PDA

View Full Version : Lugz claims Apple Eminem ad a copycat


MacBytes
Nov 7, 2005, 11:31 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Tunes
Link: Lugz claims Apple Eminem ad a copycat (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20051107123104)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

hyperpasta
Nov 7, 2005, 12:08 PM
I would agree with that. I'm not sure it's Apple's fault, but somehow thye managed to make an ad with a black silhouette dancing on an orange urban-themed background showing off a product and suurounded by animated graffiti.

There's a similarity there.

chewbaccapits
Nov 7, 2005, 12:11 PM
This is retarted! Looks the same in what aspect? The color of the scenes? How is this any different from car commericals using that stupid camera trick of slowing the car then it zooms it up out of screen? If Apple was trying to sell shoes....Eh.....maybe?? But come on...Seems anyone nowadays wants to take a bite out of Apple.....What would be funny is if Apple settles out of court and then showcases lugs in the next iPod commerical...:rolleyes:

balconycollapse
Nov 7, 2005, 12:18 PM
I've seen commercials like the lugz one before. Comedy Central standup splash screens, Spike Tv ads, MTV and other programming that has urban themes will use vectors, architectural sketches, swirling arrows. Furthermore if you look at the glut of Vector Art that graces the covers of computer graphics (you can make this! with illustrator) magazines at the bookstores this is not a new genre. Even at that the two ads are night and day.

Fredo Viola
Nov 7, 2005, 12:22 PM
Apple's is certainly a better and more interesting ad...

Should psyop be sued for using a silhouette?

it comes down to the color scheme, the urban background treatment (which again I feel Apple have improved a lot, and also changed dramatically) and the silhouette. It just is a ridiculous attempt to garner attention.

PBGPowerbook
Nov 7, 2005, 12:32 PM
whether or not a lawsuit comes of this,

A. the Apple ad IS really too similar

B. The apple ad is really 2002, looks horrible and outdated. The ipod silhouette ads were iconic, even the nano ad had some style. The eminem one looks like they hired a 17 year old who followed a motion graphics tutorial...the dripping paint? gimme a break. very disappointing

dloomer
Nov 7, 2005, 01:04 PM
Lawsuits and us vs. them aside, the Lugz ad is pretty sweet.

Blackheart
Nov 7, 2005, 01:57 PM
Dear Psyop/Lugz,

Welcome to the club.

Sincerely,
Steve Jobs

Santaduck
Nov 7, 2005, 02:44 PM
My first reaction: Come on Lugz, it's a black silhouette. Well the musical feel, color tone, and theme are the same, but Apple can fall back on its established black silhouette theme.



My second reaction: They might have a point.

* the moving black arrow ribbons in the Lugz ad are a major part of the Apple ad. In the apple one, sometimes they are white, sometimes black, and they are disguised by the new "Paint" theme, but there it is. Flowing thick lines.

* The Apple ad focuses prominently on the shoe-area in the opening. Hm...

* The Lugz ad features the figure pushing the arrow ribbons suddenly (streetfighter Ryu style), and the Apple ad features Eminem suddenly pushing the other ipod-wearing figure similarly.


Lots of little details appear to be adapted, it's hard to believe the ad agency had never seen the Lugz ad before. Now whether that's creative theft is another matter altogether, but I wouldn't dismiss this out of hand.

chewbaccapits
Nov 7, 2005, 03:01 PM
Nah....this is a bogus lawsuit...

mainstreetmark
Nov 7, 2005, 04:13 PM
This is retarted! Looks the same in what aspect? The color of the scenes? How is this any different from car commericals using that stupid camera trick of slowing the car then it zooms it up out of screen? If Apple was trying to sell shoes....Eh.....maybe?? But come on...Seems anyone nowadays wants to take a bite out of Apple.....What would be funny is if Apple settles out of court and then showcases lugs in the next iPod commerical...:rolleyes:

Filming a car in a common way is completely unrelated to creating a computer-generated environment with a dancing rapper silhouette. The Lugz boys have a point here - the commercial is very, very unique, and Apple's has many of the same elements. Rap, Orange urban wasteland, etc... etc..

