Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Apple Corporate, Cult of Mac
Apple and the Postal Service: Same director
Since the debut of Apple's Intel ad at Macworld, people have noticed the resemblance it bears to a certain music video by the band The Postal Service. MacTV has a nice side by side video of the ad and the music video. They also note that both the commercial and music video were made by the same directors, Josh Melnick and Xander Charity. I agree with Leander at The Cult of Mac Blog when he says that the legal implications here are quite unclear. Are these images the property of the directors, the ad agency, the band, Apple? I'm not familiar with this type of thing, so if you've got a legal background, pipe up.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
ASE said 9:21AM on 1-18-2006
Legally, it should be the "property" of the band or whoever paid for the video (could be the label, publisher, parents, etc) if it was original material (not stock footage). If it's simply stock video that was pieced together then it can be made available to anyone as long as exclusive rights weren't sold beforehand.
Long story short, whoever paid to have the original footage shot is the owner.
I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Reply
Mac Diva said 9:36AM on 1-18-2006
The assumption I've been seeing naive laymen make is that the mere fact there is some resemblance between the music video and the ad means the Postal Service has a cause of action against Apple Computer. Not so. The setting is all the two have in common. The themes are quite different. About all I see to accuse anyone of is that the directors could have tried to come up with something more original. But, perhaps they were given the 'Intel chip gets better housing' idea and told to work with it. I look forward to seeing the same idea done symbolically in other commercials. (Hmmm. Sounds like a good theme for a contest, doesn't it?)
Reply
Tim Dorr said 10:15AM on 1-18-2006
It's the copyright holder who decides what can and cannot be done with their content. So, the question really is: who is the copyright holder of the original Postal Service video? My assumption is that the studio for which the video was produced purchased the copyright from the director, so that they can distribute the video as they see fit. However, if the director retained copyright, then he can't infringe on his own copyright and this video is fine. However, I think the former is true and Apple may be in a stick situation. It really all depends on who has the copyright.
Reply
Kacy said 10:56AM on 1-18-2006
it is not necessarily a simple matter to find out who owns the rights here. these things can be spelled out quite specifically in contracts and ownership can be something that the director required. but without being privy to the contract we will not know the answer.
even if the director does not himself have the copyright proving he is in violation may be difficult if he argues that he is somehow parodying the original. the supreme court has upheld the right to parody on more than one occasion.
it is probably a safe bet that apple's legal team was on top of this and assuming that someone must be in the wrong is a matter of outsider conjecture.
i should add i am not a lawyer either, but i am in the music industry and i deal with contracts and questions of rights in my own work.
Reply
fancher said 11:04AM on 1-18-2006
Legally the images belong to whoever was the cameraman on the shoot. There are underlying rights such as the actors releases for the use of their performance. All of these are normally assigned to the producing entity either through union contract or releases. Commercials are normally done as works for hire where the rights are then assigned to the client. Music videos may or may not deal with any of these legal conventions as a result of how they are produced. It would be the responsibility of Apple's ad agency to make sure whatever images were used in the ad were properly cleared (that is Apple has the right to use them).
Reply
Wheels said 11:14AM on 1-18-2006
Plagiarism is basic to all culture. And, if the commercial is considered a parody of the original video, it can't be considered infringement
Reply
Nick said 11:17AM on 1-18-2006
I don't care who holds rights to what in this situation, because what it really boils down to, is the fact that the directors have a totaly lack of creativity. Not only did they use a similar concept, but they even used the same shots and camera movements. Come on! What happend to originality!
Reply
JClark said 11:17AM on 1-18-2006
I don't think there's any cause for legal action here. First of all, the biggest similarity, as has been pointed out, is the setting. There are only so many ways you can shoot people walking through hallways like that wearing those suits. The only similar action in each is handing off a chip platter with a lingering look between the two technicians. Again, how else would you film that really?
All of the other similarities (shown in the side by side screenshots) are from completely different moments. You can't copyright "a person looking up into the camera".
Second, being similar is no grounds for legal action. How many movies, videos, books, TV shows, etc. have obviously been inspired or informed by existing works? Besides, given the context, Apple's ad makes a whole lot more sense than The Postal Service's video, it would be easy to argue that the idea was arrived at completely independently, and the director was chosen becuase they liked his work on that video. For all we know, they had some agreement with whoever owns that video.
Reply
Thom said 11:43AM on 1-18-2006
Anyone ever stop to consider that maybe Apple and their agency hired the directors BECAUSE of the Postal Service video? That just maybe - perhaps - they saw the work and said "that's EXACTLY what we want!". That maybe, parody/familiarity was what they were going for?
Reply
gary said 12:07PM on 1-18-2006
I think that Chiat/Day hired the filmmaker/directors because of The Postal Service video. The set, wardrobe, actor are the same. The basic storyline is the same -- the character interaction and the disk from hand-to-hand to final product. I can't imagine that the filmmaker/directors and Chiat/Day have not met all the legal aspects of the re-purposing of the work for Apple.
