“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,” The Associated Press reports.
“At issue is an ad for Apple’s iTunes pay-per-download music software, in which a 10-year-old sings Eminem’s ‘Lose Yourself.’ The suit claims the commercial aired on MTV beginning in July 2003 and ran numerous times for at least three months. It also appeared on Apple’s Web site. ‘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,” AP reports.
“The suit claims that Apple Computer CEO Steve Jobs personally called Joel Martin, manager of Eight Mile Style, and asked Martin and Eminem to ‘rethink their position’ about using the Grammy-winning song. Eminem responded by ending discussions with Apple,” AP reports.
Full article here.
ouch…. i always assumed apple asked permission to use those songs… eminem has a point
would Apple not know better? There must be more too it.
Apple should just dump M&M’s music anyway….Good riddance, I say.
Eminem has a good point. If Apple can swing its legal bat, so can Eminem!
Oh Great,
Good idea…eminem only sells more music than all the other artists put together. Apple should drop him?
I wonder if Shady / Aftermath Records (the label Eminem owns) asked Apple for permission to show an iPod in 50 Cent’s “P.I.M.P.” music video. If not, that’s plenty of ground for a counter-suit, no?
Anyone remember the commercial? I surely don’t and I am a hip-hop fan. But nonetheless, if Apple did not get permission they should have to pay royalties. Plain and simple. Isn’t this one of the pillars of iTunes’ success, being legal?
Just give Eminem a G5 with Garageband on it, he’ll be happy.
now i really feel like purchasing an Eminem cd…NOT. Like Eminem needs another $10 million … pfft! i say.
Wow. All this indignation against Apple. How many of you people were/are involved in illegal downloading of songs? Just asking ;’-[
Ohh, that poor little boy. Did someone step on his toes now. I really thought he was tougher than that. But I guess attitude isn’t everything.
Legally though, Apple should have had their act together.
That’s my 2 bits worth.
gzero, no Apple has not right to counter sue Shady / Aftermath as long as there is no logo display and Shady / Aftermath entered into no legal obligation with Apple.
JadisOne, the commercial they are referring to aired months ago where a young ~9 year old is listening to his iPod while singing the current playing song accapella, “I’m slim shady, yes I’m the real shady…with the real slim shady please stand up, please stand up.” He is backed by a simple white background.
“I wonder if Shady / Aftermath Records (the label Eminem owns) asked Apple for permission to show an iPod in 50 Cent’s “P.I.M.P.” music video. If not, that’s plenty of ground for a counter-suit, no?”
No. It’s not. In many cases people ask manufacturers for money to feature their products. But manufacturers don’t have the same rights as artists when it comes to displaying a product vs. using someone’s intellectual property commercially.
My guess is that, at worst, it’s probably a contract dispute rather than Apple just acting unilaterally. Apple is probably going to claim that their use of the song is allowed because it’s promoting the catalog it’s contained in. There’s probably some standard clause about promotional use in the contract that allows Apple to sell his music that emmie didn’t properly consider when the deal was worked out.
$10 Million to say “Yeah, go ahead, use my song”. That’s ridiculous. Eminem obviously has a right to be compensated but that is just absurd.
rockjohnson:
Apple’s patent on the iPod design is just as valid as Eminem’s copyright of “Lose Yourself” (which is the song in the commercial) AFAIK, so I would assume that there would be ground if there was no agreement.
Whatever the case, it just seems a little petty to me, from Eminem’s side.
If I remeber the commercial, the boy used his own voice to Rap the song. There was no background music or anything. Just the kid rapping.
Maybe that was how Apple got around that.
anybody that uses eiminem to sell their product should be sued. he raps like a white guy… ahahhahahahhahahah
Does it make a difference that the song was not played at all. It was the lyrics, no the music. In those ads, other people were the ones singing. It is not like the sampled the music for the ad, and I don’t think that ad was even aired on TV, just the web. Humm. Whatever. I am sure it will not be a huge deal when it is all said and done. Wonder what took them so long to sue?
Matthew
now Eminem is a looser .. if he is suing for such a bullshit .. lamer … he is a rapper .. he shouldn;t care about no shit .. i would give him the suit if he would give all that money to support homeless people in detroit or something! … ever been in Detroit anyone ? …
I can’t believe some of the comments here defending Apple. This kind of blind loyalty is just insane. If Apple screwed up here, they screwed up. It doesn’t matter how much money is involved or how much money Eminem has, there’s a legal principle.
