PDA

View Full Version : Eninem's Publisher Sues Apple


Pages : [1] 2

~Shard~
Feb 24, 2004, 07:12 AM
Looks like Eminem is suing Apple, claiming one of his songs was used without his permission in an Apple TV ad. More info below:

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/news/wire/sns-ap-people-eminem-lawsuit,0,1230809.story?coll=sns-ap-entertainment-headlines

Kingsnapped
Feb 24, 2004, 07:38 AM
I don't recall the ad off hand, but if it featured the song and Apple didn't get permission... that was idiotic.
If it was just quietly in the background, or it showed his name... Apple should have gotten permission.
If the facts in this article are true, Apple doesn't have a foot to stand on. *Cue "I fought the law*

MacRumors
Feb 24, 2004, 08:00 AM
CBS Marketwatch (http://cbs.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/newsarticle.asp?guid=%7B892B0544-0ADD-488C-A601-DB99D4803E18%7D&siteid=mktw&dist=nbs&symb=) reports on a lawsuit from Eminem's publisher (Eight Mile Style) against Apple last week.

At issue is a television ad that Apple ran in which a 10-year-old sings Eminem's "Lose Yourself" song. The ad debuted at the launch (http://www.macrumors.com/apr28.html) of Apple's iTunes Music Store alongside 3 other singing ads (http://www.apple.com/music/ads/).

According to the lawsuit, "Eminem has never nationally endorsed any commercial products" and doing so would require a significant payment.

Ja Di ksw
Feb 24, 2004, 08:03 AM
What a load. Perhaps he realizes he can't come out with anything more that's going to make money, and the guy he 'passed the torch' to, 50 cent, is little more than a thug child who is going nowhere, so he's doing this to get more money for the long road ahead

JtheLemur
Feb 24, 2004, 08:05 AM
oh lordy lord... weren't the songs that the people in the ads sang, chosen by the people that sang them? I thought that was the point of the commercial... if so, he's kinda hurting his fan base ... either way, you'd think he'd let it go! It was sung by a cute kid, the ad was barely aired compared to the new silhouette ads, and oh just give me a break.

JGowan
Feb 24, 2004, 08:06 AM
Yo -- that n!gg@ is mad ill, bee.

bousozoku
Feb 24, 2004, 08:06 AM
Yeah, not too smart. I can imagine how he cut off talks. Their ears are probably still ringing. :D

the_mole1314
Feb 24, 2004, 08:09 AM
Funny thing is that it never aired on TV and all the adds were quickly pulled off the air soon after it launched.

Savage Henry
Feb 24, 2004, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by Macrumors

According to the lawsuit, "Eminem has never nationally endorsed any commercial products"

Eminem is a commercial product.

ph8te
Feb 24, 2004, 08:09 AM
And just when I was starting to like the guy for his unconventional attitude. But then again, maybe it's only his record company, since the recording industry has its back up at the moment anyway.

But it is bordering on the ridiculous... Imagine me serenading my girl with a Barry White song, and along comes a lawyer and slaps me with a lawsuit, because I did not obtain the rights to sing the song...

What about all those pub-bands that do cover versions of popular songs? Are they all gonna be sued soon as well?

JGowan
Feb 24, 2004, 08:10 AM
Maybe just a ploy to get paid -- "Ok... mr. mathers, we'll give 2M to go lose yourself".

johnnyjibbs
Feb 24, 2004, 08:12 AM
Isn't Eminem always trying to sue his mum? Hmmm.

p.s. spelling error in title

JGowan
Feb 24, 2004, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by ph8te
What about all those pub-bands that do cover versions of popular songs? Are they all gonna be sued soon as well? Bands who play other people's music are supposed to pay them. Usually, the tavern/bar agrees to contact ASCAP and take care of of royalties from the songs that the bands that play at their establishment have used. I doubt it's really done much... but in theory, that's how it's supposed to go. But who's gonna know, right?

Belly-laughs
Feb 24, 2004, 08:15 AM
Now, that´s sad.

punter
Feb 24, 2004, 08:16 AM
what if only 8 (or was it 9) second of the song is used. Isn't that copyright free? Or 10% of the song, whichever is less. *tries to think back to media studies*

ph8te
Feb 24, 2004, 08:18 AM
Does that also mean if I play my car-radio really loud, so that others can hear it, I also have to pay royalties?

SilentPanda
Feb 24, 2004, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by ph8te
Imagine me serenading my girl with a Barry White song

Did you have to scare us all?

jholzner
Feb 24, 2004, 08:18 AM
Umm...I can't believe Apple didn't get permission. They are a HUGE corporation...don't they know these things? I dunno...

ph8te
Feb 24, 2004, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by SilentPanda
Did you have to scare us all?

I'm a scary type of guy... that's why she ran away... lol

j33pd0g
Feb 24, 2004, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by ph8te
What about all those pub-bands that do cover versions of popular songs? Are they all gonna be sued soon as well?

I think that's why pubs/bars/clubs pay an ASCAP fee. If they pay this then everyone is happy. 10 years ago my band played a bar/dive and we got them in trouble (fined) because we played a cover song. So after that they couldn't play the radio and live bands had to agree to play original music only. They shut the bar down 1 year later.

iGav
Feb 24, 2004, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by Savage Henry
Eminem is a commercial product.

Eminem's a chump too... the Vanilla Ice of the zero's.. :eek: :p :p

jcshas
Feb 24, 2004, 08:20 AM
Apple should practice what they teach..."Don't steal Music":D

OSUbuckeyefan
Feb 24, 2004, 08:21 AM
If anything, eminem should be paying Apple for endorsing HIS product...

proglife
Feb 24, 2004, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by Savage Henry
Eminem is a commercial product.

Nice!

Or, to quote Bill Hicks on Billy Ray Cyrus, "a no-talent cracker @sshole."

j33pd0g
Feb 24, 2004, 08:23 AM
Isn't there the 8 sec rule... you can use something just as long as isn't more then 8 sec?

geerlingguy
Feb 24, 2004, 08:25 AM
This sounds just low enough for Eminem to do. He is like Janet Jackson; yesterday's news. :P

I don't think it's illegal to sing someone's song without permission on an ad. As long as you just don't use the copyrighted material (the actual sound in the song)... I may be wrong, though; I've found that our legal system favors stupidity over reason many times before.

hayesk
Feb 24, 2004, 08:26 AM
I don't understand why you would want to sue a music store for attempting to sell your own product?

Is he going to sue Amazon or any other music store that puts his album cover in a sales flyer?

autrefois
Feb 24, 2004, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by jcshas
Apple should practice what they teach..."Don't steal Music":D

I think you've hit on exactly why this may be very embarrassing for Apple...

CalfCanuck
Feb 24, 2004, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by jholzner
Umm...I can't believe Apple didn't get permission. They are a HUGE corporation...don't they know these things? I dunno...
Yeah, this sounds pretty slack if it's true.

Doesn't Apple spend a fair chunk of change on product placements in movies? If they understand they have to spend cash for a 10 second "supporting role" onscreen, how can they plead ignorant on using an existing song?

FlamDrag
Feb 24, 2004, 08:29 AM
Apple has to play by the rules just like everyone else, so regardless of your feelings about Eminem, he's doing what he has to do; He's protecting his rights. Otherwise, it could be construed as the beginnings of abandoning his rights on that particular song and pave the way for others to do the same.

I'm not an expert on this topic, but I don't think that the "fair use" laws apply here because of the scope and scale of the advertisement. Again, that is based on fuzzy memories.

So relax, realize that Apple makes mistakes just like everyone else. This will go away soon enough. I highly expect Apple to settle.

{edit: I just read that Eminem might try to get in excess of $10 Million for any commercial product endorsement. While that doesn't necessarily mean he wants 10 from Apple, if he does, I doubt he'll get it all if he goes to trial. This sounds like a warning to other companies. It's difficult for me to conceive that he suffered 10M in damages -- yet stranger things have happened.}

ITR 81
Feb 24, 2004, 08:32 AM
I think I saw that commercial only once and then they all got replaced by the dancing commercials.
All those Ad's ended up becoming print Ad's in Mac mags though.

If I recall you can play song for up to 10 seconds on-air without having to pay a fee to the record company or the artist. We used this rule when doing local commercials for colleges and etc...

The rendition the kid did was without music so it's not exactly an exact duplicate of the songs track.

Sounds like he or his record company or both just want some extra cash...for some 10 yr old covering one his own songs.

themadchemist
Feb 24, 2004, 08:32 AM
Doesn't this fall within parody allowances, perhaps? Or does that only apply to non-commercial media?

sparkleytone
Feb 24, 2004, 08:34 AM
You don't need permission to perform a song thats already been recorded by someone else. In commercials, the law MAY differ a little but I doubt it. Once the song has been recorded, song performance rights are no longer at the sole discretion of anyone. Anyone can cover the song however they wish. If Apple paid the royalty for the song, its likely thats all they ever had to do.

This is different than songs in other commercials, because most commercials use specific recordings to sell their product. This requires payment to the artist of course for the recorded performance rights.

He may not like it, but there really isn't much he can do. At the same time, I also see it as his legal team is just trying to protect the Eminem brand name. I don't see a huge problem with it. Its his own money he is wasting anyway.

geerlingguy
Feb 24, 2004, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by FlamDrag
I highly expect Apple to settle.

Luckily, they have a cool $4.8 billion in the bank to cover these kinds of stupid things. Problem is, if every person who ever had a copyrighted work with words from it on an Apple commercial sues Apple, then it could be problematic :o

1macker1
Feb 24, 2004, 08:37 AM
LOL..way to launch a legit music store.......Stealing someones song.
Originally posted by jcshas
Apple should practice what they teach..."Don't steal Music":D

Wonder Boy
Feb 24, 2004, 08:40 AM
did apple really check with marshal mathers first? if not, serves apple right to be sued.

geerlingguy
Feb 24, 2004, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Wonder Boy
did apple really check with marshal mathers first? if not, serves apple right to be sued.

BUT, is it even illegal for Apple to have used the lyrics, especially without the music? I don't know, but I think that is the main point here; I don't think Eminem would be dumb enough to put up a lawsuit if it is legal for Apple to use the lyrics in the first place, but maybe he's just trying to get attention, like Janet :rolleyes: .

Does anyone have any facts (legal or otherwise) about the legality of this? I'm no lawyer (nor do I want to be ;) ).

Lancetx
Feb 24, 2004, 08:45 AM
Yawn. This is no more significant than any of the other thousands of frivolous lawsuits filed each and every day in this country. Next...

cr2sh
Feb 24, 2004, 08:47 AM
I have no doubt that Apple covered their ass here..

Without researching it, I feel quite confident that Eminem has a new .. something.. coming out soon. Either that or he's about to sign a coca cola contract.. who knows.

:rolleyes:

jbh001
Feb 24, 2004, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by ph8te
What about all those pub-bands that do cover versions of popular songs? Are they all gonna be sued soon as well?

Most establishments (bars, restaurants, radio stations, university marching bands, etc.) usually have a an annual lump-sum blanket licensing agreement with ASCAP & BMI that allows them to play whatever songs they want without having to keep track of who performed what and how often.

Basically, ASCAP says "pay us $xxx.xx, and you bands can play any of the songs in our catalog they want."

This blanket licensing doesn't usually apply to other venues such as television, motion pictures, television & radio advertisements, or stage productions.

Either Apple's ad agency got permission to use it and Eminem is just trying to find a way to exhort money, or Apple's lawyers concluded that use of the material was subject to the parody exemption and Eminem's lawyers disagree. The latter is more likely.

cr2sh
Feb 24, 2004, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by geerlingguy
I don't think Eminem would be dumb enough to put up a lawsuit if it is legal for Apple to use the lyrics in the first place

I can't type "WRONG" big enough to correct your assumption.

The kid's a punkass thug, dumb as a rock.

wordmunger
Feb 24, 2004, 08:50 AM
IANAL, but....

There is no ten-second rule or eight-second rule. What constitutes a copyright violation depends on several factors. You are given more leeway to freely use materials for a critical review--so playing part of Eminem's song as part of a radio review would be okay--even more than ten seconds' worth. However, when the use is commercial, the law becomes more strict. The basic question is whether playing the song on Apple's commercial damaged Eminem's opportunities for distributing the music in the future. It's a very close call. I wouldn't consider this a "frivolous" lawsuit.

edit: slight change in wording.

wordmunger
Feb 24, 2004, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by cr2sh
I can't type "WRONG" big enough to correct your assumption.

The kid's a punkass thug, dumb as a rock.

I'm not a particular admirer of Eminem, but I'd have to say his lyrics are more intelligent than most.

macnews
Feb 24, 2004, 08:52 AM
With a slew of lawyers, I just can't imagine Apple is flagerantly ripping Mr. Mathers off. My guess is he is doing it for publicity or thinks he has found some loop hole that would allow him to sue.

If that is the case, then I would expect Apple to settle. I wouldn't, however, call it Apple stealing someone else's music. More like they thought they were following industry "fair play" (in terms of music use), only to discover fair play doesn't apply to a successsful product commercial.

kerryb
Feb 24, 2004, 08:53 AM
Okay someone at Apple legal got rights to use these songs for the ads, right? If they secured permission then this is a money grab from Em's people. If Apple didn't which I highly doubt considering it IS in the music industry now then Apple may owe them a reasonable amount of money, not nearly what they will ask for and nothing like what M$ paid the Stones for "Start me up".

BobbyBox
Feb 24, 2004, 08:53 AM
Interesting point regrding Eninem's contract with Universal Music...

He has a clause that gives him extra royalties based on percieved theft through online downloads...yes the label gives him a gross percentage on a hypothetical calculation....believed to be as much as 5%....you might just say he has good lawyers or you might say he plays the game with the reast of them.....

So an associated point. The Artists whine about alleged on-line theft yet they are now more than likely to be comped for it anyway.

I'd be interested to know if Apple did licence the clip....remember it was the girl who sang the words so Apple only need to pay the publishers not the owners of the actual recorded music (licence for the "sheet music" not Eninems voice).

There are standard collections agencies for this stuff ACPS and MCPS/PRS in the UK.

Only in the US !!!!


Bit of a miandering point but there you go.....

jiggie2g
Feb 24, 2004, 08:55 AM
This is Really said and a new low when 10yr old boys can't even Sing a freakin song on TV because they didn't give a record company a big enough check.

1st of all Eminem is the Bitch of MTV and nothing more than a Hardcore Justin Timberlake. I really can't believe how stupid these a Artist are when it comes to Business. Eminem was one of the most Vocal Artist against Napster bitching about how he was losing money, when the reality of the fact is that your own record label robs you 10X more than any P2P service will. Come'on a Artist works like a slave making the record , writing the songs, singing/rapping. and only see's an avearage of 70cent's off a $14.99 CD, so u tell me who's robbing who?

Am i the Only one getting bored of hearing about Eminem bitch all day about Boy Bands, Pop Singer, Gays, his Slut Wife and Crazy Junkie of a mother.really he's running out of ideas and this Bull **** shows it. He Needs Money. Eminem has his head so far up his ass believing his own B.S. he should be greatful that the Hip-hop community accepted him as one of thier own with him being white rapper , especially after Vanilla Ice.

He is a Coporate Gunnie Pig who with the Help of MTV has completely exploited the fact that he is caucasion, becoming nothing more than a Rapping Elvis. look a MTV's 22 greatest MC's of all time and Eminem is #3 ,...#3 ahead of Jay-Z, Nas, Rakim , Krs-One, Chuck D, are u F*^kin' kidding me , only on MTV. they must have been sharing crack pipe with Eminem's mom when they made that list.

In the End Eminem will be the 2nd coming of Vanilla Ice. and will only make it impossible for the next talented white rapper to get his break.

Note: People what you see on MTV is not Hip-Hop it's Hip-Pop.

aarond12
Feb 24, 2004, 08:56 AM
Hey, Eminem! You POSER!

If you think 8 Mile Road is so bad, come down to 5 Mile Road, specifically MacArthur Park at Telegraph Road. The police don't even go there because they're scared. Are you?

We can face off and see if you get any royalty money, punk! I will fight for Apple, Steve Jobs, and the American way (stealing music).

-Aaron-

widesky
Feb 24, 2004, 08:56 AM
This type of thing has happened before - Tom Waits sued Levis for the use of one of his songs in a Levis advert - the song was covered by Screaming Jay Hawkins.

Even though Waits didn't own the copyright of the song covered he won the case. Expect a payout from Apple.

http://www.keeslau.com/TomWaitsSupplement/Copyright/copyrightwaitslevis.htm

JW Pepper
Feb 24, 2004, 08:58 AM
I don't think you can use copyrighted material or a person for commercial endorsment without first obtaining the right to do so. In which case Apple will have to reach a settlement unless thay have infact secured the rights to use the song/performance.

