawing. Terry Gilliam, the director of 12 Monkeys, admitted he had seen a copy of Wood's drawing and had discussed it with the film's production designer. See Woods v. Universal City Studios, 920 F. Supp. 62 (NY 1996).
To see the images and read more about the case check out.
http://www.benedict.com/Visual/Monkeys/Monkeys.aspx
Posted by: iSU | Oct 18, 2005 2:00:55 PM
correction,
Legal Precedents, not Legal Presidents.
sorry
Posted by: iSU | Oct 18, 2005 2:02:21 PM
The intellectual property position is that you don't have copyright in an idea. Copyright was designed to protect reproduction of works and unauthorised distribution; not this.
Non-literal copying is a notoriously difficult area. Because while copying a style strikes us as unfair, if you allow someone copyright over that style then you severely inhibit free speech. A much closer proxy to the apple/psyop issue is the UK case of Norowzian where a film-maker submitted a short film to various advertising agencies that had a distinctive jump-cutty style. He was asked to direct an ad for guinness but refused because he didn't want to repeat himself. So the advertising agency got someone else in to direct. The judgment said that in order for there to be a claim in copyright there had to be at least an identical frame in each version - ie copying something by transforming it did not equal infringement.
In other areas of copyright this has changed (but there is not a free movement of precedents between the categories of artistic works).
Personally, I think copyright should be defined restrictively. Because once you start allowing people to hold copyright over abstract things such as styles and ideas, you severely hamper the ability of people to express themselves.
Posted by: anon | Oct 18, 2005 2:27:29 PM
addendum
Architecural drawings have attracted some additional protection, given their nature, and transforming them from two dimensions to three will still give rise to infringement. I still think the Woods case is a bit harsh though.
Posted by: anon | Oct 18, 2005 2:37:42 PM
Sure...it's similar. But the point here is that Apple takes the visual theme that's "their own" development (the musical, dancing silhouette is assuredly Apple's and not something readily associated with Lugz) and overlays that with a visual that's sufficiently "street." Plus, the visuals capitalize on Eminem's presence and ability, while Lugz' ad makes only a tangential reference to its spokeperson, Funkmaster Flex.
I guess the question comes down to the coloring. If the background wasn't so clearly similar (perhaps only with a different hue) would the ad seem as strange?
I don't own an IPod, but I do like the ad. I don't remember seeing the Lugz spot, which might color my opinions.
Posted by: Clay Jones | Oct 18, 2005 6:07:30 PM
I'm sure that *every designer* keeps track of every design that is ever made to be sure they aren't inadvertently ripping off an idea from *5 years ago*.
This is nothing more than a peek into the realities of the design community. Sometimes you aren't aware of where your inspirations come from (a kickass Psyop ad from 5 years ago) and sometimes you are and you try to give it your own spin.
In the end, virtually no one has an original idea because none of us work in a vacuum.
Posted by: soap | Oct 19, 2005 9:41:31 AM
The argument which should be taking place: why is the majority of graphic design/advertising occuring at this time, most importantly, advertising design created with computers, derivative?
I don't know how many times I've seen shilloutes, cheesy after effects vines, 3D lettering, pixel-generated gradients, etc...
Its all cut and paste advertising.
Originality in design is surely lacking.
Posted by: cogspa | Oct 19, 2005 9:56:24 AM
Yep, the story hits the streets a week ago... Logan/Venice ripped off Psyop/New York. And Chiat sent a nice check to Venice. This is just another example of Logan ripping off some other design companies. If it's not Psyop then it's Brand New School (or another company). It's called 'small designers kissing agency asses with zero integrity'... Shame on them.
Posted by: insider-LA | Oct 19, 2005 1:57:50 PM
If this is Logan, they're slumming, because they're one of the top ten design shops in the country. Their work for current.tv is astoundingly good among dozens of other examples. Logan can stand on their own even if this IS them. They're that good.
That said, there's NO CHANCE that the designers of this hadn't seen psyop's LUGZ piece. The minute it was produced (2002), it ran to the top of the class for all motion graphics. There isn't a motion person alive who hasn't seen it ten times minimum. It floored the world when it came out--the camera moves, the toon shading, the character animation (!), the subtle particle effects.