To mention the iPod in the Fiddy-cent video as an equivalent is insane.
“I can’t believe some of the comments here defending Apple. This kind of blind loyalty is just insane. If Apple screwed up here, they screwed up. It doesn’t matter how much money is involved or how much money Eminem has, there’s a legal principle.
To mention the iPod in the Fiddy-cent video as an equivalent is insane”
It’s not about defending Apple. Personally, if Apple is wrong, then they deserve to be punished. In any event, I find it hard to believe that Apple & Chiat/Day would make such an error unless the were getting bad legal advice that they acted upon. The courts will decide.
As for product endorsements within a video/commercial/movie/etc…, I’m sure manufacturers don’t have the same rights, but, I’m sure manufuactures to have right to protect that product from being associated with negative behavior or influence. If they didn’t give permission, do you think they would like the iPod to be associated with PIMP Juice? …after all, they do have to protect the iPods image. Someone here is doing a land grab on a power trip. Apple’s use, while possibly wrong, was intended with no malice towards M&M (sp intended). It seems M&M’s intent is to make a quick buck. Proof of that is in the fact he wasn’t willing to discuss it. But that’s just my fify-cents.
Isn’t it up to the ad agency to aquire all the legal rights when they put the thing together? Whether I like the artist or not a copyright is a copyright just not sure if the responsibility is Apple’s or not. The comments here are a good indication of many of today’s social ills. Everyone is commenting on legal rights this and suing that. The sad thing is that no one has commented on the fact that a 9 or 10 year old shouldn’t be listening to his music in the first place!
“Whatever the case, it just seems a little petty to me, from Eminem’s side.”
Actually it’s not. As Hywel correctly states, there’s a legal principle at stake here. If Apple did in fact use copyrighted material without permission, then they’re in deep legal ka-ka. The fact that copyright issues are such a hot-button topic at the moment should have compelled Apple Legal to dot their t’s and cross their i’s. Asking $10 million in damages is simply a legal strategy on the part of Eminem’s representatives to make the point that they’re serious about protecting their intellectual property. The fact that they went after Apple is a no-brainer as well, for the simple reason that Apple is a stationary target, while the millions of P2P downloaders are nearly as elusive as the truth in Congress. The worst part about this is the colossal public relations disaster that Apple faces. By touting itself as the company that made legal downloads popular and feasible, it smacks of hypocrisy on their part that they should be accused of something like this, especially as Apple has been so incredibly adamant about defending their own work, eg., the massive multi-year lawsuit against Microsoft over Windows. Blindly defending them by insulting Eminem is childish.
There probably is a promotional clause and with that in mind, why is the allegedly talented m and m suing
Is Apple right or wrong. I don’t know but I will give them the benefit of the doubt. Is m and m right. Emotionally I feel he is wrong but who knows.
If I was in a decision making position with Apple, I would remove any m and m tunes from iTunes. I mean come on, if m and m is more interested in his “music” than in promoting his and Apples common interest.. then so be it. Let him protect his music.
yada yada is right…first and foremost this is Chiat/Day’s responsibility. regardless of Apple’s involvement in the advertising, the agency is ultimately responsible for copyright issues. shame on Apple for not making sure all the “t”s were crossed, and I pitty the fool at Chiat/Day who was supposed to get the approval for all the music used in the commercials.
However, one thing no one has touched on is the use of the song. There may be some legal issues with the fact that they didn’t play the Eminem song, rather it was only being mouthed (not even really sung) by a kid.
I guess all of us arm-chair quarterbacks just to wait and see how it plays out in court, to see if Apple indeed did mess up. If so, they deserve to get smacked.
Hywel:
I wasn’t defending Apple; I just posed a (IMO valid) question. Eminem’s publisher stated that Eminem has never publicly endorsed a commercial product. By allowing 50 Cent to hold an iPod in his “P.I.M.P.” video, Eminem (or, at least his company) is endorsing a commercial product, logo or no logo.