Nothing else maters, either they have secured the right to use the material or they haven't. If they haven't they are going to loose it is very simple.

maelstromr
Feb 24, 2004, 08:58 AM
Someone pointed out that Apple is selling SONGS, for the artists. The album cover store display analogy isn't perfect, but it works.

If I were in charge of Apple's legal defense I would use that 4.5billion bank role to slap Eminem's people across the face in court rather than fund some cop-out settlement. Trust me everyone, Apple has 8 lawyers look at everythijng they put out to the public six ways from Sunday before it slips even into OUR eager fingers, let alone TV. They didn't break the law or infringe on the musician's rights...esp since he's going to have a hard time explaining how he lost money to free (and cute) advertising here.

Of all the people in the world HE gets high and mighty...although I suspect the artist had little to do with this.

macFanDave
Feb 24, 2004, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by j33pd0g
Isn't there the 8 sec rule... you can use something just as long as isn't more then 8 sec?

As the father of a small child, I can confidently correct you that it is indeed the "five-second rule." If a piece of food hits the floor, you can still EAT it if you pick it up within five seconds.

You're welcome in advance, I'm glad I could be of service.

wordmunger
Feb 24, 2004, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by JW Pepper
Nothing else maters, either they have secured the right to use the material or they haven't. If they haven't they are going to loose it is very simple.

No, you are wrong there. Eminem has to demonstrate economic damage. It has to be enough of his song to cause him real harm. For example, just saying the name of the song is not enough. However, if Apple implied that Eminem endorsed their product, they could be liable for that--which is NOT a case of copyright violation, but more like false advertising. In fact, they could be liable for that even if they obtained permission to use the song.

Alexander
Feb 24, 2004, 09:03 AM
And in other news, Mars, Inc. sues 8 Mile Crack Whores or whoever they are.

geerlingguy
Feb 24, 2004, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by jiggie2g
...especially after Vanilla Ice.

I kinda liked "Ice, Ice, Baby" :(

I don't like MTV, either.

geerlingguy
Feb 24, 2004, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by macFanDave
As the father of a small child, I can confidently correct you that it is indeed the "five-second rule." If a piece of food hits the floor, you can still EAT it if you pick it up within five seconds.

You're welcome in advance, I'm glad I could be of service.

Ha ha ha :D

We always need a little light humor to ease the tension.

Rocketman
Feb 24, 2004, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by ph8te
Does that also mean if I play my car-radio really loud, so that others can hear it, I also have to pay royalties?

Yes :)

I hope you don't have deep pockets.

Or drive your car near any large crowds.

What I find interesting about the Eminem claimis that HE did not perform it. It was a performance by another person who themselves had an obligation to pay whatever the "performance royalty" is, from their proceeds.

However the claim that Eminem somehow "performed a national endorsement" for something his "personality or likeness" was not even involved with might be fraud, libel and trade libel in and of itself.

Rocketman

sonicbaz
Feb 24, 2004, 09:10 AM
Hang on, this isn't about a 10 year old boy innocently singing a song, this is about a ADVERTISING campaign! Advertising is FAKE, it's David Copperfield with soap powder.

Artists have the right to protect themselves against infringement, this is not trival this is the only recourse you have to protect your works. Sorry if the big bad world of REALITY has hit you in the face! Apple was using this and other songs as a SELLING point, not to be warm and cuddly.....so they should pay up....you can't just go STEALING what you want just because you feel like it.

Maybe if I get a 10 year old to steal a BMW it would be ok then.....

duh.... :rolleyes:

soncibaz

0 and A ai
Feb 24, 2004, 09:12 AM
I like how people are attacking eminem when they don't know the facts of the law suit. Quite a few of you have shown how ignorant you are.

If apple's ad agency didn't get permission to use the song then apple has no case. However it seems highly unlikely that that woudl be the case but not impossible.



You people are funny.

wordmunger
Feb 24, 2004, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Rocketman
Yes :)

I hope you don't have deep pockets.

Or drive your car near any large crowds.


I don't think this is true. The law mainly has to do with commercial use, and gives generous exemptions for personal use. Now you could be sued (or arrested) for disturbing the peace...

Or if you sold tickets to listen to your car stereo--that would be commercial use, and you could be sued for that.

jocknerd
Feb 24, 2004, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by ph8te

But it is bordering on the ridiculous... Imagine me serenading my girl with a Barry White song, and along comes a lawyer and slaps me with a lawsuit, because I did not obtain the rights to sing the song...


If you are profiting from the song monetarily, he has every right to sue you. Thats a publishers' right.

Why is it everytime someone sues Apple, they are stupid and rediculous, but when Apple sues someone over "Intellectual Property" everyone here believes Apple is doing the right thing?

Kingsnapped
Feb 24, 2004, 09:18 AM
This is Really said and a new low when 10yr old boys can't even Sing a freakin song on TV...

I don't think this is about ten year olds singing on TV. Remember, Apple is a corperation and they want to make money just as much as the next guy. This kid was hired by them to read some Eminem off cue cards and sell iPods. If Eminem's "music" had anything do to with the sale of iPods, he wouldn't go after the kid, but whomever got the kid to do it.

Spock
Feb 24, 2004, 09:18 AM
Apple should just use that 4 billion and buy Interscope and fire Eminem

MattG
Feb 24, 2004, 09:19 AM
What a spolied f***in' punk. Now I can't stand him even more. I can't wait until he pisses off the wrong person...

themacolyte
Feb 24, 2004, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by CalfCanuck
Doesn't Apple spend a fair chunk of change on product placements in movies? If they understand they have to spend cash for a 10 second "supporting role" onscreen, how can they plead ignorant on using an existing song?

Slightly off topic, but I don't believe Apple spends anything on product placements. Apple computers are often seen in movies and television because 1) they are often out in front in terms of aesthetic design (alienware or sony vaio computers might fall under this point too) and 2) the people who do set design, computer graphics, etc. are usually using Macs. They place what they know and like.

One thing I haven't figured out is why some shows cover up the Apple logo on the computers and some don't. Legalities or stubborness (director has firm stance on not promoting any type of product or refusing to show logo without a payment).

As for using the song... I wouldn't have thought about this either (if creating the commercial) because it's a small bit of the song, it includes no music, it amounts to this kid's interpretation.

Here's a question, is American Idol paying artists each time a contestant sings a song? Would contestants then be encouraged (forced) to sing certain songs to keep costs down?

wordmunger
Feb 24, 2004, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Spock
Apple should just use that 4 billion and buy Interscope and fire Eminem
Or they could just pay him his lousy $10 mil and use the rest of their money to build new computers.

jocknerd
Feb 24, 2004, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by jiggie2g
This is Really said and a new low when 10yr old boys can't even Sing a freakin song on TV because they didn't give a record company a big enough check.


Really, this one is nothing. A sad day was a few years ago when the Girl Scouts of America was sued by ASCAP because they were singing campfire songs without permission from ASCAP.

The story is here: http://www.s-t.com/daily/08-96/08-23-96/b02li056.htm

wordmunger
Feb 24, 2004, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by themacolyte

Here's a question, is American Idol paying artists each time a contestant sings a song?
You betcha!


Would contestants then be encouraged (forced) to sing certain songs to keep costs down?
I wouldn't be at all surprised. Otherwise why would anyone sing anything by Journey?

m4rc
Feb 24, 2004, 09:24 AM
I agree ab out attacking Eminem and his talent, the thread is actually about Apple being sued. Also, it's the publisher, not Eminem.

I think the fact that it states that Eminem Doe' not endorse products is the point. If everyone was using his songs - in full or part, tune or lyrics - the value of his endorsement would fall, dramatically. If he has never appeared anywhere endorsing anything, then the company that clinches an endorsement deal is the winner, and surely the price for that endorsement would be similar to Justin Timberlakes 6 million (not sure if dollars or £).

This really isn't about a 10 year old kid, it's about Apple either being stupid or trying it on, and Eminem's publisher protecting their intellectual property. Love him or loathe him, Eminem is hot property, and for those people saying he is finished and needs money, get real.

Marc

MrJamie
Feb 24, 2004, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by 0 and A ai
I like how people are attacking eminem when they don't know the facts of the law suit. Quite a few of you have shown how ignorant you are.

If apple's ad agency didn't get permission to use the song then apple has no case. However it seems highly unlikely that that woudl be the case but not impossible.



You people are funny.

I disagree completely. What is funny is the incredible misuse of funds, justice, and intelligence going on here. Honestly, what a crock this is. I understand the artists have to protect themselves, but first of all, Eminem is swimming in money.

Second of all, the ad featured a kid singing his favorite song; that was the message, not that Eminem encourages you to use the iTunes store, not that you should steal Eminem's music, but that you can download your favorite song from the music store.

Finally, I have always enjoyed Eminem's message of 'I do whatever the **** I want," because he has always done things that push the free speech envelope. As I said before though, this is a waste of resources that could be much better spent elsewhere, so I have to assume that either Eminem has gone senile, or he has sold out. One of the two.

Frankly, I don't care about the legality of the issue, I am much more concerned with the morality. For the record, no, I don't think that using the song in the commercial in the way they did was wrong (morally), regardless of whether or not they got permission.

maelstromr
Feb 24, 2004, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by jocknerd
If you are profiting from the song monetarily, he has every right to sue you. Thats a publishers' right.

Why is it everytime someone sues Apple, they are stupid and rediculous, but when Apple sues someone over "Intellectual Property" everyone here believes Apple is doing the right thing?


What I find rIdiculous is people's spelling:

Ridiculous:

[From Latin rdiculus, laughable, from rdre, to laugh.]

We should all be careful with the nastiness or you might get embarrassed by someone who knows what they are talking about.

As someone working in IP I am quite confident calling this a frivolous suit...not to say frivolous suite aren't won everyday. I don't believe Apple NEEDS the rights to the song as they 1) used it in the context of selling that song for the artist; 2) did not use the artisit himself or an appreciable length of music to cause economic damages; and 3) MOST LIKELY covered their approaches/retreat very well long before any of us saw the ads.

That's not legal advice, I haven't seen the suit or looked at this specifically, but I'm guessing Apple isn't sweating a whole lot.

SlowX
Feb 24, 2004, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by j33pd0g
Isn't there the 8 sec rule... you can use something just as long as isn't more then 8 sec?

I think that's for rodeos.
WOOP!

julzmon
Feb 24, 2004, 09:34 AM
I have always hated that guy.
He's complete white trash.

8 mile is a nasty part of Detroit with a whole bunch of strip bars and garbage all over the place.
Nothing to be proud of...

geerlingguy
Feb 24, 2004, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by 0 and A ai
You people are funny.

Thank you. ;)

mclosers
Feb 24, 2004, 09:38 AM
He has no case.. THe comercial featured a kid signing a song.. It was accapella. There is no way you could interpret it as emienem endorsing a product. Also I think the Fair Use law is 30 seconds or 10% which ever is less. But you still can not use the song for financial gain. I don't believe he has a chance in hell of winning.... Also I believe that ad did air.. but very briefly

jocknerd
Feb 24, 2004, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by maelstromr
What I find rIdiculous is people's spelling:

Ridiculous:

[From Latin rdiculus, laughable, from rdre, to laugh.]

We should all be careful with the nastiness or you might get embarrassed by someone who knows what they are talking about.

As someone working in IP I am quite confident calling this a frivolous suit...not to say frivolous suite aren't won everyday. I don't believe Apple NEEDS the rights to the song as they 1) used it in the context of selling that song for the artist; 2) did not use the artisit himself or an appreciable length of music to cause economic damages; and 3) MOST LIKELY covered their approaches/retreat very well long before any of us saw the ads.

That's not legal advice, I haven't seen the suit or looked at this specifically, but I'm guessing Apple isn't sweating a whole lot.

Sorry I didn't spell ridiculous correctly. Hope it didn't ruin your day. I really doubt you are in IP. First of all, the artist Eminem isn't suing Apple. Its the publisher. Eminem wrote the lyrics. Those are his lyrics. Apple used those lyrics to sell a service. Possibly without the permission of the owner of the lyrics.

As much as I hate ASCAP, this is what they are here for. You can't run any kind of business where you are play music to your customers without paying some sort of royalties to the owners of the music. That includes covers of songs. Even Karaoke bars have to pay ASCAP.

AirUncleP
Feb 24, 2004, 09:44 AM
I love M&M's. Especially the peanut ones.

Photorun
Feb 24, 2004, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by geerlingguy
I kinda liked "Ice, Ice, Baby" :(


Wow you're white.

Photorun
Feb 24, 2004, 09:46 AM
If Apple did use the commercial for financial gains and Eminem's publishing company wasn't contacted, reality is Apple would be in the wrong. That being said, if the commercials were never aired it's a slightly different ball game and Apple could, in fact, have legs to win the suit.

paulypants
Feb 24, 2004, 09:54 AM
OMG--eminem is a little bitch
his "music" is crap anyway
he's what's wrong with rap today

he is so commercialized I can't
believe he even noticed

Mantat
Feb 24, 2004, 09:56 AM
Guys, the problem is not that Apple didnt pay the royalties for the song, that they did. They did.

The problem is that Eminem think that the video shows him endorsing the ITMS.

I dont think he is going to win.

MongoTheGeek
Feb 24, 2004, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by ph8te
Does that also mean if I play my car-radio really loud, so that others can hear it, I also have to pay royalties?

No, if it is a tape/CD/etc then the record company pays a cut and if it is the radio station then they have paid a cut based on ratings.

MongoTheGeek
Feb 24, 2004, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Mantat
Guys, the problem is not that Apple didnt pay the royalties for the song, that they did. They did.

The problem is that Eminem think that the video shows him endorsing the ITMS.

I dont think he is going to win.

I think they should countersue for lawyers fees and sponsor a contest for garageband owners to write "White Detroit Rappers are Whiney Crybaby Poseurs" with the best song being prominently placed in the ITMS and them getting the full dollar for the downloads...

JediL
Feb 24, 2004, 10:07 AM
The article says in addition to Apple and Chiat/Day, Eminem's publisher is also sueing Viacom, parent company of MTV.

The only quote from the publisher is about whether or not Eminem endorsed the iTMS not necessarily whether they were paid for using the song.

8 Mile Style thinks that by using the song, Apple implied that Eminem endorsed the iTMS. I think because of the nature of the campaign "Everyone has a favorite song", with a 10-year old kid singing his favorite song, 8-Mile style will either lose if it goes to trial or settle for significantly less than 10 million.

crossed-over
Feb 24, 2004, 10:07 AM
I'm on the fence here. If Apple used the song, then yes, they should have asked for permission.

However, the song was not actually played. It was a boy singing the song, as I recall. I imagine it probably doesn't matter, but because of that I think Apple might have a chance at winning this one.

sky131
Feb 24, 2004, 10:08 AM
Eminem is just trying to protect his image. If Apple uses his song to make money, then he should be compensated. Otherwise, in theory, everyone could have a commercial with a kid sining Eminem and make tons of money.

Apple should be ashamed of using a little boy to sing song by a musician whose music is only supposed to be bought by those over 17. I did not think that ad was effective in any way. It was simply embarassing for a wholesome company to use a child in this way.

Oh yeah, and Eminem is pretty tight, so **** all you haters.

maelstromr
Feb 24, 2004, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by jocknerd
Sorry I didn't spell ridiculous correctly. Hope it didn't ruin your day. I really doubt you are in IP. First of all, the artist Eminem isn't suing Apple. Its the publisher. Eminem wrote the lyrics. Those are his lyrics. Apple used those lyrics to sell a service. Possibly without the permission of the owner of the lyrics.

As much as I hate ASCAP, this is what they are here for. You can't run any kind of business where you are play music to your customers without paying some sort of royalties to the owners of the music. That includes covers of songs. Even Karaoke bars have to pay ASCAP.


Wow, that was a nice little growl, what's your point? And really, you DON'T know what you are talking about. You are reading black and white ownership, a first year law student (or an undergrad who's studied media rights) understands property better than that.
One has ownership of broadcasted/distributed material ONLY AFTER A CERTAIN POINT. In my opinion and from experience, whether nasty net buggers believe it or not, Apple didn't cross this line.

k2k koos
Feb 24, 2004, 10:19 AM
Grow up, Eminem.

Leave Apple to do their thing, they rock, and you still need to learn to sing....

m4rc
Feb 24, 2004, 10:20 AM
maelstromr, you are out of order. First with the spelling mistake, and then with your attitude in the last post. This is not the sort of posting this thread or site needs.

It sounds as if you may actually have some valid points, but put them over a bit more nicely and win some respect. There a lot of wannabe experts on here who probably don't know what they are talking about, if you have genuine knowledge, tell us, back it up, and leave it at that.

Marc

maelstromr
Feb 24, 2004, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by marccarter
maelstromr, you are out of order. First with the spelling mistake, and then with your attitude in the last post. This is not the sort of posting this thread or site needs.