Reply
Tom said 12:11PM on 1-18-2006
Uh, I really don't see what the big deal is... I mean, it's a CPU fab plant. You can't NOT make it look different, that's what a clean room looks like. I mean, the director could have had some disco lights, pink elephents, and have the silicon wafers being carried around by pixies instead of mechanical arms to make it more original, but that would be unrealistic. How many different ways can you film someone walking down a hallway of a clean room?
Yes, it does look simmilar when the camera pulls away from the single chip inside the Mac and the satellite, but maybe they were just impressed with how that effect turned out and wanted to do it again in something else... big flippin' deal.
My $0.02.
Reply
Mac Diva said 12:25PM on 1-18-2006
"The set, wardrobe, actor are the same."
The setting is what the ad and the video have in common. The 'wardrobe' is what has to be worn in that setting -- a clean room environment. Maybe Gary was expecting bathing suits. I see no evidence that, as Gary claims, any of the actors are the same in the video and ad. The theme of the Apple ad is the migration of a computer chip to a new and better brand of computer. The theme of the Postal Service video is two people getting the hots for each other. The Postal Service was promoting a CD. Apple's ad has two purposes: To pass on information and to sell its computers. The Apple ad is NOT a copy of the Postal Service video, so re-purposing is not an issue. It is a good thing Gary is not taking a test because his grade would be a 'D.'
Reply
Max said 1:12PM on 1-18-2006
I keep reading talk of legal action and Apple's lack of originality in the matter. I think people are missing the whole point of this ad.
The Postal Service's song is about two people coming together who were *made for each other* and reaching "such great heights" together. A nod and a wink to the song (let us not forget that Apple is a music distributor) by hiring the same director is only praise to the band while recognizing the parallels in relevance to their music video. I think the ad is completely appropriate, and in some ways, genius. A perfect expression of Apple and Intel moving forward together this coming year.
Let's not forget, Apple has imitated before. Um, anyone remember 1984?
Reply
gary said 1:27PM on 1-18-2006
http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/3900/applpscomparison6ee.jpg
Reply
warrenpeace said 1:43PM on 1-18-2006
I can't believe people are making such a big deal of this. Sure they look similar, but a clean room looks like a clean room. It's a big, white room. How could they not look alike? They likely filmed in the same place 'cause there can't be many companies in California who'd allow a film crew to come in to film in their clean room.
If Apple made a commercial where people were in a park, would everyone compare that to every commercial they'd seen to feature a park?
When I saw this ad I thought of 2001: A Space Odyssey when I watched it. Doesn't mean Kubrick's estate should get lawyers and sue. Very little is 'new' anymore.
How come no one is comparing it to a Ford ad 'cause Kiefer does the voiceover for their ads as well?
Reply
Jonesy said 1:50PM on 1-18-2006
Clearly Apple saw and liked the original and got the original directors to repeat the trick. I'd be amazed if all concerned did so blindly ignoring copyright.
Face it - the band and directors just upped their profile beyond their dreams after having reworked the original concept.
Reply
JClark said 2:03PM on 1-18-2006
Come now, Gary, that image doesn't prove anything. Or does someone own the rights to "an actor looking slightly to their left, just off center to the camera"?
It's worth noting that in the music video this shot is a woman looking longingly after a man she's in love with. In the ad it's a woman glancing back significantly at a man who just handed her a chip wafer to insert into a piece of machinery. Hardly the same thing, especially when seen in motion and in context.
That's like saying a musician who does music for two different movies should be sued for using the same chord in each.
Reply
gary said 2:30PM on 1-18-2006
All I've said is that Chiat/Day hired Josh & Xander because their video worked. Josh & Xander retooled it for the Apple ad. They probably used much of their original footage (most likely because they own it) I don't think anything has been stolen. As it was stated above... the song & video were perfect for an Apple ad and Chiat/Day realized that and made it happen.
Reply
AG said 3:07PM on 1-18-2006
Controversy aside, I'd actually really like to know what the music is in the background of the Apple ad. Anyone know?
Reply
PsychoClown said 3:16PM on 1-18-2006
I'm a commercial director so hopefully I can add some insight.
First, in the end the client (The Postal Service or their record label) owns the right to any images for its commercials/music videos. Not the director or the cameraman. They paid for it so they own it. There is almost NO CHANCE that they borrowed footage from the video. The legal issues and cost to license the footage is greater than just shooting it again. Sad but true.
Second, you wouldn't believe how picky ad agencies are about selecting a director or cameraman for a commercial. They are spending so much money and also, they want to cover their ass big time. If they're shooting a car commercial with a red can and the cameraman's reel doesn't have a red car he most likely won't get the job. They want to remove all fear by seeing their commercial already on a director or DPs reel. That way they know what they're going to get. So I can only imagine that when they wrote this spot and started looking for directors and saw that video on the reel they were overjoyed to 'see' their spot already on a reel. I'm also guessing that because Chiat/Day and Apple usually work with 2 different directors on most of their spots so this is a first for them.
Lastly, you cannot copyright an idea. People in a clean room is only an idea. You may feel like there is a lack of creativity, but it's not illegal. If it was, Steven Speilberg would be sued for stealing the boulder scene he used in "Raiders" from "Journey to the Center of the Earth" as one example of directors 'borrowing' ideas from each other.
They hired the directors to 'remake' their video in this commercial so it's no surprise it looks similar.
Reply