Also, it just seems a little odd to me that Eminem’s publishers would allow his music to be put on the iTMS, yet would sue Apple when a track that’s available on the iTMS is used for promo purposes. Meaning, it would be a different story if Apple used the actual “Lose Yourself” song in the commercial, instead of a 10 year old kid singing it acapella. The former is a clear(er) copyright violation, as I understand copyright law.
Don’t get upset. It’s all good.
This is a bogus lawsuit. M will get little or nothing from this lawsuit. A child singing a small segment of the song promoting the artist. I hope the judge has enough sense to throw this case out of the court.
“The sad thing is that no one has commented on the fact that a 9 or 10 year old shouldn’t be listening to his music in the first place!”
Excellent point, with a few caveats. Whether you like his music or not, Eminem is talented, with creative wordplay, raw street angst and catchy rhythms, but his message is definitely adults-only, and often of dubious value. I’m a jazz lover first, but I also listen to a lot of rap, rock, reggae, classical, country etc. Like Leonard Bernstein memorably said, there are only two kinds of music, good and bad, and I think it’s ridiculous to label an entire genre as “bad”. I blame parents, not for allowing their kids to listen to it (if you think you can prevent them, you’re either delusional or don’t have kids, or both), but for neglecting to counter much of the frankly hateful crap many of these “artists” spew for shock value by demonstrating by example what you stand for. I realize the futility of trying to shield my own kids from much of what I consider ugly and frightening, but I am also fully cognizant of the fact that there’s a lot of stuff in the world that is ugly and frightening, and that I’d be doing them a grave disservice by trying to insulate them from that knowledge. Censorship can be of value, but only up to a point. Obviously, exposure of a young child to porn can be developmentally damaging, as they could form the wrong ideas about sexuality and relationships, but insulating them from the idea that sex exists is simply wrongheaded and potentially even more damaging. Kids look first to their parents for advice and instruction, and we have an obligation to them to not shy away from questions we consider embarrassing.
1) “Rap” is something, but it is not music.
2) Eminem is just the latest incarnation of “Vanilla Ice” and is destined for the same ultimate fate: “Whatever happened to?”
3) One of the same bunch that defends “sampling” (read stealing) is trying to sue based on copyright law? Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha…
4) I guess he’s burned through all of his money from the movie and needs more for his paid entourage of hangers on, uh I mean his people.
5) You can take the boy out of the Trailer Park, but you can’t take the Trailer Park out of the boy.
Go back to your single-wide white boy.
America and greedy lawyers = Best entertainment. Sit back and enjoy
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
“This is a bogus lawsuit. M will get little or nothing from this lawsuit.”
Thank you Perry Mason. The case hasn’t been heard but you know all the facts. I might be mistaken, but isn’t it usually up to the judge to decide the merits of a lawsuit, not a bunch of armchair litigators? If Apple is in the wrong, they do deserve to be punished.
“America and greedy lawyers = Best entertainment. Sit back and enjoy
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />”
And who says Finns have no sense of humor? Brilliant! Suomi rocks! Hahahah!
Viridian, if you want to help your kids, throw out your TV (cable), and organize things for the family to do together. There is little value in commercial television these days. Try it, you’ll like it!
I’m not surprised Apple used another person’s product without credit or permission and there are lots of shareware creators out there who would probably agree.
I don’t think you can stop objects being used and associated with things you don’t like. So 50 cent can use the iPod in his video if he likes, just like he can show a Bentley or Nike or Burberry or Cristal champagne. Once these things are sold, the manufacturers have no control over how they are used. If they want to put a big logo on and then don’t like how it’s used, then I think that’s probably tough shit.
If Apple don’t like their TiBook appearing in Six Feet Under or the upside-down logon on Carrie Bradshaw’s laptop in Sex and the City, there’s simply nothing they can do about it.
Healthy Values,
No argument there. Television is responsible for more brain-wastage than mad cow disease. My kids are only allowed TV time on weekends, and we do a lot of family things. My larger point is that parents should be more involved in the lives of their children, and should encourage them to ask, and be prepared to answer, frank questions about life, the universe and everything. Life in a bubble can be a dangerous thing for them.
Wow…10 million minimum for an endorsement? Just goes to show that sometimes what people make do not equal thier contribution to society. Rapping about taking drugs and raping lesbians? Now that’s something that makes life better for everyone…oh, wait…it’s not.
