Lugz tells Apple to cease and desist
—Posted by Tim Nudd |
|
November 4, 2005 | Permalink |
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The color palette and the street vibe is the same, but as a designer there seems to plenty of divergent ideas like Apple's use of the splatter and a simplified animation to make them identical or worth suing after. Lugz uses a ribbon motif that Apple doesn't use. I think Apple should stick to their ad. I don't see the copyright being infringed.
Posted by: Jim Renaud | Nov 4, 2005 8:09:26 PM
Besides the same in coloring, I can see no copyright infringment whatsoever. They are both radically different. The Lugz spot has the animated grafitti that is the centerpoint of the commercial, the is the uniqueness of it; apple has something totally different - silouhetted people dancing with an iPod.
Lugz really needs to get their eyes checked.
Re-do the iPod video in cooler tones, and there's nothing similar between the two.
Posted by: evan | Nov 4, 2005 9:55:31 PM
It's hard for me to see that any reasonable consumer will be confused here- are there really hordes of people wandering into BestBuy, demanding LUGZ' crappy shoes, and buying ipods instead?
Seems like for the lugz folks to prevail in court, the campaign would need to be both current (not 3 years old) and confusing to consumers.
Posted by: Tim Howland | Nov 5, 2005 11:53:46 AM
After the iPod commercial, Haluk Mesci the 30 years copywriter in Istanbul send an e-mail to Advertising Age writer Stuart Elliot and ask him about between this commercial and Lugz. And he answered that someone told him there is a spot from 6 years ago that they both ripped off!
See this url: http://elmaaltshift.blogspot.com/2005/10/akln-yolu-lugz.html
Posted by: Firat Yildiz | Nov 5, 2005 1:17:55 PM
I am always amused (bemused?) when advertising folks accuse one another of being derivative, since most great advertising repurposes a compelling idea or design, or coopts the groundbreaking work of some obscure artist. As we stand at the end of history, when little is new or unique, the old saying holds true--"talent borrows, genius steals."
Posted by: Aishiori Katamura | Nov 6, 2005 4:37:51 PM
I thought Apple wasn't even running this ad. It's just a publicity stunt by a shitty shoe company.
Posted by: dmnyc | Nov 7, 2005 5:23:53 PM
too funny... two commercials reflecting the over-commericalization of urban culture. Lugz bit street culture. Em bit Lugz. Apple bit Em (paid him nicely for the privilege, too.)
Not suprisingly, folks seem to be siding with the latest incarnation. Not sure why the vitriol against Lugz, tho. (Lugz aren't terrible shoes while iPod wasn't the first, the best, or the cheapest MP3 player on the market. but i digress.)
I wonder if things were reversed and if Lugz or some urban brand had ripped off a mainstream commercial would we be so quick to bash them?
There is a such thing as intellectual property and there is also a such thing as copyright infringement. Now is that the case here? Let the courts sort it out.
Until then, maybe Apple should just come up with better ads. And if you guys can't see that those two ads are almost identical except for a couple minor tweaks, ask yourself one question:
If your creative director had done the Lugz spot in 2002, could you have sold him on the Apple spot today as an original ad for a different client?
Posted by: hadji | Nov 8, 2005 5:55:27 PM