It sounds as if you may actually have some valid points, but put them over a bit more nicely and win some respect. There a lot of wannabe experts on here who probably don't know what they are talking about, if you have genuine knowledge, tell us, back it up, and leave it at that.

Marc

Listen Marc,
While I appreicate the let's get along attitude, read the posts before mine and tell me about nastiness and out of order. The spelling was a general comment, in this post and in the forums, ridiculous is used a lot, and often mispelled. I thought it was funny, to a small cost of the last guy who spelled it wrong (and who I've found to be just AS out of order as myself).

And you are right, there ARE a lot of wanna be experts, and I DO know what I am talking about here. I DO NOT have patience for crud from snots who are going to tell me they know better, and I'll respond with sarcasm and coldness when it's due.

No offense, just drawing my line. I appreciate the attempt to cool off the heat though.

Seth

Cheap-Chopstix
Feb 24, 2004, 10:32 AM
If it infringed on his copyrights then why the ******* did it take so long for them to act.....stoopidieous. That kid only sang like the chorus and did a half ass job anyways there were no instruments or even the music in the background....Eminem, Marshal Mathers, Slim Shady or whatever u call yourself ...now take your millions and millions and shove it!

geerlingguy
Feb 24, 2004, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by maelstromr
And really, you DON'T know what you are talking about.

Let's all just admit that none of us do. Or, if we do, don't get angry about it.

:)

yakirz
Feb 24, 2004, 10:42 AM
to retire.

I liked "Stan," but beyond that I think he's a punk bitch.

geerlingguy
Feb 24, 2004, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by maelstromr
No offense, just drawing my line. I appreciate the attempt to cool off the heat though.

Ahh, and you're from Boston... :confused:

cyks
Feb 24, 2004, 10:43 AM
And release (or at least announce) new computers to get us back to talking about what we should be...calm spirits...and basically, make everyone happy again. :D

robotrenegade
Feb 24, 2004, 10:43 AM
Wow, I guess his baby is coasting him a lot these days. This law suit is a fing joke.:D

varmit
Feb 24, 2004, 10:44 AM
I think it helped his image. And they didn't play the song, the child only sang some of it, now how that plays out in legal stuff, I don't know. And why so late there mr. E, its like a year later, shouldn't you have been all over this from the beginning. Maybe his sales on iTunes is down and he wants more money. This is all about money basically, he must be running short of money and ideas, just like SCO.

jasonbw
Feb 24, 2004, 10:46 AM
I'm kinda surprised it is an issue, after all, apple is paying alot of money to resell these songs, the least you'd think they could do would be to use the concept of the store to market the store. I mean, if i click the preview for 'lose yourself' am i putting myself at risk to be fined?

considering it is a cover of a song, and not MM's song itself, its in an odd legal area. this touches on it:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_324b.html

he may be due a songwriters fee, but not 10M.

wchamlet
Feb 24, 2004, 10:47 AM
Eminem really has no case. The song wasn't on the commercial, it was just sung by a kid, whom liked that song.

Commercials are pretty free when it comes to stuff like that. Look at the Pepsi/Coke commercials. Do you see Coca-Cola suing Pepsi for having their products in Pepsi commercials? Nope. Why is that? It's legal.

This just seems like a quick way for Eminem to make some cash. I don't see him winning this case though.

spencecb
Feb 24, 2004, 10:49 AM
what if only 8 (or was it 9) second of the song is used. Isn't that copyright free? Or 10% of the song, whichever is less. *tries to think back to media studies*

Isn't there the 8 sec rule... you can use something just as long as isn't more then 8 sec?

These laws apply to educators and students, as far as I know. Apple is neither an educator, or a student. So, I think they would have to obtain permission if they played the song, even though they never really played it...some kid just sang the lyrics without any music...i think this is really stupid

maelstromr
Feb 24, 2004, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by geerlingguy
Ahh, and you're from Boston... :confused:

What are you suggesting about my location? Boston is DEFINATELY the most calm, cool headed and least likely to lose control city in the US. (THAT'S sarcasm.)

But we DO have at least two Apple Stores, and that makes us cooler.

See everyone...cooool.

JGowan
Feb 24, 2004, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by cr2sh
I can't type "WRONG" big enough to correct your assumption.

The kid's a punkass thug, dumb as a rock. "Punkass thug",... agreed. "Dumb as a rock", ... absolutely not.

You might not agree with his message or the words that he uses, but you're wrong in lumping him in with a lot of the other rappers with the one syllable rhymes (I'm the cat in the hat -- I go rat a tat tat and if you mess wit me you'll die in seconds flat.)

He certainly has arguably some of the most impressive and intricate rhymes EVER.

This might be about money -- it also might be about free publicity... the ad ran a LONG time ago... we're hearing about now? I think he decided to sit on this one until his sales lowered or he needed to get back in the public eye for an upcoming thing.

mrsebastian
Feb 24, 2004, 10:57 AM
does anyone have a link to view the ad? wtf comes to mind. it's quite simple really, if they paid for the rights to use the song and there are signatures on an agreement then em's publisher can go fly a kite. especially if the suit is over an endorsement instead of rights of usage. is there a single moment eminem's name, image, or voice is involved in the ad? if no, then you didn't endorse itms and they simply paid you for the rights to use your lyrics... like i said does anyone have a link to ad?

electric
Feb 24, 2004, 11:01 AM
I personally don't like the dude, not because of his lyrical content or that he is a modern day Elvis but because I think his voice is annoying, but if Apple is willing to play with a sword it must be prepared to be cut by it once and a while.

Apple is notorious for filing copyright infringement lawsuits, anyone remember Apple Communications from Australia ? I'm surprised Apple is not suing grocery stores for advertising apple sales in their produce department.

maelstromr
Feb 24, 2004, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by electric

Apple is notorious for filing copyright infringement lawsuits, anyone remember Apple Communications from Australia ? I'm surprised Apple is not suing grocery stores for advertising apple sales in their produce department.


That's definately true, and if this suit had merit it would be just desserts.
But it's exactly their litigious nature that makes me pretty sure they watched out all angles on this one.

Uragon
Feb 24, 2004, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by maelstromr
That's definately true, and if this suit had merit it would be just desserts.
But it's exactly their litigious nature that makes me pretty sure they watched out all angles on this one.

Completely agree with you that Apple watched out all angles. But shouldn't it be definitely?

maelstromr
Feb 24, 2004, 11:14 AM
touche, I hope what's his name saw that burn.

amnesiac1984
Feb 24, 2004, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by macFanDave
As the father of a small child, I can confidently correct you that it is indeed the "five-second rule." If a piece of food hits the floor, you can still EAT it if you pick it up within five seconds.

You're welcome in advance, I'm glad I could be of service.

As a student with not enough seating in our living room, I can correct you in saying that it is the 3 second rule. If someone is out of their seat for more than 3 seconds you have every right to steal it.

ddbean
Feb 24, 2004, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by MrJamie
...
Second of all, the ad featured a kid singing his favorite song; that was the message, not that Eminem encourages you to use the iTunes store, not that you should steal Eminem's music, but that you can download your favorite song from the music store.
...

If my memory is correct, this ad came out before ITMS was released, so this was an ad for the iPod only.

Skilz34
Feb 24, 2004, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Savage Henry
Eminem is a commercial product.

Right on man. Right on.

Makosuke
Feb 24, 2004, 11:51 AM
If this counts as Eminem "endorsing" a product, then he certainly endorsed Gladiator during the Superbowl a couple years back--that commercial actually used his voice, too.

It seems pretty simple to me; if Apple didn't pay the publisher for the rights to use the song, or at least get heavily covered for potential legal issues, then go ahead and sue them; that would be idiotic to not even cover your bases, and bad form to boot. I'd say the chances of that are slim at best, otherwise somebody else featured would've sued by now and every lawyer (and ad guy at Chiat-Day or whoever did the spots) in the company should be fired for not catching it.

Eminem seems to be suing about product placement, however. And as others have said, how does a kid singing your song acapella imply that you endorse a product? Yes, it's the words and the tune you wrote, but it's not your voice, your face, or anything physically involving you in the ad. The most you could say is "At least one kid who likes my music endorses Apple products", and though I know little of the law I don't see where that constitutes endorsement or something in need of financial recompense.

Sounds like a load of garbage to me--and not because I'm an Apple apologist, I hate all frivolous lawsuits, whether targeted at the little guy or big companies--but I suppose we'll see.

Skilz34
Feb 24, 2004, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by JGowan
"Punkass thug",... agreed. "Dumb as a rock", ... absolutely not.

You might not agree with his message or the words that he uses, but you're wrong in lumping him in with a lot of the other rappers with the one syllable rhymes (I'm the cat in the hat -- I go rat a tat tat and if you mess wit me you'll die in seconds flat.)

He certainly has arguably some of the most impressive and intricate rhymes EVER.

This might be about money -- it also might be about free publicity... the ad ran a LONG time ago... we're hearing about now? I think he decided to sit on this one until his sales lowered or he needed to get back in the public eye for an upcoming thing.

Eminem has talent but there are artists that are not in the commercial spotlight that exceed all the talent in "pop" music combined, and more specifically, rap (not hip hop). Cash cow records labels (5 of them that control 90% of what we hear in all genres) that are turning our culture into a homogeneous one. Fit the mold, millions sold. It's not art. It's boring, it's repetitive and these kids don't even know what they are buying. Eminem should have stayed with the "Infinite" vibe. He would do hip hop and all of us a favor.

Want some real hip hop? Check out www.marsill.com. and listen. and no this isn't my site.

autrefois
Feb 24, 2004, 12:11 PM
Eminem and his publishers are all too aware of copyright issues and lawsuits (http://www.vh1.com/artists/news/1478649/09172003/dr_dre.jhtml). Apparently for Eminem and his associates, using other people's music without permission is only fine when it's done on albums, not TV commercials.

ZildjianKX
Feb 24, 2004, 12:29 PM
Anyone else find it kind of weird that by Apple using his song, its free promotion for him, and Apple is a reseller of his products through the iTunes music store... not to mention by using him in the iTunes music store commercial its telling people not to pirate his music...

And I'm confused, he doesn't endorse anything?

http://store2.yimg.com/I/australiantoys_1781_140537042

guerro
Feb 24, 2004, 12:34 PM
I didn't read all the posts here, only the first half then skipped to post my reply. However, has anyone given thought to the fact the kid in the commercial just may OWN a copy of the EMINEM song he was singing in the commercial?? And, the kid was only singing a small part of the song. The song never played. Sooooo, the question is, if someone sings aloud, words to a song he/she owns a copy of and someone else video's said person singing the song aloud, is this copyright infringement ???

formatc
Feb 24, 2004, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by punter
what if only 8 (or was it 9) second of the song is used. Isn't that copyright free? Or 10% of the song, whichever is less. *tries to think back to media studies*

You might make the fair use argument for non-profit, but never as a company.

Spizzo
Feb 24, 2004, 12:44 PM
It's funny how many of you are so quick to ASSume that apple didnt mess up big here. And how everyone think's he's a punk kid who's as dumb as a rock because he doesn't appeal to you.

As far as the lawsuit goes, the lyrics and the beat are both his property, as I'm sure even this "dumb as a rock""punk kid" was smart enough to copywrite his work. Work, which, incidently, won him an Academy Award.

If a kid who is "dumb as a rock" can win an Academy Award, where is all of your's? I mean, it should be simple for everyone here to get one.

I dont know the facts of the lawsuit more than any of you, but if Apple infact did not pay royalitys and get Em's permision, THEY ARE WRONG.

I Hope Eminem does win this lawsuit, if nothing else, just to piss you all off. :D

MrJamie
Feb 24, 2004, 12:44 PM
I dont know the facts of the lawsuit more than any of you, but if Apple infact did not pay royalitys and get Em's permision, THEY ARE WRONG.

I Hope Eminem does win this lawsuit, if nothing else, just to piss you all off

Read the link, guys. The issue isn't whether or not Apple licensed the song, but rather whether or not the commercial protrayed Eminem as endorsing Apple.

Which just makes the suit all-the-more silly.

Reading the link would clear up a lot of confusion.

Omad0n
Feb 24, 2004, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Savage Henry
Eminem is a commercial product.

LMAO what a great way to start the day! Come online and what do I find? You sir get a gold star.

Fukui
Feb 24, 2004, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by geerlingguy
This sounds just low enough for Eminem to do. He is like Janet Jackson; yesterday's news. :P


Not to defend/condemn anyone but,
Somehow I don't even think eminem gives a ****.
Just those greedy-as-ever publishers/lawyers. Whatever....

mjones4th
Feb 24, 2004, 12:50 PM
Technically, if, the little girl in question quoted Feminem's original lyrica, then Feminem has the right to receive compensation for the copyright he established by writing that lyric.

If I create a composition, a composition of words and/or music, I have the exclusive right to publish those words in that specific order, as outlined in the paperwork used to copyright that composition. If someone comes along and speaks those same words in that same order in a public venue, or via a public medium, I can sue them for infringing on my exclusive publishing right to that composition (or portion of).

If she had quoted Maya Angelou, it would be no different. Well... you know what I mean.

I don't necessarily agree, but its the law.

But why Apple would want to associate itself with a racist mysogynist is beyond me.

simX
Feb 24, 2004, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by JGowan
"Punkass thug",... agreed. "Dumb as a rock", ... absolutely not.

You might not agree with his message or the words that he uses, but you're wrong in lumping him in with a lot of the other rappers with the one syllable rhymes (I'm the cat in the hat -- I go rat a tat tat and if you mess wit me you'll die in seconds flat.)

He certainly has arguably some of the most impressive and intricate rhymes EVER.

oooOOOooo the guy can rhyme! That's... *SO* impressive! When I grow up, I hope that I can rhyme as well as Mr. Eminem does, that way I can become a cool white rapper guy just like he is! Seriously, as much as I hate to admit it, this (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20040223215230) is better than anything Eminem puts out.

I can't see how Apple is in the wrong, here.. the commercial was a capella: no music was played, it was just the 10-year old kid singing, and Eminem didn't appear on the commercial. I don't get slapped by lawsuits when I sing my favorite song in public (although I would never embarrass myself by doing that). So I fail to see how it can be either copyright infringement OR endorsing a product... of course, IANAL, so whatever.

In any case, I'm sure that Apple has everything covered here, and I would think it would be pretty stupid to settle in this case.

Fukui
Feb 24, 2004, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Spizzo
If a kid who is "dumb as a rock" can win an Academy Award, where is all of your's? I mean, it should be simple for everyone here to get one.

Bill Gates was knighted by the queen and the pope endoreses hip-hop. See the connection? If William whatever-his-name-was can become a superstar by looking like and dork on american idol, yes I think it should be!

party_d0g
Feb 24, 2004, 12:59 PM
bit rich from a hip hop artist that samples every other blunt for his own production.

he is right to sue though if he's owed royalties.

many rappers put stuff out, without sample clearance, and keep their fingers crossed that the original artist or record label don't hear it.

did'nt dr dre get sued recently by bollywood?

-

some eminem samples (www.the-breaks.com)

20th Century Steel BandWarm Heart, Cold Steel: (United Artists 1975)
* "Heaven & Hell is on Earth" (Vocals)
_____Anonymous ft Eminem's "Green & Gold"

Edwards, DennisDon't Look Any Further: (Gordy 1984)
* "Don't Look any Further"
_____Eminem's "Quitter"

Le Pamplemousesingle: (AVI 1976)
* "Gimme What You Got"
_____Eminem's "Cum on Everybody"

Mayfield, CurtisSuperfly: (Curtom 1972)
* "Pusherman"
_____Eminem's "I'm Shady"

Riperton, MinnieAdventures in Paradise: (Epic 1975)
* "Adventures in Paradise"
_____Eminem's "Any Man"

Siffre, LabiRemember my Song: (EMI UK 1975)
* "I Got The" (Bridge)
_____Eminem's "My Name Is"

Axelrod, DavidSongs of Innocence: (Capitol 1968)
* "The Mental Traveler"
_____Eminem's "Any Man"

Grusin, Dave. . .One of a kind: (Polydor 1977)
* "Modaji"
_____Eminem ft Royce's "Bad Meets Evil"

Loussier, JacquesPulsion: (CBS 1979)
* "Pulsion"
_____Eminem's "Kill You"

Smith, LonnieFinger Lickin' Good: (Blue Note 1967)
* "In the Beginning"
_____D12 ft Eminem's "****** on You"

Washington, Grover, Jr.Winelight: (Elektra 1980)
* "Just the Two of Us"
_____Eminem's "Just the Two of Us"

AC/DCBack in Black: (Atco 1980)
* "Back in Black"
_____Eminem's "My Name Is"

AerosmithAerosmith: (Columbia 1973)
* "Dream On"
_____Eminem's "Sing for the Moment"

Big Brother & the Holding CompanyCheap Thrills: (Columbia 1968)
* "Summertime"
_____Eminem's "Rock Bottom"

Led ZeppelinLed Zeppelin IV: (Atlantic 1971)
* "When the Levee Breaks" (Drums)
_____Eminem's "Kim"

McLaren, MalcolmDuck Rock: (Island 1983)
* "Buffalo Girls"
_____Eminem's "Without Me"

Simon, PaulStill Crazy after All These Years: (Columbia 1975)
* "50 Ways to Leave Your Lover"
_____Eminem's "Murder, Murder"

Stein, RonaldGetting Straight soundtrack: (RCA 1970)
* "Pigs Go Home"
_____Eminem's "Guilty Conscience"

Aznavour, CharlesLa Boheme: (Barclay 1965)
* "Parce Que Tu Crois"
_____Dr. Dre ft Eminem & Xzibit's "What's the Difference?"