I think anyone who thinks these commercials are totally different has succumbed to Steve's RDF.

digitalmatty
Nov 7, 2005, 04:35 PM
black silhoutte dancing in mordern/hiphop stylings...yeah, lugz/pysop can be dinged just as easily for copying apple's style in the beginning.

chewbaccapits
Nov 7, 2005, 08:44 PM
Filming a car in a common way is completely unrelated to creating a computer-generated environment with a dancing rapper silhouette. The Lugz boys have a point here - the commercial is very, very unique, and Apple's has many of the same elements. Rap, Orange urban wasteland, etc... etc..

I think anyone who thinks these commercials are totally different has succumbed to Steve's RDF.


I never said it was common....Someone did it and it looked cool and other copied the same technique...same arguement here...no one complains when Apple SETS the a style within the advertising community and others blatantly copy the style/affect......Remember the switch ads?? I saw car insurance brokers advertising "switching" from other insurance services but in the same camera style (constant angle change with the handheld feel), set with a blank or white background complete with funky music in the background....Um, how many of you have seen the same SILHOUETTED style in commercials nowaday? Haven't ? Just look around....


http://chris-cohen.blogspot.com/2004/07/fuses-new-silhouette-ads-parody-or.html



"I think anyone who thinks these commercials are totally different has succumbed to Steve's RDF"...give me a break....why do you have to bring up steve's resource description framework for god's sakes??? That horse has been beaten twice over...

:rolleyes:

Orlando Furioso
Nov 7, 2005, 11:52 PM
When i first read/heard about it I was quick to side with Apple. But after reviewing the 2002 Psyop commercial, I found the similarities striking. It is not just as simple as the "color scheme", arrows, and the urban motif being reworked for _yet_ another commercial; the visual quality (down to the very lines making up the buildings/backgrouns) shares an eerily uncomfortable resemblance. I feel Lugz has just reason to raise a stink about the commercial being a (almost) total rip-off (as they own the rights, I'm assuming, to the work in question). On the other hand, this style is by no means an innovation/trademark of either company Lugz/Apple or agency ChiatDay/Psyop. A cease and desist is a lil too much, especially when the lifted commercial has not run in years. In the end it is disappointing to know ChiatDay just copied someone else's solution.

whether or not a lawsuit comes of this,

A. the Apple ad IS really too similar

B. The apple ad is really 2002, looks horrible and outdated. The ipod silhouette ads were iconic, even the nano ad had some style. The eminem one looks like they hired a 17 year old who followed a motion graphics tutorial...the dripping paint? gimme a break. very disappointing

the commercial is dated.

as for the dripping paint (i hate it too), it is everywhere and "cool" at the moment. I'm also guilty of creating such an ode to "hip/cool" for one of my clients who _insisted_ on having paint/splash effects. Still, I prefer it any day over (throws up a little), pixel art.

Orlando Furioso
Nov 8, 2005, 12:04 AM
woops... double post (i'm sorry <ducks>)

GoCubsGo
Nov 8, 2005, 12:08 AM
I would agree with that. I'm not sure it's Apple's fault, but somehow thye managed to make an ad with a black silhouette dancing on an orange urban-themed background showing off a product and suurounded by animated graffiti.

There's a similarity there.
Yeah but does Lugz have some guy singing into a pleasure toy...I mean mic?

matticus008
Nov 8, 2005, 02:08 AM
Yes, they are quite similar. But I've never seen the Lugz ad before, and if it aired in 2002, it's pretty much off the table in terms of copyright (you can't say that it will confuse customers or that it harms the image of the Lugz company).

In terms of creative IP, I could see being a lawyer for either side. Lugz had it first. The colors, sound style, art style, and overall effect are quite substantially similar. Everybody knows that talking frogs were popularized by Budweiser. However, you can't say that every commercial with talking frogs needs Bud's approval beforehand, and it could only be construed as an issue if the two commercials were airing concurrently. Even if the ad agency intentionally recreated the Lugz ad with Eminem, so what? It didn't steal any footage or capitalize on any spending from the old ad. The level of specificity required for protecting creative ideas is rather high; otherwise, there would only be a few architects and a few painters in the world, producing a few styles of work.