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

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.
Click to expand...

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. 🙂
 
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*
Click to expand...

It is possible that the entire reasoning behind the suit is for free publicity whilst M&M is between major releases.
 
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.
 
Re: Eminem's Lost Himself

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

I'm hurt by such an "insult". 🙄
 
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, the part about his endorsement comes directly from the suit, acording to the link provided by macrumors.
 
Re: Re: Re: Wow I used to think blind Apple loyalty was exaggerated...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
 
Originally posted by MrJamie
Actually, the part about his endorsement comes directly from the suit, acording to the link provided by macrumors.
Click to expand...

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."
Click to expand...

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

😱
 
Publicity stunt.

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?
 
one other thing...

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!
 
Originally posted by Spizzo
Who's generation? I dont think everyone in the forum/post is in the same generation.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

Gotcha.
 
Eminem lawsuit will go nowhere

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...
 
ASCAP, etc.

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.
Click to expand...
 
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
 
I'm not a lawyer, but....

...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
Click to expand...
 
Rap = music ?

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...
Click to expand...
 
does anybody have

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
 
Re: I'm not a lawyer, but....

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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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