Stevens, RayAhab the Arab: (Spm 1962)
* "Jerimiah Peabody's Poly Unsaturated. . . Green and Purple Pills"
_____D12 ft Eminem's "Purple Pills"

Hansel USA
Feb 24, 2004, 12:59 PM
It's really ridiculous to blindly stand up for Apple in this case, as many here are doing. All compaies made mistakes, and I am sure whoever was responsible internally at Apple will be held responsible, or court action will show that they were not actually in the wrong. Though, to be honest, it takes millions of dollars to produce and run top quality ads - I can't believe that people are making a big deal about it being a 10 year old, acting as if Apple is the protecor of small children everywhere! As for those saying Eminem is stupid, or not popular - he's moving into producing extremely popular acts, has over the years joined into the second most powerful media partnership (http://www.forbes.com/lists/results.jhtml?passListId=53&passYear=2003&passListType=Person&searchParameter1=&searchParameter2=&resultsStart=1&resultsHowMany=25&resultsSortProperties=%2Bnumberfield1%2C%2Bstringfield2&resultsSortCategoryName=power_rank&passKeyword=&category1=&category2=) and with more than 33 million records sold, I'm sure he's laughing all the way to the bank.

spacemancw
Feb 24, 2004, 01:14 PM
Eminem (or he and his record company) are not only suing Apple but MTV and Viacom also.

Eminem is NOTHING without MTV .. nothing! Apple iTunes store gives him cashola on downloads .. rather than going the Kazaa route. The Apple commercial in question gives him free publicity .. showing a FAN singing his song and persuading us to bye it on iTunes.
MTV plays his videos, documentaries and gives him Music awards.

What an ungratefull jerk. He's now part of the establishment he cringed at in the past.

Apple should stop selling his music and MTV should stop playing or even mentioning him on the air or their web site. .. I can't believe it .. he's such a dope ... credit to Apple for allowing me to listen to Eminem MP3s on my iPod ... blame to Eminem for me deleting them.

(actually I probably wont delete them .. I like some of them .. but he's still a dope).

Spizzo
Feb 24, 2004, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by simX

I can't see how Apple is in the wrong, here.. the commercial was a capella: no music was played, it was just the 10-year old kid singing, and Eminem didn't appear on the commercial.

How many people here understand copywrite laws? Listen to yourselves. Eminem has the lyrics copywritten, as well as the beat, and the whole song. I cant take his lyrics, put them over a different beat, and call it my next new hit. See? Just cause it was Acapella, doesnt mean it's ok. It's still his property.

Originally posted by Fukui
Bill Gates was knighted by the queen and the pope endoreses hip-hop. See the connection? If William whatever-his-name-was can become a superstar by looking like and dork on american idol, yes I think it should be!

I dont see the connection, i dont think the Pope was blessing the "whole" of hip-hop, just those people and how they were using it.

And Eminem wasn't given an award by one person. He was given the award by The Academy. A collection of the greatest Artists, Composers, Producers, etc... I think they know what they are talkin about when it comes to music. I happen to know a few Academy members, and although they didnt like Em's lyrics, they did think he did a good enough job to vote for him.

amnesiac1984
Feb 24, 2004, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Hansel USA
It's really ridiculous to blindly stand up for Apple in this case, as many here are doing. All compaies made mistakes, and I am sure whoever was responsible internally at Apple will be held responsible, or court action will show that they were not actually in the wrong. Though, to be honest, it takes millions of dollars to produce and run top quality ads - I can't believe that people are making a big deal about it being a 10 year old, acting as if Apple is the protecor of small children everywhere! As for those saying Eminem is stupid, or not popular - he's moving into producing extremely popular acts, has over the years joined into the second most powerful media partnership (http://www.forbes.com/lists/results.jhtml?passListId=53&passYear=2003&passListType=Person&searchParameter1=&searchParameter2=&resultsStart=1&resultsHowMany=25&resultsSortProperties=%2Bnumberfield1%2C%2Bstringfield2&resultsSortCategoryName=power_rank&passKeyword=&category1=&category2=) and with more than 33 million records sold, I'm sure he's laughing all the way to the bank.

still doesn't meant he's any good.

I do have respect for the guy though, he's a lot better than most of the gangster rap croud. And I'm a hip-hop fan, I just haven't liked a single hip hop song thats been in the charts for years. Except maybe this guy (http://www.buck65.com/)

maelstromr
Feb 24, 2004, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by mjones4th


If she had quoted Maya Angelou, it would be no different. Well... you know what I mean.

I don't necessarily agree, but its the law.




Umm, wasn't it pretty clear that it was not the little boys song? You are right in terms of plagerism and taking credit for someone else's work, Apple was just using it...there's a difference there that you not catching. Your situation would only work if Apple tried to pretend they were responsible for the music, and that's what you are buying...

Of course, this isn't about copyrights, is it? Good point whoever pointed that out.

ubadojw1
Feb 24, 2004, 01:31 PM
A couple of things about this...

1) The Apple commercial did not feature the actual song, just a kid singing the lyrics.

2) The singing lasted less than 10 seconds.

3) The ad was pulled after a short amount of time.

4) Eminem has never commercially endorsed anything? Hmm then what was up with 8 mile? Seems like all the ads promoting the movie, featured his music that was made for the movie.

I think this is a scare tactic from his publisher hoping to get settlement money. However the Leader, Steve Jobs, don't scare easy, and it will either be dropped or a Judge will side with Apple.

StealthRider
Feb 24, 2004, 01:34 PM
Does anyone know the last time the Apple ad ran?

Anyway...assuming that the ad ran for three months after it started (July 2003) then it would have stopped at the end of September or beginning of October.

Eminem got his copyright for "Lose Yourself" on October 27, 2003. He has no right to claim copyright violation.

Details:
5. Registration Number:
_
PA-1-152-688

Title:
_
Lose yourself.

Description:
_
Compact disc.

Claimant:
_
Eight Mile Style, LLC, Martin Affiliated, LLC

Created:
_
2002

Published:
_
22Oct02

Registered:
_
27Oct03

Author on © Application:
_
words & music: Marshall B. Mathers , 1972-; music: Luis E. Resto, Jeff I. Bass , 1959-.

Special Codes:
_
3/M/L

mjones4th
Feb 24, 2004, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by amnesiac1984
still doesn't meant he's any good.

I do have respect for the guy though, he's a lot better than most of the gangster rap croud. And I'm a hip-hop fan, I just haven't liked a single hip hop song thats been in the charts for years. Except maybe this guy (http://www.buck65.com/)

Ummm... he doesn't endorse gangs. Feminem is not a gangster rapper. Gangster rap is, for the most part, dead. Even true gangsters who also rap don't endorse gangs too much anymore. Those who put violence in their lyrics are not, by default, gangsters, or gangster rappers.

Charts track mindless drones. I thought we all knew this by now.

if you like good hip hop/rap (or any other genre - except for the continuously morphing amalgamation of all that was once good music - Pop), the charts are the last place to look.

mjones4th
Feb 24, 2004, 01:42 PM
A copyright is created the moment the material in question is created. Of course there is a time lag between creating a lyric and filing and receiving a copyright. During that lapse, the copyright is still in existence.

If he can prove that he created the material becore the commercial aired (for example by the poor man's cpoyright - mailing it to yourself) then he has a legal basis for a lawsuit, no matter when the copyright was submitted.

Spizzo
Feb 24, 2004, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by StealthRider

Eminem got his copyright for "Lose Yourself" on October 27, 2003. He has no right to claim copyright violation.

Created:
_
2002

Published:
_
22Oct02

Registered:
_
27Oct03


I dont know everything about copywrite, so i may be wrong, but my understanding is that even though 27 Oct 03 is the date the song was registered, it was created and published in 02, and it takes some time for the paperwork to go through. It's still his product, his copywrite, his property. Even though Apple used it before the copywrite was registered? Eminem still own the song and lyrics.

Originally posted by maelstromr

Umm, wasn't it pretty clear that it was not the little boys song? You are right in terms of plagerism and taking credit for someone else's work, Apple was just using it...there's a difference there that you not catching. Your situation would only work if Apple tried to pretend they were responsible for the music, and that's what you are buying...

Of course, this isn't about copyrights, is it? Good point whoever pointed that out.

Seems like you just contradicted yourself if you ask me. Apple was just Using his work, just like i used your work in my paper. Only if you dont get credit, and in the case of music, pay royalties, you had just Plagerised. And that IS a violation of Copywrite laws. So Yes, this is all about copywrite.

mjones4th
Feb 24, 2004, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by ubadojw1


1) The Apple commercial did not feature the actual song, just a kid singing the lyrics.

2) The singing lasted less than 10 seconds.

3) The ad was pulled after a short amount of time.

4) Eminem has never commercially endorsed anything? Hmm then what was up with 8 mile? Seems like all the ads promoting the movie, featured his music that was made for the movie.

I think this is a scare tactic from his publisher hoping to get settlement money. However the Leader, Steve Jobs, don't scare easy, and it will either be dropped or a Judge will side with Apple.

The point, my friend is that those are HIS lyrics, that HE created and owns exclusive rights to, in a public medium that HE didn't give permission for.

Do you understand copyright law?

StealthRider
Feb 24, 2004, 01:45 PM
Copyrights don't count unless they are registered.

Here's the full law...http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

I don't feel like digging through it but you can if you want.

mjones4th
Feb 24, 2004, 01:48 PM
And additionally, for those of us who think this isn't about copyright law, in order for Feminem to assert that Apple are unlawfully using him to promote itunes or ipod, he must prove that those are his lyrics, used by Apple without permission.

Its not directly about copyright law, but without it, there's no wrongful endorsement case.

Spizzo
Feb 24, 2004, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by mjones4th
And additionally, for those of us who think this isn't about copyright law, in order for Feminem to assert that Apple are unlawfully using him to promote itunes or ipod, he must prove that those are his lyrics, used by Apple without permission.

Its not directly about copyright law, but without it, there's no wrongful endorsement case.

Shouldn't be too hard to do, since even you all have admitted they were his lyrics. So I guess everyone here is right, it should be an open and shut case...for Eminem.

Is this really that big of a deal, Apple made a mistake, we all do, it's part of being human.

I dont think Eminem has anything against Apple, in fact, he probably uses them in the studio. I think, and I'm sure that most of us would feel this way, that if you worked hard on something, and finally, after years of hard work, were successfull, then someone came in and took what you did, used it, didnt give you credit or reimbursment, you would feel the same way. Just MO.

mjones4th
Feb 24, 2004, 02:00 PM
(a) In General. — Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death.



This means once you create it (by putting it in tangible form, like a piece of paper) you now own the copyright.

tny
Feb 24, 2004, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by sparkleytone
You don't need permission to perform a song thats already been recorded by someone else. In commercials, the law MAY differ a little but I doubt it. Once the song has been recorded, song performance rights are no longer at the sole discretion of anyone. Anyone can cover the song however they wish. If Apple paid the royalty for the song, its likely thats all they ever had to do.

This is different than songs in other commercials, because most commercials use specific recordings to sell their product. This requires payment to the artist of course for the recorded performance rights.

He may not like it, but there really isn't much he can do. At the same time, I also see it as his legal team is just trying to protect the Eminem brand name. I don't see a huge problem with it. Its his own money he is wasting anyway.

You're not a lawyer, are you? I'd suggest you look at the law before posting. 1. Not only the recording, but the lyrics and music to a song are copyrighted. 2. The exclusions you're talking about only cover classrooms. See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/110.html

I am not a lawyer anyway, but at least I know enough not to give legal advice on a website without a law degree (not that anyone with a law degree should be doing that).

tny
Feb 24, 2004, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by StealthRider
Copyrights don't count unless they are registered.

Here's the full law...http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

I don't feel like digging through it but you can if you want.

Wrong. Some kinds of damages are not allowed without registration. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/412.html

ALoLA
Feb 24, 2004, 02:17 PM
I haven't seen the commercial. Does anyone know if it's posted anywhere? If it's just a kid singing a part of one of his favorite songs, then how can this be considered Eminem endorsing a product? I wonder if Eminem, himself, decided on this course of action, or was it his reps? I can't imagine that he would be foolish enough to nitpick over someone demonstrating their love of his music. Unless, or course, he doesn't like the image of kids listening to it. :)

tny
Feb 24, 2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Spizzo
I dont know everything about copywrite, so i may be wrong, but my understanding is that even though 27 Oct 03 is the date the song was registered, it was created and published in 02, and it takes some time for the paperwork to go through. It's still his product, his copywrite, his property. Even though Apple used it before the copywrite was registered? Eminem still own the song and lyrics.



Seems like you just contradicted yourself if you ask me. Apple was just Using his work, just like i used your work in my paper. Only if you dont get credit, and in the case of music, pay royalties, you had just Plagerised. And that IS a violation of Copywrite laws. So Yes, this is all about copywrite.

Plagriaism and copyright are two different issues. Fair use allows for the quotation of a work in a work of criticism. The Apple add does not strike me as a work of criticism. Whether it counts as fair use or not is something a lawyer and a court would need to decide.

The Dreaming
Feb 24, 2004, 02:18 PM
I saw a video where Mick Jagger was walking down the street and this little girl asked him if he knew that Brittany spears covered "Satisfaction". She questioned if Brittany asked to do that, and Mick said, "Once a song has been done once, anyone can do it... you don't have to ask".

I always thought you had to get the rights, but I'm sure Mick knows a bit more about this than I.

Unless I'm missing something, I'm pretty sure this applies here.

Eminem is such a p#ssy.

jholzner
Feb 24, 2004, 02:18 PM
Well, according to this spymac blurb the song wasn't even copyrighted until Oct. 2003...well after the commercials aired. I wonder if this will have any impact on their case.

From Spymac:

"Marshall Mathers -- better known to the world as Eminem -- is suing Apple over "alleged misuse" of one of his songs in an iTunes Music Store ad. The ad in question featured a ten year old singing the song "Lose Yourself," and ran for three months last summer on MTV. Interestingly, the song wasn't copyrighted until October 27, 2003, long after the ad was run on television."

Spizzo
Feb 24, 2004, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by tny
Plagriaism and copyright are two different issues. Fair use allows for the quotation of a work in a work of criticism. The Apple add does not strike me as a work of criticism. Whether it counts as fair use or not is something a lawyer and a court would need to decide.

I understand the difference between the two, ok, maybe my example sucked. But my point was Apple can't use anyone's lyrics, songs, etc... without permission, and i agree, i dont see how this add was criticising Eminem, only trying to promote Apples product.

Spizzo
Feb 24, 2004, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by jholzner
Well, according to this spymac blurb the song wasn't even copyrighted until Oct. 2003...well after the commercials aired. I wonder if this will have any impact on their case.

From Spymac:

"Marshall Mathers -- better known to the world as Eminem -- is suing Apple over "alleged misuse" of one of his songs in an iTunes Music Store ad. The ad in question featured a ten year old singing the song "Lose Yourself," and ran for three months last summer on MTV. Interestingly, the song wasn't copyrighted until October 27, 2003, long after the ad was run on television."

Did you read any of the other posts before posting??

The second you create your work, you own the copywrite on it. Just because it wasn't registered till oct 2003, doesnt mean it wasnt protected before.

Rower_CPU
Feb 24, 2004, 02:26 PM
So, why is the suit happening now and not last summer when the ads were actually run?

kindall
Feb 24, 2004, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by StealthRider
Copyrights don't count unless they are registered.

Here's the full law...http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

I don't feel like digging through it but you can if you want.

Too bad you didn't feel like digging through it; you would have found out that you're wrong. See section (409)(a) -- "registration is not a condition of copyright protection."

You can't sue for statutory damages or attorney's fees without registering your copyright. However, you have three months from the time the work is published to register. You can register later, but cannot sue for statutory damages or attorney's fees for infringements committed before registration. You can still get actual damages and stop distribution of the infringing work, even without registering.

