Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Eninem's Publisher Sues Apple

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.
 
So, Apple's got to pay for all the iTunes Previews, too?

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>
 
Re: So, Apple's got to pay for all the iTunes Previews, too?

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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

arn
 
Re: Re: You're confused

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.
Click to expand...

What? You wait? 🙂
 
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
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...

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)... 😀
 
Re: Re: Re: His timing is bad.

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Commercial ad != reality

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Originally posted by simX
oooOOOooo the guy can rhyme! That's... *SO* impressive!
Click to expand...
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...
Click to expand...
Precisely... grow up.
 
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
 
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.
 
They had to have paid for "24"

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 ...
Click to expand...

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

FREAKY! 😱
Click to expand...


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.
 
Re: They had to have paid for "24"

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.
Click to expand...

You get sick of too many Macs? tsk tsk!😀
 
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.
Click to expand...

exceeeeeept it doesn't sound from the suit that copyright is the reason for the case.
 
Originally posted by MrJamie
exceeeeeept it doesn't sound from the suit that copyright is the reason for the case.
Click to expand...

Really? 😱

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....😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back