And just because he has a valid ‘legal’ arguement doesn’t mean it’s right. The majority of copyright law has become superflous and I really don’t see how most of the laws ‘promote art or science’
The fact that M is trying to get $10M for a short clip of a child promoting M’s music is what makes this bogus in my opinion. Are you assuming I don’t know all the facts? Hmm
Obviously there may be more to it, like if Eminem’s management signed something they shouldn’t have, then that’s tough on them, but taking this as it is reported, if Apple used Eminem’s song without his permission, they did a bad thing.
Advertisers often create new recording of songs in order to reduce the amount of royalties payable. They have to pay the songwriter, but not for the recording. That’s probably the situation here. But they’d still need permission first.
I’ll ask my commuting buddy next time I see her. She teaches copyright law.
If I remember correctly from my Business of Music classes, anyone can record a cover of a song if they pay the original artist, through ASCAP or BMI, 5 1/4 cents per song per album sold. A kid singing the lyrics is equivalent to a cover. If it was recorded and sold on ITMS, Apple would have to pay Eminem 5 1/4 cents per song sold as a royalty.
Mechanicals, or reproduction on Radio or Television, is slightly different but would seldom exceed $100,000. If the original song was used without permission I think Eminem would have a legitimate gripe, but because it is a ‘cover’, I think he is going to come up short.
About the kids argument. there is nothing in that song that is detrimental to a child. Eminem has songs that are worse, be glad those were not being sung. As for the lawsuit, Apple had regular people sing their favorite tunes in order to SELL THOSE SONGS. Eminems was not damaged and lost no profits in any way from these ads, if anything he gained, which makes this a frivolous lawsuit. Its like Apple Music sueing Apple Computer for putting speaker on a computer. Apple music has nothing to do with technology in any way, what rights do they have for digital music technolgy. Stupid. There are many stupid lawsuits and it has nothing to do with being a Mac Fan. The whole OS X and G3 suit I agree with as well. The lawyers for Eminem, Apple, and the RIAA are making craploads of money off of this. I bet one of Eminems lawyers wanted a bonus so they looked hard for someone to sue, and Apple landed in the crosshairs.
Also, although NoPCZone above sounds like an idiot with his first 2 points, I agree with the second 2
“3) One of the same bunch that defends “sampling”…is trying to sue based on copyright law? Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha…
4) I guess he’s burned through all of his money from the movie and needs more for his paid entourage…”
What they’re saying with the $10m is that they don’t do endorsements. It’s such a ludicrous price, that the ad agency should just say “fine” and walk away. They’ve pitched it that high to discourage people even asking them.
It’s not so much that they want $10m for this one, but that if nobody was ever willing to pay the money, it no problem to them. And even if somebody did want to pay the money, they could still just say no.
They haven’t said, “We dmeand $10m compensation”, they’ve said, “any endorsement deal would require a significant amount of money, possibly in excess of $10 million”. Different things.
Buffy – if it’s right that anyone can make and sell a cover version without the artist’s permission, but that they have to pay the songwriters royalties, then it’s Apple 1, Eminem 0.
Viridian (and Healthy Values), I agree with your points and having an 11 year old believe that censorship is not a parent’s right but their responsibility. That being said we don’t wield it like a broadsword. My son knows he is being censored and will sometimes even ask if a song or movie is OK for him to watch/listen to. We don’t hide the fact that some things exist, we explain to him that they are not appropriate for his age and he accepts that (at least for now, I realize that will change). We as parents even have the audacity to limit his video game/TV time and take into account the rating systems when making our decisions. But then again it seems we are in the minority in the fact that we feel that a person is accountable for their choices/actions and not that it’s (insert big corporation, ideology, or society here) fault.
That was kenekeu, not buffy. Oops!
Yada yada. Jeeze, what kind af a freak are you ? Normal healthy responsible parenting indeed. How lame is that ?
From Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
Music Mu”sic, n. [F. musique, fr. L. musica, Gr. ? (sc. ?),
any art over which the Muses presided, especially music,
lyric poetry set and sung to music, fr. ? belonging to Muses
or fine arts, fr. ? Muse.]