Spizzo
Feb 24, 2004, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by The Dreaming
I saw a video where Mick Jagger was walking down the street and this little girl asked him if he knew that Brittany spears covered "Satisfaction". She questioned if Brittany asked to do that, and Mick said, "Once a song has been done once, anyone can do it... you don't have to ask".

I always thought you had to get the rights, but I'm sure Mick knows a bit more about this than I.

Unless I'm missing something, I'm pretty sure this applies here.

Eminem is such a p#ssy.

Ok, your kinda right here.

Anyone can cover any song without paying royalties. The venu (Sp?) is responsible to pay for the royalties of all the songs which were covered.

So, while Eminem can't sue the kid for singing the song, he can sue Apple for not paying royalties. But this song was also used as an endorsment for Apples products, so that is more than just someone covering someone elses song at a performance.

junior
Feb 24, 2004, 02:45 PM
OK, what you guys don't seem to know here is that any music played or covered at a venue, radiostaion, etc can be payed for by way of royalties, which is a very small, pitifull amount of money.
However, the moment a song is associated with a product, the whole scenario changes. For example, a Beatles song, if given permission to use the master recording {which would usually never happen} for a TV ad would cost up to or more than $1 miilion. Just to cover that song, whether it be a full on band recording, abstract, acapella, or anything else, would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
If done without permission, I can't start to imagine how much that would end up costing the company.
I can't believe the a agency/production company did this without permission. They couldn't possibly be so naive, and they would almost certainly have a Music production company or producer employed to sort this kind of thing out to begin with.
Quite incredible.
As for this '8 second usage = free' thing that's fairytale stuff. Certainly doesn't apply to advertising.

jccbin
Feb 24, 2004, 03:00 PM
There are contracts involved here, folks. These contracts supercede the copyright law in that they represent the terms of use granted to Apple by the publisher of the music when they agreed to let Apple sell the song online.

Otherwise, M.Bruce Mathers (eminem) could sue for every preview one did at the iTunes store. In most cases, and probably in this one as well, the the Production right holder has had to sign away the rights to market the song to the distributor.

Apple's ad, in effect, is saying "hey, you can buy this song here and here's a short sample."

Owning a copyright does not mean you have total control over the material. You have to transfer rights to distributors, publishers, etc and their agreements with their own contractors (Apple, Sam Goody, etc) flow from the publisher, not from the copyright holder.

This ad clearly is not an endorsement by Mathers, in my opinion.

It is a good bit of marketing by Apple/Mathers to stir up iTunes sales, though <wink wink>

junior
Feb 24, 2004, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by jccbin


Owning a copyright does not mean you have total control over the material. You have to transfer rights to distributors, publishers, etc and their agreements with their own contractors (Apple, Sam Goody, etc) flow from the publisher, not from the copyright holder.


All your points were fine, but just wanted to point out that certain mega artists that own copyrights to their songs DO have total control over their materials. Very few of them, but they do. Especially in regards to Advertisment.
For example you can't ever use a Bob Dylan track with alcohol or cigarettes (his personal wish). How funny is that!

Fukui
Feb 24, 2004, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Spizzo
I dont see the connection, i dont think the Pope was blessing the "whole" of hip-hop, just those people and how they were using it.

And Eminem wasn't given an award by one person. He was given the award by The Academy. A collection of the greatest Artists, Composers, Producers, etc... I think they know what they are talkin about when it comes to music. I happen to know a few Academy members, and although they didnt like Em's lyrics, they did think he did a good enough job to vote for him.
Well, the connection is:everything is commercial. You get endorsements, you give endorsements, and not even Royal Families or the Pope get out of it. If you have enough popularity or money, awards are par for the course....they don't always mean something or someone is great (or talented - not talking about eminem) because of it.

mjones4th
Feb 24, 2004, 03:23 PM
I see lots of "almost right's" and "true but excet for's" and "well not exactly's" here.

Bottom line, Apple was wrong on this one, it is copyright infringement. No matter whether or not they sell his music in their store. No matter who is saying the lyric. No matter when it was copyrighted (given that Fem can prove he wrote it prior to the commercial being aired)

When you create a musical piece, you have two areas of rights. One falls under mechanical reproduction rights (or the royalties system - the artist gets paid for every CD sold). The other falls under Performance rights. the right to be compensated for the public performance of your music (whether by a CD recording or a cover band).

See, a song is copyrighted in two separate arenas. The underlying musical work (the notes and words), and the sound recording (the tune on a tangible medium - CD for example).

You can protect both in one fell swoop, using standard copyright forms. (I have done so for all of my stuff) But they still fall under two distinct arenas.

For example, if I do a remake of a song written by Smokie Robinson, but performed by Diana Ross, I pay Smokie but not Diana. If I sample it, I pay Diana and Smokey. If someone samples my song of Smokie/Diana samples, they pay me, smokie and diana (so you see it pays to write your onw stuff - and of course I've simplified things)

So by using Feminem's lyric in their commercial, they have infringed on his performance rights, by performing his material in a public venue without permission and compensation. And this, even though they have negotiated to pay him for the rights to reproduce his music mechanically in iTunes.



And owning a copyright _IS_ total control. The problem is that to play, you have to give some of those rights to the record label. You have no choice. And they'll take as much as they want. But you have no choice because if you don't like it, they'll just go and dick someone else.

Take for example Prince, do you know why he changed his name for a short while? He didn't own the copyright to it, the label did, and when he wanted to leave, they told him he couldn't use it. A number of Big Name artists don't have rights to their early music.

mjones4th
Feb 24, 2004, 03:25 PM
publisher, not from the copyright holder

Publishing and copyright are the same thing in the music arena.

inkswamp
Feb 24, 2004, 03:28 PM
Eminem's fame clock:

14:01 and counting.

1macker1
Feb 24, 2004, 03:32 PM
A news source is reporting that STEVE JObs himself called EM's manager and asked to use the song. They said NO, Apple used the song anyway, now they are getting sued.

arn
Feb 24, 2004, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by 1macker1
A news source is reporting that STEVE JObs himself called EM's manager and asked to use the song. They said NO, Apple used the song anyway, now they are getting sued.

Actually it just said that Jobs called to ask them to "rethink their position" - which is probably with regard to this lawsuit

arn

geerlingguy
Feb 24, 2004, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by amnesiac1984
As a student with not enough seating in our living room, I can correct you in saying that it is the 3 second rule. If someone is out of their seat for more than 3 seconds you have every right to steal it.

What? You wait? :)

1macker1
Feb 24, 2004, 03:42 PM
Right. I posted my last post wrong.
Originally posted by arn
Actually it just said that Jobs called to ask them to "rethink their position" - and it may have been after they had already used it and this was regarding the objection.

arn

geerlingguy
Feb 24, 2004, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by maelstromr
What are you suggesting about my location? Boston is DEFINATELY the most calm, cool headed and least likely to lose control city in the US. (THAT'S sarcasm.)

But we DO have at least two Apple Stores, and that makes us cooler.

See everyone...cooool.

True, so true. Apple realized they needed to calm you guys down, so they put in two stores... Here in 'the STL' we only have one, and it's in West County!!! Argh! (for those not in the know, all other counties hate West County, and vice-versa)... :D

jasonbw
Feb 24, 2004, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by tny
Plagriaism and copyright are two different issues. Fair use allows for the quotation of a work in a work of criticism. The Apple add does not strike me as a work of criticism. Whether it counts as fair use or not is something a lawyer and a court would need to decide.

i wonder if you could argue that it is a work of criticism. the theme for the commercial was 'your favorite song' and the kid sang it. like someone quoting a movie line, except it was in a commercial. He liked it, he said it was good, and then he sang it.

I wonder if someone will track down this kid and get his response to "remember when we had you sing your favorite song and said we'd put it on tv? well the guy who wrote that song said he didn't like you singing it, and now he wants lots of money."

then again, MM got into a fight with a puppet when it made fun of him. he really doesn't care what anybody thinks when he's mad.

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 24, 2004, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by j33pd0g
Isn't there the 8 sec rule... you can use something just as long as isn't more then 8 sec?

I think the rule is 8 bars of music.....

geerlingguy
Feb 24, 2004, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Chip NoVaMac
I think the rule is 8 bars of music.....

8 seconds, 8 mile (a dumb movie), 8 bars of music, my number (volleyball) is 8...

FREAKY! :eek:

jocknerd
Feb 24, 2004, 03:55 PM
I can't believe how many people on here are comparing walking down the street and singing a song to the commercial Apple made. Of course you are not going to be sued for singing the song because you don't have permission. But you are not profiting from it.

Apple is though. They made a commercial with a kid singing Eminem's lyrics. Therefore, they need permission from the copyright holder in order to use the song in the commercial. Thats a fact.

The unknown is whether Apple had permission or not. If they didn't, they messed up.

It happens. Even to Apple.

The Dreaming
Feb 24, 2004, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Spizzo
Ok, your kinda right here.

Anyone can cover any song without paying royalties. The venu (Sp?) is responsible to pay for the royalties of all the songs which were covered.

So, while Eminem can't sue the kid for singing the song, he can sue Apple for not paying royalties. But this song was also used as an endorsment for Apples products, so that is more than just someone covering someone elses song at a performance.

Spizzo, you're right. I haven't seen the ad, but as I understand it, Apple used a video of a kid singing an Eminem song, which was used to endorse iTunes? Was the actual song being played, a cover of the song, or did the kid just sing it without any music?

JGowan
Feb 24, 2004, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by simX
oooOOOooo the guy can rhyme! That's... *SO* impressive!Your sarcasm is so typical. I am not saying that I subscribe to his thinking or his opinions, but merely stating that, as far as the (c)rap genre, he is arguably the best in his field.

Certainly, I think that many others in pop, rock, country, etc. are much more talented -- it was about the rap genre and the fact that CR2SH characterized him as "dumb as a rock"... he's not.

Originally posted by simX
When I grow up...Precisely... grow up.

SidedCircle
Feb 24, 2004, 04:41 PM
Even if Apple did make a mistake, Eminem's camp must prove that there was damage caused by the ad. Other wise what's the point of even suing? If there was no damage caused, how can he be compensated? The Apple ad, if anything increased his royalties and help him, than anything else. This is nothing more than some PR stunt and I'm going with Apple on this one.


-SidedCircle

JediL
Feb 24, 2004, 05:19 PM
The damage they claim is that Apple used Eminem to endorse the iTMS (which is a ludicrous argument to me), and that they argue Eminem would have gotten around 10 million for such an endorsement. Therefore, Apple owes Eminem 10 million dollars.

mstecker
Feb 24, 2004, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by themacolyte
Slightly off topic, but I don't believe Apple spends anything on product placements. Apple computers are often seen in movies and television because 1) they are often out in front in terms of aesthetic design ...

Did anyone watch the first season of "24"? The amount of Apple products used was mind-boggling. Everywhere you turned, someone had a powerbook, a cinema display, an iBook, or an iMac. They were all over CTU. Kim had a clamshell iBook at home, Tony had one on his desk.

In the previews for the third season, they had G5 boxes prominently displayed - months before they were available to the public.

They had to have paid for product placement for that one.

You saw almost as many Apple products during the first season as you see Ford products during this, the third season. This is getting really off-topic, but there are so many Ford products that it's driving me crazy.

mrsebastian
Feb 24, 2004, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by geerlingguy
8 seconds, 8 mile (a dumb movie), 8 bars of music, my number (volleyball) is 8...

FREAKY! :eek:


you beat me to "8 seconds", for those that don't know, you gotta hang on for 8 seconds in bull riding. i always remeber the food thing as the 3 second rule.

geerlingguy
Feb 24, 2004, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by mstecker
Did anyone watch the first season of "24"? The amount of Apple products used was mind-boggling. Everywhere you turned, someone had a powerbook, a cinema display, an iBook, or an iMac. They were all over CTU. Kim had a clamshell iBook at home, Tony had one on his desk.

In the previews for the third season, they had G5 boxes prominently displayed - months before they were available to the public.

They had to have paid for product placement for that one.

You saw almost as many Apple products during the first season as you see Ford products during this, the third season. This is getting really off-topic, but there are so many Ford products that it's driving me crazy.

You get sick of too many Macs? tsk tsk!:D

MrJamie
Feb 24, 2004, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Spizzo
Shouldn't be too hard to do, since even you all have admitted they were his lyrics. So I guess everyone here is right, it should be an open and shut case...for Eminem.

Is this really that big of a deal, Apple made a mistake, we all do, it's part of being human.

I dont think Eminem has anything against Apple, in fact, he probably uses them in the studio. I think, and I'm sure that most of us would feel this way, that if you worked hard on something, and finally, after years of hard work, were successfull, then someone came in and took what you did, used it, didnt give you credit or reimbursment, you would feel the same way. Just MO.

exceeeeeept it doesn't sound from the suit that copyright is the reason for the case.

Spizzo
Feb 24, 2004, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by MrJamie
exceeeeeept it doesn't sound from the suit that copyright is the reason for the case.

Really? :eek:

Did You read the news article?

Here, let me help you out, i gotta little snipet from it just for you.

By Associated Press

February 24, 2004, 8:17 AM EST


DETROIT -- Rapper Eminem's music publisher is suing Apple Computer Inc., claiming the company used one of the hip-hop superstar's songs in a television advertisement without permission.

Eight Mile Style filed the copyright infringement suit late last week against Apple, Viacom Inc., its MTV subsidiary and the TBWA/Chiat/Day advertising agency.

Does that not say
copyright infringement suit

Damn this new PowerBook, the screen is sooo small, i can hardly make out the words....;)

Rower_CPU
Feb 24, 2004, 06:06 PM
Yes, but the statement from his publisher is about endorsement.
"Eminem has never nationally endorsed any commercial products and ... even if he were interested in endorsing a product, any endorsement deal would require a significant amount of money, possibly in excess of $10 million," according to the 15-page lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Detroit.


Kind of a conflicting message...

-----------

I think everyone here needs to take a deep breath and wait for the whole story to come out before lashing out at each other over what this whole story means.

Play nice. :)

alamar
Feb 24, 2004, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by punter
what if only 8 (or was it 9) second of the song is used. Isn't that copyright free? Or 10% of the song, whichever is less. *tries to think back to media studies*

It is possible that the entire reasoning behind the suit is for free publicity whilst M&M is between major releases.

MrJamie
Feb 24, 2004, 06:28 PM
I hope you read the snippet from the suit, too, but judging by your diligence I don't think I have to worry about that. Anyway, the snippet speaks to my argument. So I guess until the full suit is revealed, neither of us can claim to be correct.

alamar
Feb 24, 2004, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by jiggie2g
This is Really said and a new low when 10yr old boys can't even Sing a freakin song on TV because they didn't give a record company a big enough check.

1st of all Eminem is the Bitch of MTV and nothing more than a Hardcore Justin Timberlake. I really can't believe how stupid these a Artist are when it comes to Business. Eminem was one of the most Vocal Artist against Napster bitching about how he was losing money, when the reality of the fact is that your own record label robs you 10X more than any P2P service will. Come'on a Artist works like a slave making the record , writing the songs, singing/rapping. and only see's an avearage of 70cent's off a $14.99 CD, so u tell me who's robbing who?

Am i the Only one getting bored of hearing about Eminem bitch all day about Boy Bands, Pop Singer, Gays, his Slut Wife and Crazy Junkie of a mother.really he's running out of ideas and this Bull **** shows it. He Needs Money. Eminem has his head so far up his ass believing his own B.S. he should be greatful that the Hip-hop community accepted him as one of thier own with him being white rapper , especially after Vanilla Ice.

He is a Coporate Gunnie Pig who with the Help of MTV has completely exploited the fact that he is caucasion, becoming nothing more than a Rapping Elvis. look a MTV's 22 greatest MC's of all time and Eminem is #3 ,...#3 ahead of Jay-Z, Nas, Rakim , Krs-One, Chuck D, are u F*^kin' kidding me , only on MTV. they must have been sharing crack pipe with Eminem's mom when they made that list.

In the End Eminem will be the 2nd coming of Vanilla Ice. and will only make it impossible for the next talented white rapper to get his break.

Note: People what you see on MTV is not Hip-Hop it's Hip-Pop.

Wow. I nominate this for the most heratfelt flame of the week.

Spizzo
Feb 24, 2004, 06:42 PM
OK, I'm not trying to piss anyone off, but I dont understand how so many people can start spoutin off this and that without having a basic idea about copyright laws.

Yes, i understand that part of this is about endorsements, but the suit that was filed is a copyright suit, and his publicist was talking about his endorsement,or lack there of, no his lawyers.

I agree with Rower that we do need to wait for all the facts, i think i mentioned something about it in my first post. If i am wrong, i will be the first to admit it.

