Not to start a flame war with rabid Apple fans, but I'm wondering what the opinion of the collective mind is regarding this article posted on Engadget about close similarities between various Apple advertising campaigns and works from uncredited artists. Examples cited included Louis Psihoyos' video installation wall (bottom photo, vs. the Apple ad above) and a shot-for-shot recreation of a music video from indie band Death Cab for Cutie.
I don't think anyone can justly accuse engadget of being anti-Apple, with the way they gush over any Apple release. I believe it is an honest gut-check on their part to publish the article, and put a spot light on Apple's "borrowing" of creative inspiration.
It raises a few questions, doesn't it? Is it an honest attempt to humanize the digital medium, bringing creativity to the environment? Or is it disregard for the artists themselves?
Personally, in the case of using artists work without actual sign-off from the artist, I wonder if Apple is a victim of their own success. As companies grow and expand (rapidly!) there tends to be a wider and wider gap between the hand doing the negotiating and the hand creating the campaign. With launch dates and deadline looming, is it possible the creative and marketing teams at Apple simply could not afford to wait on the negotiation with the artist to be finalized – to the point that when negotiations faltered the cost already incurred far outweighed the implications of reworking the campaign from scratch? At that point, of course, the decision no longer lies with the creative or marketing teams – can they really be held accountable?
What do you think?
Tim Willison
Comments
Connections
I think this brings up an interesting topic… how does one draw the line in the “borrowing” of creative ideas and how can an artist possibly protect themselves? I look to Sprint and their recent launch of sprintsweets.com, sadly a poor rip-off of recent RISD grad Levi Hammett. Compare:
sprintsweets.com
http://exactlocation.org/dairy/index.html
I understand that this happens, but it nonetheless burns me up knowing as Levi is paying tens of thousands in student loans Sprint simultaneously capitalizes off his idea and design. As designers we all borrow ideas and influences, it is impossible not too… no idea is entirely new. But when the end products are nearly identical I can’t help but say it’s unethical, especially when it’s greedy corporations who simply don’t want to pay the artists.
The creatives responsible for these “corporate” campaigns need to be ethical in where they get their images and ideas. There is a fine line but with both Apple and Sprint that line was ignored.
If you rip it and you know you are ripping it, you suck. Period.
There were people in the creative chains of all of these ads that knew where the idea was coming from, whether or not it was their doing. I see it as an even lower form of ripoff than borrowing in the context of fine art, as your audience might even be less likely to notice, and your cash-in is so much quicker.
Apple is just a company, like any other. They aren’t any more moral than most companies you’ll find.
If someone stands in awe of a sensational, emotional understanding evoked by an artwork, it is appreciation. That art work belongs to someone, though emotions we all can have. Thinking, “Wow, that was incredible. I want to create something just as strong,” is being inspired by another’s success. Emotions are quite different from patented and copyrighted material, or intellectual property. When asking the question “how” in design, the answer had better not be a remake of what you just saw.
Granted, having your artwork recognized by the world is wonderful, though Apple should be paying these artists rightfully and going through the proper legal protocols before production. There may be an artist who does not want to be attached to Apple for views they have against Apple, or maybe not wanting to be connected to a commercial venture because its against the artist’s principals or character and this must be respected. Permission is what it takes.
It’s obvious that Apple is disregarding ethics. I’m not a fan of the lawsuit method, though I wonder what will happen before Apple removes its ear buds and behaves responsibly. I think someone needs to crack down on Apple’s team before its stringed offenses spill into its mainstream reputation, whether it be handled internally or by someone they have ripped off.
Useful site. Thanks.
Useful site. Thanks.
etfkhba vpteroud ldpb mxthgbzln psawcjhx isyrxnq ehmkf