1. The science and the art of tones, or musical sounds, i.
e., sounds of higher or lower pitch, begotten of uniform
and synchronous vibrations, as of a string at various
degrees of tension; the science of harmonical tones which
treats of the principles of harmony, or the properties,
dependences, and relations of tones to each other; the art
of combining tones in a manner to please the ear.
Note: Not all sounds are tones. Sounds may be unmusical and
yet please the ear. Music deals with tones, and with NO
OTHER sounds. See Tone.
I stand by my statement: RAP IS NOT MUSIC, it fails the test. It is something, it’s just not music. Eminem is a white boy wannabe.
Buffy, I wasn’t commenting on that particular song but the fact that the majority of his songs (from my understanding, I haven’t nor have any inclination to listen to his whole library), and for that matter rap in general ( I know there’s Christian rap etc.),are not appropriate for children.
It Gets Even Better Department:
The copyright for lose yourself is dated after the commercial had been made and screened. Sorry Marshall, that Stretch Escalade is just going to have to wait until your next album.
The bitch stole my career… take all his crap off the itms. It’s a music store not an fing rhymning rap crap site.
Hywel … I apologize for my inappropriate actions and shall now turn over my child’s future to the programming moguls of American Marketing ; ).
Hywel:
“I don’t think you can stop objects being used and associated with things you don’t like. So 50 cent can use the iPod in his video if he likes, just like he can show a Bentley or Nike or Burberry or Cristal champagne. Once these things are sold, the manufacturers have no control over how they are used. If they want to put a big logo on and then don’t like how it’s used, then I think that’s probably tough shit.”
First, if you believe that 50 Cent actually owned all of the cars in any of his videos, you’re wrong. That’s not how the business works. The prop master of the videos probably rented the cars for the shoot. To use your own car in such an endeavor is a big insurance risk.
“If Apple don’t like their TiBook appearing in Six Feet Under or the upside-down logon on Carrie Bradshaw’s laptop in Sex and the City, there’s simply nothing they can do about it.”
Yes they can, and probably have; that’s what product placement in movies and TV is all about. HBO most likely has an endorsement deal with Apple, as do many film studios in Hollywood, which is why you see Apple products in so many movies and TV shows over the past 15 years or so.
Case in point, since you brought it up: Did you see the episode of “Sex and the City” where Carrie erased all of her data on her PB? That episode was basically one big Apple ad! If Apple wouldn’t have given permission (or paid HBO a fee), you wouldn’t have seen all of those Apple products, and exactly that is the question I posed regarding 50 Cent and the iPod. I’m assuming that Apple and Shady/Aftermath had such an agreement, else you wouldn’t have seen the iPod in the video.
Since no one here knows the details of the Eminem lawsuit, we just have to wait and see how this all unfolds.
NoPCZone. Rap refers to the vocal, and as such it isn’t singing, but the tracks behind it are most definitely music. So technicall Rap is not music,, but rap music, which is the combination of the rap and the music, most definitely is.
In general I don’t like rap music. That’s just my taste. As it becomes more failiar, I’m more tolerant of it. What I really hate is people saying Rap is Crap, because that just emphasises their ignorance and intolerance. I thing you’re quite close to saying ‘rap is crap’ by your pedantic insistance on denigrating its musical integrity.
yada yada – 😀
gzero – the difference is that while Apple can pay for product placement, which may be what happened in SATC, they can’t do anything to prevent their product being featured in a programme they don’t like, just as they couldn’t refuse to sell a product to someone they didn’t like.
That the products in the videos are hired is irrelevant. They’re still owned by someone. You can hire my iPod if you like, to use in a music video and Apple can’t stop it. What they might be able to do it get me ass sued if I supplied it full of music you had no rights to.
“Apple’s patent on the iPod design is just as valid as Eminem’s copyright of “Lose Yourself” (which is the song in the commercial) AFAIK, so I would assume that there would be ground if there was no agreement.”
Note that Eminem hadn’t bothered to copyright the song when the commercial was airing. He didn’t file for the copyright until October 2003.
I didn’t say it was crap, I said it is not music. It obviously takes some kind of talent to create, but it’s popularity is more a product of having been force-fed to an entire generation by the media machine (commercials/videos/movies/tv/etc) than any groundswell of demand.