So I apologize if anyone felt that i was trying to argue or flame.

mdriftmeyer
Feb 24, 2004, 07:13 PM
Nancy Heinen is too damn talented an Attorney and Senior Vice President and General Counsel to let this get past her team. One of the best moves was to get Nancy who was our VP and General Counsel at NeXT.

For Eminem this gives him free Publicity.

FYI:

http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/heinen.html

simX
Feb 24, 2004, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by JGowan
Your sarcasm is so typical. I am not saying that I subscribe to his thinking or his opinions, but merely stating that, as far as the (c)rap genre, he is arguably the best in his field.

Heh, well then Eminem can say that he's the best in crap. What an honor!

Certainly, I think that many others in pop, rock, country, etc. are much more talented -- it was about the rap genre and the fact that CR2SH characterized him as "dumb as a rock"... he's not.

Of course not, he's laughing all the way to the bank. That doesn't make me have any respect for him.

Precisely... grow up.

I'm hurt by such an "insult". :rolleyes:

MrJamie
Feb 24, 2004, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by Spizzo
Yes, i understand that part of this is about endorsements, but the suit that was filed is a copyright suit, and his publicist was talking about his endorsement,or lack there of, no his lawyers.


Actually, the part about his endorsement comes directly from the suit, acording to the link provided by macrumors.

amnesiac1984
Feb 24, 2004, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by mjones4th
if you like good hip hop/rap (or any other genre - except for the continuously morphing amalgamation of all that was once good music - Pop), the charts are the last place to look.

Okay so gangster isn't the right word for it, I know quite a bit about music but, jiggy wiggy bling bling music I don't know the word for. And yes of course I know that good hip hop is not to be found in the charts. Buck 65 (anticon) is just an example of when someone decent does break into the charts, although I don't even know if he hit the charts but his single was on the amp mtv station last summer in the UK.

crookedcharlie
Feb 24, 2004, 08:17 PM
I'm betting ours in the last generation that's going to hold on to the vaguely racist notion that rap is somehow not "music."

It happened with the blues for a half-century, then white people "invented" rock and roll by ripping off blues musicians no one had ever heard of.

Eminem is one of the most gifted lyricists alive today. To me, this is not up for discussion. You all can hold on to your notions that he's somehow not talented, but you must know that you're in the same camp who called The Beatles "unfocused noise" back in the day...

Spizzo
Feb 24, 2004, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by MrJamie
Actually, the part about his endorsement comes directly from the suit, acording to the link provided by macrumors.

Yes, but if and when this goes to court, it's not going to be at all about endorsements. That shouldnt come into play here, it's a copywrite suit. The law has nothing to do with endorsments. Thats all i was trying to say.

Originally posted by crookedcharlie

I'm betting ours in the last generation that's going to hold on to the vaguely racist notion that rap is somehow not "music."

Who's generation? I dont think everyone in the forum/post is in the same generation.

MrMacMan
Feb 24, 2004, 08:51 PM
Ahh I'm remember the next time I hum to the tune of a song I legally bought, I'll make sure:
The Artist
The Label
The Record Comapany
The RIAA (Even if its not a RIAA record label, JUST IN CASE)
The Artist's Mother
The Co-Label
The Production set.
The Company that 'owns' the song.
The company that 'owns' the 'rights' to the song.
The Company that 'owns' the 'rights' to the online version of the song.

Make sure THEY know I have rights to ths song... and
I'm probably forgetting a few!

Ahh Electric Six -- Don't sue me!

:eek:

silvergunuk
Feb 24, 2004, 08:53 PM
Any chance of a G5 Powerbook? Sorry I couldn't resist.

mjtomlin
Feb 24, 2004, 09:17 PM
Apple didn't use Eminem's song to endorse their product ... They didn't tell the kid to sing the song ... that's the song the kid chose to sing. It wasn't scripted. You can't sue for asking someone their opinion regardless of the outcome. If that were the case, every documentary ever made would be liable for some form of copyright infringement.

The commercial wasn't about the song that was sung ... Apple is demonstrating how much fun it is to have all your favorite songs in your pocket. If it were a blatant rip off or use of the song then I can see where they would have a case. But it wasn't any different than a reporter asking John Public to sing a couple of lines of his favorite song on the evening news.

Everyone who thinks Apple used the song to try and sell more iPod's is just plain stupid. You need to re-watch the commercials - all of them. And see how they were made.

Another question that should be asked? Why in the hell did they wait so long to file suit?

mjtomlin
Feb 24, 2004, 09:24 PM
I happen to like many forms of music ... including Eminem. I have his last two albums, which are both excellent. Like another poster mentioned, I also happen to think he's an extremely talented lyricist.

For the people who dismiss this article and law suit because they think Eminem's music sucks... Well what's your favorite music/band/singer ... I'm sure I can find many. many people who'll be more than happy to label that crap as well.

The fact that you do or don't like Eminem's music has nothing to do with this issue. So zip it, beeyatch!

ibjoshua
Feb 24, 2004, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by Savage Henry
Eminem is a commercial product.

you said it

Eminem Co. VS Apple Co.


i_b_joshua

crookedcharlie
Feb 24, 2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Spizzo
Who's generation? I dont think everyone in the forum/post is in the same generation.

I'm blanketing to the word to pretty much mean anyone alive and aware as this is being written.

You got the spirit of my post, though, right?

Spizzo
Feb 24, 2004, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by crookedcharlie
I'm blanketing to the word to pretty much mean anyone alive and aware as this is being written.

You got the spirit of my post, though, right?

Gotcha.

smartypantsguy
Feb 24, 2004, 10:30 PM
Yes, the 8 second rule does still apply...

I'm sure Apple's lawyers and the sound man who worked on the commercial eyed heavily the 100ths of seconds counter when editing the commercial...

So aside from appearing like a complete moron to friends and foe alike, this lawsuit will go nowhere fast for Mr. Matters...

kingtj
Feb 24, 2004, 11:22 PM
Right.... I think the real argument here is going to come down to whether or not a young kid singing his own rendition of a popular hit song constitutes a "live performance" or simply a "parody" of the original. (In my mind, it's pretty clear that a "non-professional" singing a song without even a full backing band is NOT really a "live performance" for which royalties are due - but it's surely made more "murky" by the mere fact it was performed in a "for profit" advertisement.)

A while back, ASCAP actually sued the Girl Scouts of America because they claimed no royalties were ever paid for the copyrighted songs sung around campfires. After the media backlash that ensued, they backed off on it though....

There was another famous incident, some years ago, where Bruce Springsteen sued a small tavern in a mostly blue-collar steel town because he didn't get the royalties when some cover band re-did his songs there. The locals were former "huge Bruce Springsteen fans" but mostly vowed off listening to his music again after that. (Generally, the sentiment was that Bruce S. was a hypocritical jerk to try to milk money from a poor, working-class town, while he eulogized the same in his music.)


Originally posted by jbh001
Either Apple's ad agency got permission to use it and Eminem is just trying to find a way to exhort money, or Apple's lawyers concluded that use of the material was subject to the parody exemption and Eminem's lawyers disagree. The latter is more likely.

LethalWolfe
Feb 24, 2004, 11:34 PM
I'm gonna touch on a few points here:

Product placement: Permission has to be given. Some times it's free, some times you have to pay for it, some times you get paid for it. It all depends on the circumstances.

"Fair use": in a nutshell this breaks down to for academic and/or news related use you can use a small section of the copyrighted work w/o needing permission. For any commercial use you need to get permission and/or pay for the right to use the copyrighted works.

This isn't about a boy signing a song it's about possible misuse of a copyrighted work. And for everyone praising Apple Legal I would, honestly, be surprised if Apple Legal has much control over this. Apple pays an ad agency to do their commericals and the ad agency probably has a number of production companies that they regularly use to actually shoot and edit the commerical. The production company probably had a huge turn out of people singing songs wanting to be in the commerical. They picked the talent they liked the most and then went "these are the people we like, now we have to try and secure rights to use the songs they sang." If they couldn't secure the rights to the song they might have asked the person to sing a different song, or they might just have dropped that person all together and picked someone else who sang a song they could get the rights to. Now, if the person who was in charge of making sure all the songs were "legal" dropped they ball that could be the cause of this whole thing. When the final commerical was played for Apple to get approval I'm sure someone asked, "We've secured the rights to use these songs right?" and the reply was, "Of course. "Bob" took care of that." But Bob actually goofed and didn't secure the rights to MM's song. D'oh. Of course this is just a theory but, IMO, it's a pretty plausible theory.


Lethal

kingtj
Feb 25, 2004, 12:25 AM
...are you saying that a kid singing a rendition of a copyrighted song is "product placement"? In my mind, I don't equate that to, say, showing an actor reaching in the fridge and pulling out a Diet Coke. To me, Eminem's music being "product placement" would be a situation where someone was shown in Apple's commercial opening up one of his CD's, with the cover art on the CD jewel case clearly exposed to the camera.

I'm not trying to claim that this kid singing on Apple's commercial would be covered under the "fair use" provisions of copyright law, either. What I'm saying is that I don't consider a non-professional attempt at singing a song to be under the control of the artist who performed the original. If it is, that's a scary stretch of the intent of copyright protection.

EG. Nobody I know would mistake some 10 year old kid's attempt at singing an Eminem song as Eminem's own personal endorsement of the product (or for that matter, mistake the kid for Eminem himself). Therefore, I fail to see why the courts need to punish the advertising agency involved, or Apple themselves?



Originally posted by LethalWolfe
I'm gonna touch on a few points here:

Product placement: Permission has to be given. Some times it's free, some times you have to pay for it, some times you get paid for it. It all depends on the circumstances.

"Fair use": in a nutshell this breaks down to for academic and/or news related use you can use a small section of the copyrighted work w/o needing permission. For any commercial use you need to get permission and/or pay for the right to use the copyrighted works.

This isn't about a boy signing a song it's about possible misuse of a copyrighted work.

Lethal

kingtj
Feb 25, 2004, 12:37 AM
Ok, at the risk of getting way off topic here -- I have to comment on this one. I don't think there's anything even remotely "racist" intended by many of the people who claim that "rap is not real music". Let me explain....

I'm a musician myself, and played rhythm guitar in a local alt. rock type band for a couple years, a long time ago. (Nowdays, music is just a hobby for me. I.T. work pays the bills.)

As a musician, I always tried to keep in mind that every type of music has value. (EG. I may despise "country music", but it's unwise to make a decision not to listen to any of it - because it deprives me of possible musical ideas I wouldn't otherwise experience. Maybe I'd want to experiment with putting together a rock song that has drum beats derived from country music, or maybe I'd want to do something with their method of guitar strumming - speeding it up or slowing it down. Who knows?)

From this standpoint, yes, rap is certainly "music". The rhythm and lyrical rhyming is unique to the genre and it takes talent to create it. There are creative ideas in there that any musician can make some use of.

But some folks prefer a more strict definition of "music", to mean the assembly of notes into an ear-pleasing order. Since rap often consists of the rhythm without the "tonal instruments", and even the lyrics are often just spoken rather than sung in a certain key, it fails this test. (By the same token, these same people might not consider "drum & bass" to be a valid genre of "music" either.)

I think it's an issue of how one wants to define the word "music", more than some sort of racial slam.....


Originally posted by crookedcharlie
I'm betting ours in the last generation that's going to hold on to the vaguely racist notion that rap is somehow not "music."

It happened with the blues for a half-century, then white people "invented" rock and roll by ripping off blues musicians no one had ever heard of.

Eminem is one of the most gifted lyricists alive today. To me, this is not up for discussion. You all can hold on to your notions that he's somehow not talented, but you must know that you're in the same camp who called The Beatles "unfocused noise" back in the day...

ssnmx
Feb 25, 2004, 12:55 AM
this ad? I can't find it anywhere!! So if you'd be so kind as to provide a link, it'd be appreaciated

Thanks

LethalWolfe
Feb 25, 2004, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by kingtj
...are you saying that a kid singing a rendition of a copyrighted song is "product placement"? In my mind, I don't equate that to, say, showing an actor reaching in the fridge and pulling out a Diet Coke. To me, Eminem's music being "product placement" would be a situation where someone was shown in Apple's commercial opening up one of his CD's, with the cover art on the CD jewel case clearly exposed to the camera.

I'm not trying to claim that this kid singing on Apple's commercial would be covered under the "fair use" provisions of copyright law, either. What I'm saying is that I don't consider a non-professional attempt at singing a song to be under the control of the artist who performed the original. If it is, that's a scary stretch of the intent of copyright protection.

EG. Nobody I know would mistake some 10 year old kid's attempt at singing an Eminem song as Eminem's own personal endorsement of the product (or for that matter, mistake the kid for Eminem himself). Therefore, I fail to see why the courts need to punish the advertising agency involved, or Apple themselves?

No, I do not think it was product placement, but product placement was brought up earlier which is why I mentioned it (my post was kind of a hodge-podge reply to two or three points brought up in this thread). Product placement doesn't have to as literal or obvious as you've described (and it usually is much more subtle). A song being played, or a movie or TV show in the back ground would be a more effective way to "sell" that product than to just show the case. For example, UPN and the WB regularly incorporate demographicly appropriate pop music into many of their shows. And as previously stated "24" uses a lot of Macs and Fords but you never see a gratuitous shot of either brands logo.

Many people seem to be focusing on the wrong thing here. The lawsuit isn't because of a kid singing a song. The lawsuit is because Apple may not have secured rights to use copyrighted material (lyrics to a song in this case) for commercial use. How the copyrighted material was used in this case is irrelevent. It's the fact that it may have been used w/o proper permission that is the problem.


Lethal

ph8te
Feb 25, 2004, 01:19 AM
Well, now that everyone has made his or her point, let's all just forget about it and close this thread....

SiliconAddict
Feb 25, 2004, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by ph8te


But it is bordering on the ridiculous... Imagine me serenading my girl with a Barry White song, and along comes a lawyer and slaps me with a lawsuit, because I did not obtain the rights to sing the song...

What about all those pub-bands that do cover versions of popular songs? Are they all gonna be sued soon as well?

Oh ya. That's a fair comparison. Singing to your girlfriend vs. a nationally televised, even if it only played once, ad to promote a product.

I love Mac users. If this was Microsoft you'd be on them like a bunch of wolves on a lamb for airing an ad without permission from the author of the song. But since its Apple, screw Eninem. Folks he is watching out for his interests and if Apple did use the song without his consent Apple deserves to get slapped with a hefty fee. No one should be immune from breaking copyright laws not even Apple.
Obviously though, if the claim is true, this was a blunder. Somewhere along the way someone didn’t do the paperwork or make the phone call to Eninem’s reps. I’m hoping something can be worked out between Apple and Eight Mile Style that is fair and acceptable compensation without EMS trying to go for the jugular.

ph8te
Feb 25, 2004, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Oh ya. That's a fair comparison. Singing to your girlfriend vs. a nationally televised, even if it only played once, ad to promote a product.

Sarcasm, Irony, and a bit of Tounge-In-Cheek are not your strong point I see. I was only trying to make some people laugh. But since you find this a very serious issue, I apologize for my dumbwitted sense of humour.

But seriously, look at what the wiorld is coming to when everyone is trying to make a fast buck. Also, how many great ideas to you think have gone lost because someone somewhere might have the rights to something, but is sitting on it until he or she sees fit to release it to the masses or people just get bought out by the naughty corporations and governments, because we as people are not fit enough to have our own self-determinism, and we need to be lead as sheep do.

Come on, these pityfull excuses to get at each others throats only make this world a more pathetic place to live in...

Me, I am on the first spaceship outta here.... oops, there I go again... next you gonna tell me that there are no spaceships and aliens are just a figment of my imagination.

macboygrey
Feb 25, 2004, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by ph8te Me, I am on the first spaceship outta here.... oops, there I go again... next you gonna tell me that there are no spaceships and aliens are just a figment of my imagination.

It's scary living here. *glances over shoulder* At least we aren't totering on the brink of nuclear destruction anymore... wait a second... yes we are! Plus we have tons of NEW potential end-of-world senarios to worry about! Damned humans. Glad I'm not one of THOSE... ^^; haha

ph8te
Feb 25, 2004, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by macboygrey
It's scary living here. *glances over shoulder* At least we aren't totering on the brink of nuclear destruction anymore... wait a second... yes we are! Plus we have tons of NEW potential end-of-world senarios to worry about! Damned humans. Glad I'm not one of THOSE... ^^; haha

And one of those scenarios would be if Microsoft got its operating system on every computer. Now that's a horrible end of the world that I would not wish upon my worst enemies here on earth. The "Blue Screen (ehm "sky") of Death" would team up with the reaper.

LethalWolfe
Feb 25, 2004, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by ph8te

But seriously, look at what the wiorld is coming to when everyone is trying to make a fast buck. Also, how many great ideas to you think have gone lost because someone somewhere might have the rights to something, but is sitting on it until he or she sees fit to release it to the masses or people just get bought out by the naughty corporations and governments, because we as people are not fit enough to have our own self-determinism, and we need to be lead as sheep do.


