Well, now that everyone has made his or her point, let's all just forget about it and close this thread....
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Eninem's Publisher Sues Apple
- Thread starter ~Shard~
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
SiliconAddict
macrumors 603
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 didnt do the paperwork or make the phone call to Eninems reps. Im 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.
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.
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
macrumors G3
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
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.
MillieWales
macrumors 6502
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
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
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
macrumors 6502
This is funny
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.
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.
C'MON PEOPLE!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
it's about the money....duh
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.
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.
Re: This is funny
Its the same here in the US except you have to get the copyright holder's (publisher's )permission first.
Its the same here in the US except you have to get the copyright holder's (publisher's )permission first.
Jovian9
macrumors 68000
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.
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
macrumors regular
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.
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.
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
macrumors 6502a
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!
MillieWales
macrumors 6502
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
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
A big joke
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.
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
macrumors 65816
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.
Copyright...
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...
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...
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.
A quick Copyright History
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
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
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
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