How some white suburban kid in Florida can relate to some line of BS by some black inner-city kid on the mean streets is beyond me. Much of it glorifies violence, demeans women and a “lifestyle” that will lead to an early grave. Listen if you like, but it’s STILL not music.
“Much of it glorifies violence, demeans women and a “lifestyle” that will lead to an early grave”
Sounds like rock’n’roll to me.
It IS music, it’s just not music that you personally can find anything musical in, so you’re trying to dismiss it with pedantic lexical proof. Not ALL of it has the negatives you describe either. Guru’s Jazzmatazz, for example.
eminem, I hope you lose, yourself!
The song is copyrighted. Whoever performs or records it must pay useage fees. For tv ads those fees are very large. This isn’t the first time Apple (Steve Jobs) has gone this route. I really can’t believe the ad agency which is responsible for producing the ads and obtaining rights ran with the commercial without making a deal for the song. If not, heads should roll. (Although SJ does approve everything). Of course, we haven’t heard Apple’s side at the moment. To be continued.
Apple would not have gone forward without a contract. Eminem is pulling some sleazball stunt that fits his jerk-off persona. Hopefully he’ll choke on it.
yep – You just can’t state this as a fact. We just don’t know yet. Something got screwed up somewhere, but it could well be Apple. It can’t NOT be Apple just because they’re Apple.
A “Rap” done properly is music. It has rhythm and melody and even tonal ranges. Rap is not just random sounds you can dismiss as you pointed out “1. The science and the art of tones, or musical sounds” Its a musical sound, therefore it is music. And actually Eminem is rather talented (and Im not a fan by any means), even the Rap community likes him and his stuff, whereas Vanilla Ice on the other hand…Sh!t, I just realized Im defending Rap, oh well.
Anyway, the song was not copyrighted till after the commercials aired, what effect doe that have on this case?
And 1 more thing, great job Yada Yada
There is a limitation on using other’s songs for your own purposes, like 15 seconds or so. That is how Rush Limbaugh can use the Pretenders song Back to Ohio as a lead in to his show, despite Chrissie Hynde hating his guts. This might be the grey area, otherwise it sounds like someone at apple screwed up, and should be looking for a job.
Man this thread got a lot of posts!
“If they didn’t give permission, do you think they would like the iPod to be associated with PIMP Juice? …after all, they do have to protect the iPods image.”
Not true. If they wanted to protect the iPods image they would license it, not sell it. They would also have to evaluate applications to own one based on what people might or might not do with them, when and where they might use them, how they propse to maintain control of the iPod at all times and in all circumstances, etc. Because Apple does none of this, the only responsibility that advertisers or producers have is to hide the logo and take other reasonable steps to insure that its appearance is not mistaken as an Apple endorsement for the show, for the point of view, opinion, individual, or whatever. The two situations are completely unrelated.
“The fact that M is trying to get $10M for a short clip of a child promoting M’s music is what makes this bogus in my opinion. Are you assuming I don’t know all the facts?”
Actually, I’m assuming that you don’t know any of the facts, about this case, copyright law nor the expensive posturing noises that lawyers make at the onset of litigation. Nowhere does it say that they’re actually asking for $10 million. The mouthpiece only said that an endorsement deal in his view is valued that much. Even if they demanded that Steve Jobs wear a Bozo costume and deliver the planet Neptune in a picnic basket, it’s still up to the judge to determine the merits of the case, and for a jury (if a jury trial is required and they have the authority) to set the damages if the plaintiff prevails.
“Yada yada. Jeeze, what kind af a freak are you ? Normal healthy responsible parenting indeed. How lame is that ?”
Hywel,
My sarcasm-o-meter is slightly on the fritz right now, but I can only assume that you were joking, because judging from your posts you seem to be an otherwise intelligent, reasonable (and often humorous) person. Parenting is a responsibility I take very seriously, and if I’m being too literal-minded at the moment, what can I say? Except sue me, lawyers are plentiful.
“It IS music, it’s just not music that you personally can find anything musical in, so you’re trying to dismiss it with pedantic lexical proof. Not ALL of it has the negatives you describe either. Guru’s Jazzmatazz, for example.”