Psyop's stuff gets chewed up and redigested quite a bit. Their work for Bombay Sapphire is probably greatest motion piece ever produced. It's been knocked quite a bit over the years.
See more on psyop and motion graphics in general:
Posted by: govinda | Oct 19, 2005 3:39:25 PM
First off, the Lugz ad was created and ran in 2002.
The iPod silo campaign only started in 2003.
AFTER the Lugz campaign.
Second, Psyop has created ads for Chiat Day between
2002 and now (infinity car campaign).
Third, Eminem knows and has hung with Funk Master Flex,
the DJ hiphop personality featured in the Lugz ads.
The Lugz campaign ran (in 2002) in heavy (albiet short)
rotation on MTV, VH1, and BET, as well as a coresponding print campaign that ran in VIBE, SPIN and XXL.
The Lugz ad also won a nomination from D&AD (that's the British Design and Art Direction Awards) in early 2003. One of the most prestigious awards in the advertising community.
As a Creative director in advertising, I have no doubt whatsoever that Chiat Day and Logan flagrently ripped off the Lugz ad.
This will go down as one of the most embaraassing events in Advertising in the last ten years.
Posted by: moni | Oct 22, 2005 2:27:19 PM
First off, the Lugz ad was created and ran in 2002.
The iPod silo campaign only started in 2003.
AFTER the Lugz campaign.
Second, Psyop has created ads for Chiat Day between
2002 and now (infinity car campaign).
Third, Eminem knows and has hung with Funk Master Flex,
the DJ hiphop personality featured in the Lugz ads.
The Lugz campaign ran (in 2002) in heavy (albiet short)
rotation on MTV, VH1, and BET, as well as a coresponding print campaign that ran in VIBE, SPIN and XXL.
The Lugz ad also won a nomination from D&AD (that's the British Design and Art Direction Awards) in early 2003. One of the most prestigious awards in the advertising community.
As a Creative director in advertising, I have no doubt whatsoever that Chiat Day and Logan flagrently ripped off the Lugz ad.
This will go down as one of the most embaraassing events in Advertising in the last ten years.
Posted by: moni | Oct 22, 2005 2:27:59 PM
So what is Chiat saying in response to all of this? Surely they have something to say.
Posted by: Kelly O | Oct 23, 2005 9:16:59 PM
I personally have NEVER seen the Lugz ad...did it ever run on normal TV? If it did, I must have missed it. In this case the eminem ad just seems to be an evolution of the other ipod ads IMHO.
Does anyone however know how eminem has suddenly teamed with eminem? I mean, it was only 2003 that eminem was sueing apple for using one of his songs in an ad. In the court proceedings he made a very big fuss about NOT endorsing products but now.....
I'm sorry if that's not on the smae topic but i'd find it very interesting...he he.
Posted by: Kash | Oct 24, 2005 6:03:57 AM
great work guys! check it out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/business/media/25adco.html
Posted by: alex k | Oct 25, 2005 11:42:40 AM
OMG! I found the source that Apple ripped off on their silhouette ads:
Posted by: Israel Alvarez | Oct 25, 2005 2:30:39 PM
LOL @ israel. damn the CD (hey i'm one and my shirts are so much cooler and my jeans are such a lower low rise than anyone at a big agency) for not seeing this before creating the apple ads!
i love the thread here--pretty interesting. calling us suckers for buying from a corporate whore like apple... rob, where do you buy YOUR mp3 players from? is it woven by a small peaceful tribe somewhere in a rainforest? spare me.
and i think of some of the more creative tv designers that work with the original creative teams from the big agencies (sorry, folks, the great work from brand new school and psyop would NOT exist if it wasn't for the big agencies bringing them in), and i turn to vh1 for the first example of bumpers that all seem to be ripoffs of one another. did bns create the idea of the 70's/80's disco look that is all over their network (and increasingly tiresome to look at)? or did mtv networks just take the idea and run with it?
the best comment on here: we don't work in a vacuum. and even the bns guys took a look from the disco years and appropriated it for tv today. brilliant, but not original art.
just good timing. hell, we all want to be first out the gate, don't we, even if it's just a rework of a past influence or trend.