Flip side.

How many great ideas would never have become reality if people were not compensated for the time, effort, and money it took to create that idea ( which sometimes leads to a physical product). IMO intellectual property is more valuable than physical property and should be strictly protected. If I create a product should other people have the right to freely use that product for whatever they want, including commercial gain, w/o my permission and/or w/o compensating me in anyway?


Lethal

rt_brained
Feb 25, 2004, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by SiliconAddict
I love Mac users. If this was Microsoft you'd be on them like a bunch of wolves on a lamb for airing an ad without permission from the author of the song. But since its Apple, screw Eninem. Folks he is watching out for his interests and if Apple did use the song without his consent Apple deserves to get slapped with a hefty fee. No one should be immune from breaking copyright laws not even Apple. Finally, someone who knows what they're talking about.

Oh, that reminds me Silicon, I've been meaning to pass on the following:

SPACE GHOST and all related characters and elements are trademarks of Hanna-Barbera. All material including images and illustrations is protected by copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property rights which are owned and controlled by The Cartoon Network (TCN) or by other parties that have licensed their material to TCN. Such material may not be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, including by e-mail or other electronic means. Without the prior written consent of the owner, use of the materials on any other web site or networked computer environment is a violation of the copyrights, trademarks, and other proprietary rights, and is prohibited.

m4rc
Feb 25, 2004, 03:18 AM
This is a great thread!

So many people ignoring so many people, the whole thing is going round and round, and I recon everything has now been said over and over again, with lots of people not bothering to read the original article or the other posts on the thread.

I think, we actually have no idea what will come of this. We can all guess, but even the best lawyers in the land could guess this wrong. Lets wait until it comes to court, and see who wins.

Then we can have a 'told you so' thread, a bit like the 'iPod mini is overpriced and will never sell' and 'Apple is making a massive mistake with the iPod mini'.

Marc

ph8te
Feb 25, 2004, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Flip side.

How many great ideas would never have become reality if people were not compensated for the time, effort, and money it took to create that idea ( which sometimes leads to a physical product). IMO intellectual property is more valuable than physical property and should be strictly protected. If I create a product should other people have the right to freely use that product for whatever they want, including commercial gain, w/o my permission and/or w/o compensating me in anyway?


Lethal

Yeah, but do you really think the Wright-Brothers, Leonardo Da-Vnci, Einstein and even our own Steve were in it for the quick buck? I think not. If you have a job or careeer where financial gain is your primary concern, then you are waisting your time. Financial gain is always of secondary nature. The most important thing is to have fun in what your'e doing. Steve and Co. have more money than they can "reasonably" spend in a life-time, so the only logical reason for them to continue what they are doing is because they like it and they're having fun.

But, I do agree that if I pour blood, sweat and tears into something, it would not be fair for others to profit from it and I get left in the dark. Eminem certainly made enough money from his song so he can't fell left out and screwed. Anyway, a little boy singing a song, without the instrumental accompaniement and an obvious similarity is subliminal and I would find that sales of the single would have increased after the event...

pianojoe
Feb 25, 2004, 04:46 AM
Funny how copyright laws are different in other countries. Over here, in Germany, this wouldn´t be an issue. You use the song, you pay the royalties that are collected by the national composer´s syndicate (called GEMA, something like ASCAP), and everybody is happy.

Would be different if Eminem had actually appeared in this commercial, though.

D*I*S_Frontman
Feb 25, 2004, 04:58 AM
Let's reason this out for just a moment.

Apple has probably SCORES of lawyers who anally examine every scrap of paper that leaves Cupertino. Certainly an ad intended for an national campagn would be carefully scrutinized. There is no way Apple will lose this, or pay Eminem one red cent more than whatever they have already paid in royalties (if anything).

This is APPLE--remember? The company that can email you a cease-and-desist order for posting new PowerMac schemata faster than you can ftp it to your homepage. Remember the MMD diagrams?

Apple has a zealously diligent legal team. Eminem has no case. I predict he won't get squat from this publicity grab. Apple might even countersue.

edStar
Feb 25, 2004, 07:20 AM
I think some of you are losing focus of the issue. The lawsuit concerns a breach of copyright. But, further reading of the article reveals comments regarding product endorsement.

I think the REAL issue is that Eminem's management feel that Eminem had endorsed iTunes Music Store and he wasn't paid for that. I believe this is the real issue. Forget the smug remarks about Apple stealing music. Forget about whether Apple's legal team did enough research or not.

This is just my opinon prima facie, and I don't pretend to have any real legal training regarding copyright law (especially concerning a foregin jurisdiction). I also personally feel, that if this the sole justification for the suit - then there is no case. I don't think 10 seconds of eminem's lyrics amounts to a product endorsement.

thrashergrrl
Feb 25, 2004, 07:49 AM
The suit is really that there is an implied endorsement of the product. That's like saying Robert Plant and Jimmy Page endorse Cadillac....then again, maybe they do.

mjones4th
Feb 25, 2004, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by pianojoe
Funny how copyright laws are different in other countries. Over here, in Germany, this wouldn´t be an issue. You use the song, you pay the royalties that are collected by the national composer´s syndicate (called GEMA, something like ASCAP), and everybody is happy.

Would be different if Eminem had actually appeared in this commercial, though.

Its the same here in the US except you have to get the copyright holder's (publisher's )permission first.

Jovian9
Feb 25, 2004, 08:21 AM
Seriously....someone on here actually made a comparison b/t The Beatles and Eminem.

He is not one of the most gifted lyricists of todays hip hop community. It only appears that way because most people do not even make an attempt to listen (or find) the hip hop artists out there who are not shoved down your throat by radio and MTV. I'm pretty sure that cleverly wording raping/killing your mother or wife to the tune of a most likely pre-programmed drum machine beat does not qualify as gifted. This guy has no talent at all....only hype....hype that is fueled by a society who cannot think for itself....but relies on television and media to tell it what is right and what is wrong.

Comparing Eminem to The Beatles.....come on now.

TranceClubMusic
Feb 25, 2004, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by JGowan
Yo -- that n!gg@ is mad ill, bee.

LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

PS - Word is Born!

mjones4th
Feb 25, 2004, 08:26 AM
QUOTE]Originally posted by D*I*S_Frontman
Let's reason this out for just a moment.

Apple has probably SCORES of lawyers who anally examine every scrap of paper that leaves Cupertino. Certainly an ad intended for an national campagn would be carefully scrutinized. There is no way Apple will lose this, or pay Eminem one red cent more than whatever they have already paid in royalties (if anything).

This is APPLE--remember? The company that can email you a cease-and-desist order for posting new PowerMac schemata faster than you can ftp it to your homepage. Remember the MMD diagrams?

Apple has a zealously diligent legal team. Eminem has no case. I predict he won't get squat from this publicity grab. Apple might even countersue. [/QUOTE]

I understand your reasoning, but I clearly see the fault behind it. Its like me saying I'm an excellent driver, so the accident must not be my fault.

The royalties that Apple pay Feminem are a direct result of them seeking permission to resell his material in a mechanical form. That falls under the mechanical rights realm. The copyright holder and the sound recording owner get paid every time a mechanical copy of their music is sold.

However, performing a copyrighted composition in a public venue falls under a different jurisdiction. When a cover band plays a Feminem song at a club, someone has to pay Feminem. When a company puts a lyric copyrighted by Feminem in its commercial, it must get his permission first, pay him what he asks, and in addition, pay him some publishing money (a certain amount for every time the commercial is aired - which is set, I believe, by ASCAP/BMI).

If a company puts the actual recorded song into a commercial, they must pay the person(s) who own the copyright to the underlying composition as above (the person who wrote the words and melody, the publishing comany who owns partial rights, the record label if the artist signed a bad contract, etc...) and the person(s) who own the copyright to the sound recording (in many cases the record label) a certain amount every time the commercial is aired. These can be different groups of people, but the point is that these specific channels of payment are seaprate and distinct.

Feminem is right in that, if they didn't ask his permission and compensate him, they have broken US copyright law. Whether or not this will equate, in some judge's mind, to false endorsement is something we can discuss.

But the fact (not my opinion) is that US copyright law was broken. A composition is copyrighted the moment is is placed into a tangible form. The fact that Feminem had not yet formally copyrighted the composition by the time the commercial aired is irrelevant as long ashe can prove he wrote it before the commercial aired. Which should be easy, because the song was released before the commercial aired.

Apple will have to pay for copyright infringement, no matter what the decision is about the endorsement thing.

mjones4th
Feb 25, 2004, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by TranceClubMusic
LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

PS - Word is Born!

You guys are hillarious. I guess I should be offended, but I'm too busy laughing!

Word is bond. My word is my bond.... Okay?

junior
Feb 25, 2004, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Jovian9
Seriously....someone on here actually made a comparison b/t The Beatles and Eminem.

He is not one of the most gifted lyricists of todays hip hop community. It only appears that way because most people do not even make an attempt to listen (or find) the hip hop artists out there who are not shoved down your throat by radio and MTV. I'm pretty sure that cleverly wording raping/killing your mother or wife to the tune of a most likely pre-programmed drum machine beat does not qualify as gifted. This guy has no talent at all....only hype....hype that is fueled by a society who cannot think for itself....but relies on television and media to tell it what is right and what is wrong.

Comparing Eminem to The Beatles.....come on now.


Seriously... Try re-reading my post again. And then maybe a couple of more times.
Not once did I compare the Beatles musically with Eminem. For interests' sake, I gave The Beatles as an example of a very expensive band to use for an advertisment. Led Zeplin for example costs more than the Beatles to use, but that doesn&t mean they are necessarly better now does it?
My point was that all this talk of royalty has absolutley nothing to do with advertisments. Never did I compare Eminem to anyone.
BTW, this $10 million figure his party is bringing up is absolute bull. No artist in the world would cost that much, not even for a 1 year contract.


EDIT:
Whoops! maybe you were talking about another post. If so, whoops!

m4rc
Feb 25, 2004, 09:37 AM
Michael Jacksons endorsement deal with Pepsi was rumoured to be $15 million, and that was in 1986, so I should think others have come close since then. No idea what other more recent artists command.

But surely by not doing endorsements makes you more expensive and attractive for when you do agree to a deal? Isn't that really what this is about? Eminem may not be worth $10 million, some of you don't think he is worth 50 Cents (little joke, like it?) but the more adverts he appeared on, the less he would be worth. Hardly a big deal if you manage to sign an endorsement deal with someone who is on every other advert and bill board. So by keeping away from endorsements, Eminem is, like it or not, increasing his value.

Marc

McCord9
Feb 25, 2004, 10:01 AM
If this lawsuit actually had any merit, then every american idol contestant could be sued. There is no way you could get in trouble for singing a song acappella.

1macker1
Feb 25, 2004, 10:15 AM
If Apple didnt think they did anything wrong, why did they pull the commercial. This was not a random act, this was Apple putting up a set with actors and apple picking a popular song at the time. I seen the commecial, and I though it was in a round about way saying that EM thought the apple store was a good idea.

3-22
Feb 25, 2004, 10:24 AM
Sorry, if this has been said on the discussion board already but...

The news story I heard said the song was not copyrighted when Apple used the song in the commercial. Only after the commercial did the record company file copyright papers.

If this is true, how dumb is that...

gwangung
Feb 25, 2004, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by mjones4th
QUOTE][i]

Feminem is right in that, if they didn't ask his permission and compensate him, they have broken US copyright law. Whether or not this will equate, in some judge's mind, to false endorsement is something we can discuss.

But the fact (not my opinion) is that US copyright law was broken. A composition is copyrighted the moment is is placed into a tangible form. The fact that Feminem had not yet formally copyrighted the composition by the time the commercial aired is irrelevant as long ashe can prove he wrote it before the commercial aired. Which should be easy, because the song was released before the commercial aired.

Apple will have to pay for copyright infringement, no matter what the decision is about the endorsement thing.

As I understand copyright law, you DON'T need permission to do a cover of a copyrighted song, but you DO need to pay for the rights. That's part and parcel of copyright law, to encourage the use of artist created material. I suspect that the lawyers paid the fee for a cover version and thought that was it.

But the fact that this material was used in the promotion and advertisement of a product muddies the waters a bit. And that's the wiggle room for the lawyers to step in.

BobbyBox
Feb 25, 2004, 11:21 AM
This link points to a presentation given by a chappie called Lawrence Lessing...a bit of a Copyright Tzar in media circles.....He is very pro fair use AND compensating people for their hard work...

Check it out.....

Lawrence Lessig Presentation (http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/free.html)

Check out the bit about What Disney corp did to the Brothers Grimm (Fairytale authors) and how they lobbied congress to prevent anyone doing the same to them....

If you have time it is an interesting potted history....and quite a unique presentation style......(you will need flash....there is a HTML or PPT version too for our open source chums)

BB

crookedcharlie
Feb 25, 2004, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Jovian9
I'm pretty sure that cleverly wording raping/killing your mother or wife to the tune of a most likely pre-programmed drum machine beat does not qualify as gifted. This guy has no talent at all....only hype....hype that is fueled by a society who cannot think for itself....but relies on television and media to tell it what is right and what is wrong.
Comparing Eminem to The Beatles.....come on now.

I don't need to read any more of your post to know that you haven't ever listened to Eminem after you make such a blanketing and ignorant statement. To take the most extreme example of Eminem's lyrics and claim that's all he does is like me complaining that all my new iMac does is crash, because it's crashed once or twice. These, like the Eminem lyrics you cite, are very memorable, these being times for me and my machine, and his lyrics being the most extreme things he has to say, but I don't harp on either, because there is so much more than that to both his music and my computer.

Also, go ahead and reread my post again, because you may notice that I don't actually compare the two. Not that I don't think Eminem's worthy, but I was more comparing the ignorant attitudes of the 1950's and 60's towards rock and roll to the ignorant attitudes in the last two decades about rap music, and of course, you proved my point beautifully by dropping the standard "It's all about raping and killing!!!!" line. Fifty years ago, I'm sure we'd be having a very similar argument, and your thoughts might be summed up with "Those Beatles songs are all about the sex!! The sex!!!"

montex
Feb 25, 2004, 11:31 AM
Does Apple owe Eminem $10 million for an 8 second rendition of "Lose Yourself"? Probably not. But they should buck up and pay it anyway. And the reason is that at this early stage in the birth of online music, Apple has to bend over backwards to please the artists so that they will agree to let their work be sold on ITMS. If Apple "wins" this case they still 'lose themselves' when other artists, who are PARANOID about getting the royalties due them, see Apple as the bad guy.

Regardless of what happens, Eminem and his publisher are GREEDY GREEDY GREEDY. $10 Million to let a little boy sing your song is insane and the respect I had for Eminem's musical talent vanished along with his integrity.

It's a sad situation all around.

junior
Feb 25, 2004, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by marccarter
Michael Jacksons endorsement deal with Pepsi was rumoured to be $15 million, and that was in 1986, so I should think others have come close since then. No idea what other more recent artists command.

But surely by not doing endorsements makes you more expensive and attractive for when you do agree to a deal? Isn't that really what this is about? Eminem may not be worth $10 million, some of you don't think he is worth 50 Cents (little joke, like it?) but the more adverts he appeared on, the less he would be worth. Hardly a big deal if you manage to sign an endorsement deal with someone who is on every other advert and bill board. So by keeping away from endorsements, Eminem is, like it or not, increasing his value.

Marc


I'm not quite sure, but didn't Michael Jackson actually appear in those ads? If so, that explains the huge sum of money. Totally different if it's music only. Also, in this case (Apple), it would usually be roughly half the amount of money usually payed for, because it is only a cover, which means the Record Company that owns the master track gets nil. Only the publisher (that may also be a record company).
I think Led Zeplin was rumored to have cost Toyota $3 million a couple of years ago. It cost that much because they'd always refused up till then.
Massive artists cost hundreds of thoudands of dollars, but there are only a handful of artists that would cost more than $1 million, simply because it would never be worth spending over that amount for an ad music, and record companies aren't stupid, they will never over-price themselves beyond reason. Unless their answer is no from the start.
This $10 million dollar figure really makes me laugh.

BagelTycoon
Feb 25, 2004, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by OSUbuckeyefan
If anything, eminem should be paying Apple for endorsing HIS product...