Very, very well said, Hywel. When Bizet’s “Carmen” debuted, disagreements between fans and detractors outside the opera actually degenerated into violent riots, with those on one side extolling it as a work of sublime genius, and their opponents loudly lamenting the death of music. NoPCZone is guilty of stereotyping, namely that rap somehow “belongs” to inner city blacks, and that a white kid has a lot of nerve for daring to perform it. By the same token (no pun intended) it can be argued that white people have a lot of nerve for daring to play jazz, or that Charley Pride didn’t know his place when he started performing country music. Obviously NoPCZone doesn’t know that there are many, many more white than black rap fans, or that enjoyment of music is a universal constant, regardless of ethnic or cultural differences.
Actually Martha Stewart wrote this song. Eminem plagiarized Martha! Steve was hiding under the couch and heard them humming it….
Apple probably has a fax from someone at the music publishing house with a dollar amount to use the song and wrote the check… me thinks mathew is going to “lose himself”
Yada yada,
Excellent post on parental responsibility and censorship. Thank you. And for the record everyone, the song in the commercial is not “Lose Yourself”, as reported by AP. It’s “The Real Slim Shady”. How do I know? My daughter told me. Furthermore, while I do like rap and acknowledge Eminem’s talent, I’m certainly no fan of his, nor of gangsta rap, nor of any music or artistic expression that promotes violence or hate. I’d better stop before I trip over my soapbox. I keep forgetting that this isn’t Slashdot.
The world will be suing Apple soon…
I wonder if he uses an iPod himself?
The song in the commercial is 100% “Lose Yourself”. Looks like Viridian needs a new source for the FACTS.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” /> “… the moment, you own it, you betta never let… “
I think Mars Candybars Incorporated shoud sue him for draging their name in the mud. (or did they already to that?)
M’s Mother,
Get over yourself. Where exactly in “Lose Yourself” do the lyrics, “I’m the real Slim Shady, will you please stand up” appear? Because that’s what the kid was singing. Your musical talents are as sharply honed as your legal skills, because boy, do the two songs sound identical! Or do you get your “facts” from the former Iraqi Minister of Information?
M’s Mother,
Get over yourself. Where exactly in “Lose Yourself” do the lyrics, “I’m the real Slim Shady, will you please stand up” appear? Because that’s what the kid was singing. Your musical talents are as sharply honed as your legal skills, because boy, do the two songs sound identical! Or do you get your “facts” from the former Iraqi Minister of Information?
My sarcasm-o-meter is slightly on the fritz right now
It’s OK. I was being sarcastic. I’d like to be a responsible parent myself someday. If I could stop doing the ‘pull-my-finger’ gags with my six year oldI might even make it
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Almost all contracts with ad agency puts the “legal” responsibility of obtaining rights on the agency, NOT the company. And I’m sure a company the size of Apple made sure of that in their contracts. This is standard practice. Apple’s getting sued, as well as MTV, along with Chiat/Day because this is common place these days. Someone wants to make money, so are you going to just sue Chiat/Day? No, drag some of their prominent clients in the mix and hopefully you can settle before you go to court.
Eminem probably has nothing to do with this. Someone in his camp is trying to get a little extra. If Eminem is a smart business man he’ll drop this stupid lawsuit and use Apple to promote his music in the iTunes Music Store more prominantly. He may hate Steve Jobs, but iTunes is number 1 in online sales and that’s just smart business. I sincerely doubt Apple and its horde of lawyers left anything to chance.
Actually I think this will end up under covered broadcast rights (BMI or ASCAP). That is how Rush can use “Ohio” and not have to pay the Pretenders directly. Since the iTunes/iPod ad in question is, in fact a broadcast ad, I think the ad agency will be ok with nothing more than payment of a BMI or ASCAP fee.
These can be purchased as a blanket license or a per-use license. I would imagine Chiat/Day has an applicable license. Vanilla Ice, I mean Eminem, will have to wait a while for that $10 million. Maybe he can borrow it from Michael Jackson.
I don’t suppose anyone has a link to this commercial? Thanks
Eminem’s stuff is/was being promoted in iTunes. I think there was even an exclusive track at one point. This commercial was essentially free advertising promoting his music (in addition to iTunes, as well). What artist wouldn’t love to get free positive advertisement? He’s looking more like a fool now.