Posted by: daver | Oct 25, 2005 3:59:30 PM
Well, why is it always Apple that goes in bad light when there is something near to them, that is not really correct. I mean, it's their ad-maker who is guilty for this, not Apple. Microsoft gets sued several times a year for things they done theirselves and this isn't Apple who did it. So this is really some b*llsh*t crap. :/
Posted by: Appleowner | Oct 26, 2005 9:19:26 AM
I don't know. From an advertising industry experience point of view, all I really see is similarity of colors. Apple has been using the silouhette for years - probably longer than the age of the Lugz commercial. Also missing from the Apple commercial is the arrow-graffiti. The cuts and angles are all different too. Of course Apple is going to have rap because the commercial features a rap artist. And they are in two different industries.
In design, you never really design something new. And yellow/orange is not unique for coloring an urban, dusk like scene.
I say tough grapes, Lugz. You'll probably get more sales from Apple's popularity.
Posted by: tfc | Nov 4, 2005 8:07:34 PM
I'd never even heard of Klutz before this ad thing came out. :)
Posted by: Ashke817 | Nov 5, 2005 1:16:16 AM
I think queens of the stone age used the silhouette effect the best in their video go with the flow.
www.mtv.com/news/articles/1471193/20030410/queens_stone_age.jhtml+go+with+the+flow+video&hl=en
Posted by: Benny | Nov 6, 2005 6:57:10 AM
Color scheme and filter effect is similar, other than that, they are a completely different feel. Get over it Lugz.
Posted by: | Nov 6, 2005 10:54:36 AM
Heh, if anything, both companies should probably be paying the GForce guy who created the color scheme stuff. Actually, I think Apple did pay him back when they turned SoundJam into iTunes and included the "visualizer". For like umpty-zillion versions of iTunes, you *always* used to get that red & orange startup visual which was always the same before it went somewhere random.
In truth, I think that it's both possible that Apple's ad agency ripped off Lugz AND possible that the ad guys are all swimming too much in the same pool of memes and the consequently had similar ideas.
Posted by: heavyboots | Nov 6, 2005 2:53:56 PM
I think a simple change of the color scheme might have made the ad less recognizeable.
I mean, the tone shift is identical.
sloppy.
Posted by: Roobydo | Nov 7, 2005 3:58:03 PM
Ok, i've seen both and the resemblence is vague at best. The central theme of Lugz is that black swooshy arrow. Apple central theme is the paint splotches. The fact that the color schemes are similar doesn't mean much. I mean, does lugz think they own the colors orange, yellow, and black? So what, no one else can use them now. Cry me a river lugz... Also those colors symbolize urban culture, which is the point they were trying to make anyway using eminem and a hip-hop soundtrack. Lugz is just trying to capitalize off apple and eminem. What a joke. Apple did nothing wrong. Their ad agency did nothing wrong. There is not a judge or court in the land that will side with lugz on this one.
One a side note, with regards to being a copycat, look how many copycats steal apple products and looks on a daily basis. If you have any doubts look at Microsofts next OS (Vista). Apple lawyers ought to have a field day with this...
Posted by: Dennis | Nov 7, 2005 8:21:15 PM
I just saw an episode of punk'd and the intro was orange, yellow and black set in an urban cityscape with dark silouhettes(Ashton with a camera). Looks very similar to lugz ad also. Has anyone else noticed this?
Posted by: copycat | Nov 8, 2005 8:59:42 PM
It all looks like this?
Posted by: Blammer | Nov 10, 2005 3:42:17 AM
Where is central theme Id like to go there.
Posted by: hip guy/web guru | Nov 10, 2005 3:43:53 AM
Is any one confused. That apple ad doesn't look anything like Logans Run. Tron mabey....
Posted by: Rob Lowe | Nov 10, 2005 3:47:11 AM