I think Apple can settle this rather easily: they should just give 1 iPod to each of the guy's multiple personalities:

* An original 5GB iPod to Marshall B. Mathers, III

* A 40GB 3G to Slim Shady, and

* A teenie-weenie pink mini to Eminem


:D

Jovian9
Feb 25, 2004, 12:53 PM
I have listened to plenty of Eminem. A friend of mine loves Eminem and tries to get me to listen all the time. I am not a music elitist.....I give anything a chance before I decide it is worth it or I just do not talk about it at all.
What ignorant attitude about rap music are you suggesting in the last 2 decades? Rap music has only grown and became more popular. Just because Bill O'Reilly might not like rap doesn't mean there is an ignorant attitude. Look at sales and you will see that they have only grown. Maybe you should look back into the 80's (that decade) at early hip hop and who really created contraversy (2 Live Crew, N.W.A.). Then there was an ignorant attitude about hip hop. That was contraversy over free speech rights. All Eminem is doing is grabbing onto a generation that needs MTV to tell it what Hip Hop music really is....but MTV has lost touch with that ever since they ended the show YO MTV Raps.
Don't get me wrong... I have no problems with a white rapper.....but he isn't even in the top 50 MC's of all time.....he's only in the top promotional period of all time....that's it.
McDonalds gets a lot of hype too....but do you really think their burgers are some of the best around?

SiliconAddict
Feb 25, 2004, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by ph8te
Sarcasm, Irony, and a bit of Tounge-In-Cheek are not your strong point I see. I was only trying to make some people laugh. But since you find this a very serious issue, I apologize for my dumbwitted sense of humour.

Small tip. there's a reason there are emoticons on the site. ;)

m4rc
Feb 25, 2004, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by junior
I'm not quite sure, but didn't Michael Jackson actually appear in those ads? If so, that explains the huge sum of money. Totally different if it's music only. Also, in this case (Apple), it would usually be roughly half the amount of money usually payed for, because it is only a cover, which means the Record Company that owns the master track gets nil. Only the publisher (that may also be a record company).
I think Led Zeplin was rumored to have cost Toyota $3 million a couple of years ago. It cost that much because they'd always refused up till then.
Massive artists cost hundreds of thoudands of dollars, but there are only a handful of artists that would cost more than $1 million, simply because it would never be worth spending over that amount for an ad music, and record companies aren't stupid, they will never over-price themselves beyond reason. Unless their answer is no from the start.
This $10 million dollar figure really makes me laugh.

Huh? What I was trying to point out was that artists CAN command $10 million. The point is, that if people think Eminem was endorsing Apple - I know it is obvious he wasn't but that's not my decision - then the POTENTIAL value for a big endorsement falls.

I tried really hard to explain it, but I will try again. I don't know for sure, and have no evidence, but I THINK the point is not that he want's paying for an endorsement, but that his image/identity/whatever could be downvalued if people were to think he had endorsed products already. Think rarity if you like, if there were 10,000 Mona Lisa's, each one would be worth less. As there is just the one, it's worth a few quid. And no, I am not comparing Eminem to an historical painting or a celebrated painter, before you all start.

I am reading this quote;

"Eminem has never nationally endorsed any commercial products and ... even if he were interested in endorsing a product, any endorsement deal would require a significant amount of money, possibly in excess of $10 million," according to the 15-page lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Detroit.

to get this opinion. It dosn't say he considers this a sort of endorsement, or if you would like to mpay a few quid yours could be the first product he Endorses. It also says 'possibly'.

I really think this is not about Apple not paying for something, it is about the publisher thinking that their product has now lost some value.

Of course, I am probably wrong, but we will know more if and when it gets to court.

Marc

SiliconAddict
Feb 25, 2004, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by rt_brained
Finally, someone who knows what they're talking about.

Oh, that reminds me Silicon, I've been meaning to pass on the following:

SPACE GHOST and all related characters and elements are trademarks of Hanna-Barbera. All material including images and illustrations is protected by copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property rights which are owned and controlled by The Cartoon Network (TCN) or by other parties that have licensed their material to TCN. Such material may not be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, including by e-mail or other electronic means. Without the prior written consent of the owner, use of the materials on any other web site or networked computer environment is a violation of the copyrights, trademarks, and other proprietary rights, and is prohibited.


Cute and I WILL, once again, stress the difference. Personal use vs. business use to sell a product. Apple is using Eninem's music to stress that we have the tunes and try and entice more users to buy iPods and use iTunes Music store. Doesn't matter if some kid is sing the freaking song because he likes it. What am I doing? Oh I'm sorry. I like Adult Swim on the cartoon network. :rolleyes: Its called common sense. Try it sometime. You might learn to like it.

SiliconAddict
Feb 25, 2004, 01:39 PM
Oh and one final note. Anyone care to hazard a guess how fast Apple would sue someone if they used a PowerBook in a major motion picture and didn't bother to ask Apple. It works both ways guys.

BagelTycoon
Feb 25, 2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by johnnyjibbs
Isn't Eminem always trying to sue his mum? Hmmm.

Here's the lawsuit (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/copyright/mmapple22004cmp.pdf):

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/copyright/mmapple22004cmp.pdf


Check out the e-mail

benpatient
Feb 25, 2004, 02:08 PM
if you were to READ the lawsuit, it alleges (in points 16-30) that Eminem WAS contacted about using his song(s) and REFUSED to give apple permission to use them, and only recently discovered that at least one of the ads featuring his song was run ANYWAY.

in other words, if MTV ran the ad, then all three parties being sued used copyrighted material not only without permission or compensation, but AGAINST the demands of the copyright holder.

"Don't use my songs in your ads."

"OK"

*sends ad with song to MTV*

*LAWSUIT*

If any part of that lawsuit is correct, then all the involved parties are going to be paying up...

Apple blew it, kiddos...

Rower_CPU
Feb 25, 2004, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by 1macker1
If Apple didnt think they did anything wrong, why did they pull the commercial. This was not a random act, this was Apple putting up a set with actors and apple picking a popular song at the time. I seen the commecial, and I though it was in a round about way saying that EM thought the apple store was a good idea.

*sigh*

You really don't get it do you?

ALL of those iPod/iTMS commercials ran around the same time last year and haven't been aired in quite some time. Apple didn't pull it because of any legal pressure.

Do you think these people (http://www.apple.com/music/ads/) singing those songs are "round about ways" of the original artists endorsing Apple? Please. :rolleyes:

sjk
Feb 25, 2004, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by jocknerd
A sad day was a few years ago when the Girl Scouts of America was sued by ASCAP because they were singing campfire songs without permission from ASCAP.Wow! Just imagining someone conceiving such a lawsuit is about as pitifully, unbelievably low as it gets.

You'd think people and organizations with more money than many of us will ever see could find more compassionate ways of using their time.

Is there a dis-ease here somewhere or what?

rspress
Feb 25, 2004, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by jholzner
Umm...I can't believe Apple didn't get permission. They are a HUGE corporation...don't they know these things? I dunno...


Since chiat/day did the commercial they were the ones that had to get permission.

Maybe eminem will put the money to good use. Like getting music lessons, vocal training, talent or to track down and burn all copies of his movie. Might even take Elton to dinner.

JediL
Feb 25, 2004, 03:22 PM
From reading the lawsuit, if it's true then Apple and Chiat/Day are guilty of copyright enfringement.

However, I think the $10 million part because it portrayed Eminem as endorsing the iTMS is just gouging for money.

Unless Apple lawyers have a good explanation or found some legal precedent for this, I forsee this being settled quietly out of court.

The Dreaming
Feb 25, 2004, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by crookedcharlie
I'm betting ours in the last generation that's going to hold on to the vaguely racist notion that rap is somehow not "music."

It happened with the blues for a half-century, then white people "invented" rock and roll by ripping off blues musicians no one had ever heard of.

Eminem is one of the most gifted lyricists alive today. To me, this is not up for discussion. You all can hold on to your notions that he's somehow not talented, but you must know that you're in the same camp who called The Beatles "unfocused noise" back in the day...

Please musically back up your argument that rap is indeed music.

According to this logic, if Hickery Dickery Dock were set to music, this would make for a compelling statement? Please musically back up your opinion that "Eminem is one of the most gifted lyricists alive today". Bob Dylan is still alive, is he not? -And this is just one example. I understand this is built on the foundation of perspective, but please site examples and enlighten the rest of us. You cannot however argue that he is a gifted musician. So musically speaking, his vocal ability is laughable, his plastic-beats are sophomoric, his approach consists of talking/yelling atop prerecorded music, and his songs go absolutely nowhere.

Also, you stated that rock n' roll was a rip off of the blues... what do you think hip-hop is a rip off of??? Any clue? I'll give you a hint, old soul music and disco. It will do you well to listen to some old albums. BTW: You made a comparison to the Beatles. Do you honestly think Eminem will be relevant forty years from now? -For sanity's sake, I hope not.

sjk
Feb 25, 2004, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
So, why is the suit happening now and not last summer when the ads were actually run? Wild guess, but maybe because lawyers needed this much time to construct a case they thought they'd win/settle?

sjk
Feb 25, 2004, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by mjones4th
Bottom line, Apple was wrong on this one, it is copyright infringement.So, when was the publisher's claim actually proven? Are you're implying we've all missed something you seem to know with certainty? :rolleyes:

macphoria
Feb 25, 2004, 05:25 PM
Suing because someone else sang his song on a commercial? That is total BS. I'm sure the rules governing music are more complicated, but this sounds like another frivolous lawsuite to me. Someone trying to make a quick buck. It might be technically justifiable lawsuit, but unnecessary one in terms of common sense. I hope Triumph the Insult Comic Dog makes fun of him on Conan O'Brien show.

crookedcharlie
Feb 25, 2004, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by The Dreaming
Please musically back up your argument that rap is indeed music.


Do you really want me to cite the definition of music and then explain why rap fits it? Really? Even though you've probably looked it up yourself in order to "disprove" that it's music, found that it does fit, and discovered you have no real argument? I'm not going to. It's music. I'm sorry you disagree with the rest of the world, but I'm not interesting in proving that gravity works either. It's music because it's music. An art form of sounds, an expression of a person or group of persons through sound is music. Whether you like it or not, it's music. I may not like a painting that's nothing but a single shade of orange on a canvas, but I'm not enough of an elitst snob to claim it's not a painting...

According to this logic, if Hickery Dickery Dock were set to music, this would make for a compelling statement? Please musically back up your opinion that "Eminem is one of the most gifted lyricists alive today". Bob Dylan is still alive, is he not? -And this is just one example. I understand this is built on the foundation of perspective, but please site examples and enlighten the rest of us. You cannot however argue that he is a gifted musician. So musically speaking, his vocal ability is laughable, his plastic-beats are sophomoric, his approach consists of talking/yelling atop prerecorded music, and his songs go absolutely nowhere.

ONE OF THE. Bob Dylan's talent doesn't diminish Eminem's any. You realize that, right? You realize that there can be different types of talent, and that because someone is talented doesn't make someone else less talented, right?

I'm not going to print out Eminem lyrics on a message board and explain why I think they're well written. I don't see a reason to. You're simply going to disagree, and I frankly don't value your opinion that much after reading what you've written here. I will say this: Art is about evoking emotion. Whether it be love, hate, regret, or longing, art is meant to bring it out of us. To deny that Eminem is good at evoking emotion is ridiculous.

Also, are lead singers not musicians, since they only "yell over pre-recorded tracks?" What's the minimum an artist has to do in order to reach your approval? The world is waiting for your standards!!

Producing a rap song isn't simply singing over a pre-recorded song, and you know that. There's mixing of beats, laying in different instruments, breaks, and plenty else, and at the same time trying to make the beat work with the meter of your rhymes. Eminem's songs go plenty of places for a lot of people (incluind Grammy voters, BTW). A lesser man would cite example of A Beatles song that literally goes nowhere (She loves You, Ya, Ya, Ya, repeat 13X), but I don't feel like it.

Also, you stated that rock n' roll was a rip off of the blues... what do you think hip-hop is a rip off of??? Any clue? I'll give you a hint, old soul music and disco. It will do you well to listen to some old albums. BTW: You made a comparison to the Beatles. Do you honestly think Eminem will be relevant forty years from now? -For sanity's sake, I hope not.

It came from the clubs of the 1970's, and DJ's keeping "breaks" in songs alive so the people could dance longer. Soon, MC's began rapping over them, and the rest is a multi-billion dollar industry. I've listened to plenty of old albums, thanks, but I appreciate the offer. I'm not sure I'd call it a rip-off, more like an outgrowth, but we'll disagree there, too.

Do I think Eminem will be relevant 40 years from now? I have no idea. I'd imagine he will, simply because he's produced a well-received body of work, and has plenty left to put out. I could be wrong, I'll have to wait and see.

I, however, must repeat that I never compared the two, only compared rock and roll and rap...

gwangung
Feb 25, 2004, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by macphoria
Suing because someone else sang his song on a commercial? That is total BS.

After they asked and were turned down? I don't think so.

Using a song after their request was turned down was stupid.

Rower_CPU
Feb 25, 2004, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by sjk
Wild guess, but maybe because lawyers needed this much time to construct a case they thought they'd win/settle?

Possibly. But cease and desist notices would have made more sense when the commercials were actually running than a lawsuit 8 months later. Seems they're more after a settlement than preventing any actual inappropriate use of the material.

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 25, 2004, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Possibly. But cease and desist notices would have made more sense when the commercials were actually running than a lawsuit 8 months later. Seems they're more after a settlement than preventing any actual inappropriate use of the material.

THANK YOU! (Sorry for shouting, but this crap gets my goat).

I fin it hard that his people did not find out about what Apple had done till now. Also his PR machine has not mentioned that they sought relief outside of the courts before the suit.

We need tort reform now....

rspress
Feb 25, 2004, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by JediL
From reading the lawsuit, if it's true then Apple and Chiat/Day are guilty of copyright enfringement.

However, I think the $10 million part because it portrayed Eminem as endorsing the iTMS is just gouging for money.

Unless Apple lawyers have a good explanation or found some legal precedent for this, I forsee this being settled quietly out of court.

I doubt he will see 10 million. It will be settled out of court and Eminem will get lots of publicity that he does not have to buy. Hell, we are talking about him in a Mac group.

Again, Chiat/Day was the party that had the responsibility to clear the material with the publisher and I doubt CD has as deep pockets as Apple does.

Who knows, Apple could offer him and exclusive at the iTMS. Of course if he does sue and wins and he ever makes the mistake of not clearing the music, the infringed artist stands to make some big bucks from someone who "knows the law" but chose to ignore it.

Unfortunately the true winners in either case will be the lawyers. Shakespeare may have had the right idea!

macboygrey
Feb 25, 2004, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by crookedcharlie
Do you really want me to cite the definition of music and then explain why rap fits it? Really? Even though you've probably looked it up yourself in order to "disprove" that it's music, found that it does fit, and discovered you have no real argument? I'm not going to. It's music. I'm sorry you disagree with the rest of the world, but I'm not interesting in proving that gravity works either. It's music because it's music. An art form of sounds, an expression of a person or group of persons through sound is music. Whether you like it or not, it's music. I may not like a painting that's nothing but a single shade of orange on a canvas, but I'm not enough of an elitst snob to claim it's not a painting...

[b]

ONE OF THE. Bob Dylan's talent doesn't diminish Eminem's any. You realize that, right? You realize that there can be different types of talent, and that because someone is talented doesn't make someone else less talented, right?

I'm not going to print out Eminem lyrics on a message board and explain why I think they're well written. I don't see a reason to. You're simply going to disagree, and I frankly don't value your opinion that much after reading what you've written here. I will say this: Art is about evoking emotion. Whether it be love, hate, regret, or longing, art is meant to bring it out of us. To deny that Eminem is good at evoking emotion is ridiculous.

Also, are lead singers not musicians, since they only "yell over pre-recorded tracks?" What's the minimum an artist has to do in order to reach your approval? The world is waiting for your standards!!

Producing a rap song isn't simply singing over a pre-recorded song, and you know that. There's mixing of beats, laying in different instruments, breaks, and plenty else, and at the same time trying to make the beat work with the meter of your rhymes. Eminem's songs go plenty of places for a lot of people (incluind Grammy voters, BTW). A lesser man would cite example of A Beatles song that literally goes nowhere (She loves You, Ya, Ya, Ya, repeat 13X), but I don't feel like it.



It came from the clubs of the 1970's, and DJ's keeping "breaks" in songs alive so the people could dance longer. Soon, MC's began rapping over them, and the rest is a multi-billion dollar industry. I've listened to plenty of old albums, thanks, but I appreciate the offer. I'm not sure I'd call it a rip-off, more like an outgrowth, but we'll disagree there, too.

Do I think Eminem will be relevant 40 years from now? I have no idea. I'd imagine he will, simply because he's produced a well-received body of work, and has plenty left to put out. I could be wrong, I'll have to wait and see.

I, however, must repeat that I never compared the two, only compared rock and roll and rap...

Just a thought, but aren't we getting a SLIGHT bit violent in our defense? *runs and hides*

*plays with fire* Maybe it's because you listen to songs about killing mothers/girlfriends.