Regarding the “right” to use Apple hardware on screen:
“HBO most likely has an endorsement deal with Apple, as do many film studios in Hollywood, which is why you see Apple products in so many movies and TV shows over the past 15 years or so.”
Well, sometimes it works that way, and sometimes it doesn’t. If I’m producing a television show, I can use Macs or not use Macs and Apple doesn’t have a say one way or the other.
Case in point: “Moonlighting” featured Macs. The reason they chose Macs? Because Macs are expensive and they wanted to show David’s penchant for wasting money on expensive toys. They didn’t receive any money or equipment from Apple–they leased the machines on the show.
At one point, after the show was a hit, they talked to Apple about getting some equipment and Apple sent them (at least the shell of) a Macintosh II and a Macintosh SE to put on the sets (in David and Maddie’s offices, respectively) before the products were released to the public. Which is part of the reason there was a “Mac the Knife” mug in with all the coffee cups on the set.
So, why wouldn’t I want to feature Macs prominently? Because it might offend advertisers if the show is syndicated. Dell/Compaq/Gateway/Joe’s Computer Store might be less than pleased to advertise on a show that shows Macs saving the day. This is why, in some shows, you see the Apple logos covered. This is also why production companies will ask for money to have the logos uncovered–in case they lose money in syndication.
So, no, I don’t have to get Apple’s permission to show their products on television. However, if I can get Apple to pay me to do it, or at least donate the equipment so I don’t have to spend my own money for it, great!
posted May 19, 2003 10:24 � �
pbrice68:
The song is “Lose Yourself” from the ‘8 Mile’ soundtrack.
apparently there are two commercials. one with “the real slim shady” and one with “lose yourself”.
I couldn’t bear to read all these posts, but I do wonder if someone hasn’t pointed out the obvious.
THOSE ADS ARE FOR THE ITUNES STORE! WHICH IN TURN SELLS MUSIC, MUSIC LIKE EMINEMS MUSIC!
whew.. I just had to say it. I think Apple will be in the clear. From what I know, you can use music to promote music. Ads for actual music stores play music samples all the time. Not only that, but they will put pictures of the album in ads. Or will there now be law suits against for unlawful use of imagery.
I haven’t seen the commercials–I haven’t seen the lawsuit, so all of this means nothing, but…
There are separate copyrights for recordings and for the published music. Of you want to have your own singer sing a song you only need to pay for use of the written music. On the other hand, if you want to use a specific recording you need to pay for that specific recording, in addition to paying the publisher of the music.
Generally, it much harder and more expensive to use a particular recording.
Take for example the PBS TV movie Lathe of Heaven. In it, the director used the Beatles recording of “With a Little Help from My Friends.” As a result of using that recording the movie ended up being locked up for twenty years and the only way to see it was to buy a VHS bootleg on ebay that went back generations to someone who originally taped the show off the air. The movie was re-released a year ago, and the key to getting it re-released was using a different, non-Beatles recording of the song.
The first person/company to publish a recording of composition needs to obtain a mechanical license. The owner of the composition can charge whatever they want for the license, or not license it all and keep the composition in a desk drawer. However, after the first recording is released everyone after that pays a compulsory licence fee, at a statuory rate.
I’m just pulling this out of my ass, but the fact that the article talks about Eminem claiming an “endorsement” of the product suggests that Apple wanted to use him, couldn’t afford him, and then made their own recording, planing to pay the compulsory license. Eminem is now suing them as though they used his recording, rather than the kid, using the “endorsement” as a dodge for the fact that Apple didn’t need to obtain a mechanical license.
The only info on the story is the same AP story, sometimes with a rearranged lead paragraph. The big question will be whether Apple (or more likely their ad agency) made arrangements for the compulsory license and now Em is trying to bang them for millions above that.
I never realized there were so many copyright, patent and trademark attorneys who visit this site. If someone wanted to contact all of you at your respective law firms, how would one go about doing so?
Odd as it may seem, having an opinion on this matter so soon after the initial announcement does not necessarily mean much. Better to let this story mature a little before choosing sides. My gut reaction says this is a publicity stunt… after all, those commercials were released nearly a year ago. However, I’m going to reserve judgement until I learn more about the case.
Who is this Eminem guy anyway? Never heard of him.
emnimen sucks