Eminem Sues Apple

[Kent Pribbernow]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5214985.html?tag=cd.top' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5214985.html?tag=cd.top</a><br /><br /></div>And no, this is not a joke. :lol: <br /><br />"A federal judge in Detroit ruled Monday that rap star Eminem's copyright lawsuit against Apple Computer could proceed. The case focuses on a 2003 Apple advertisement for its iPod music player, which depicted a young boy wearing the iPod's trademark white headphones and singing Eminem's "Lose Yourself" aloud. The rapper's music publisher, Eight Mile Style, contends that Apple did not have permission to use the song."<br /><br />Can you say <b>money grab</b>? What a joke! I serously doubt Eight Mile Style lost revenues from this commercial. And it's not like Eminem's image was tarnished by the ad, as if anything could soil his image more than it aleady is. I think he's just jealous that the iPod is more popular than he is! :roll: <br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/eminem.gif" />

[Felix Torres]

Uh, actually, the case is a slam dunk for the shady one...

He wrote the song; he owns it...
It can't be used to make a derivative work (a commercial) without his permission. Period.

The song (music or lyrics) is not in the public domain.
Its not just the performance that is copyrighted, you know.
So it doesn't matter who was singing; it is his song and it was meant to remind viewers of him, hence it was exploiting his celebrity.
So it doesn't matter if he lost sales or not; that's a red herring.

This is actually similar to the SCO/Linux fracas in that it revolves around the principle of derivative works.
In this case, a commercial is legally considered a work of IP and since this one incorporates Eminem's song, it is a derivative work of that song.
But he didn't authorize that.

Shady and creepy he may be but Eminem is entitled by law to control who makes money off his creations.

What's funny is that Apple is always ranting about how others copy their designs (hence are derivative of them) but they themselves have no qualms riding on other people's efforts.
Case in point, the Beatles lawsuit over contract violation.

Its not about money; its (ridiculously enough considering who is suing) about artistic control.
Eminem is going to win this one.
There's a long body of case law here and similar cases have *all* gone for the plaintiff.

[Mojo Jojo]

While I don't like it, I think Felix is right.

I am curious however if Apple can hold its advertisment firm (TBWA/Chiat/Day) responsible for getting all the sign off and requirements and what sort of communications there was between them and Apple.

[Jason Dunn]

I dislike lawsuits in general, but I'd have to side with Mathers on this one. Apple should have known that they can't use someone else's song, especially a current mega-platinum artist, in a commercial that promotes a commercial product. Their ad agency should be lynched for not securing the rights to use the song.

[Mr. MacinTiger]

Shady is a classless, crude, low-life but I think he has a case here :(

Incidentally, did anyone think it was in poor taste to have a small child rapping Shady's song? All of the guy's alubms have Parental Advisory stickers on them and "Lose Yourself" has a few four-letter words in it from what a can remember...I'm no prude, but I think glorifying kids who are shouting out adult lyrics is a little much. No wonder so many kids have such crappy attitudes nowadays! 8O

[Kent Pribbernow]

Well if this dork has a case, so do the other artists who were portrayed in these ads. This could be the beginning of a long line of court battles for Apple.

By the way, am I the only who thought this was a stupid ad campaign? Almost as bad as the "Switchers".

[Mojo Jojo]

To be honest I haven't been that thrilled with any of the Apple ads. Not even the running one with the big brother motif that has won awards.

I think it is because I compare Apple ads to other companies ads and they seem to be on different levels. Perhaps less 'main stream' if you will but not in a good way. Like they are trying too hard, or that their message isn't connected to the product very well.

I sort of compare them to the new medicine ads where they never tell you what the medicine is for, just some happy person going about a cheerful day and at the end it says 'Contact your doctor to see if 'x' is right for you.'

[Felix Torres]

Well if this dork has a case, so do the other artists who were portrayed in these ads. This could be the beginning of a long line of court battles for Apple.

By the way, am I the only who thought this was a stupid ad campaign? Almost as bad as the "Switchers".

I'm not sure, but I *vaguely* remember that the others signed off.
Eminem pointedly said no and the Apple guys kept coming back and he kept sending them back and then the ad came out and he sued...
(Apparently it never occurred to them that Eminen wouldn't *want* to be associated with Apple; everybody in Hollywood sure loves it; and they had already filmed it...)

As for stupid, its no worse and no better than any other Apple ads.

The whole idea behind all Apple ads is image, not substance or truth.
So it doesn't have to make sense, as long as it makes the point that Apple stuff is cool.

Hey, there are folks that respond to that!

Just like there's folks that respond to the COORS "I have..." commercials.
&lt;shrug>

Like Ian fleming said: "live and let die..."

[Kent Pribbernow]

I'm not sure, but I *vaguely* remember that the others signed off. Eminem pointedly said no and the Apple guys kept coming back and he kept sending them back and then the ad came out and he sued...

In that case Apple deserves what it gets. They had the foresight to secure rights from other artists, and yet bypassed Eminem. Did Apple think he would simply cave in? :?

[Felix Torres]

In that case Apple deserves what it gets. They had the foresight to secure rights from other artists, and yet bypassed Eminem. Did Apple think he would simply cave in? :?

Ran a search to verify what I remembered.
Try this:
http://www.macminute.com/2004/02/25/eminem

Coming from a Pod-person site I don't think the Macpeople can complain about that one... :-)

[Jason Dunn]

Did Apple think he would simply cave in? :?

Given the hubris of Jobs and company, yes, I think they did. "Everyone loves us, right? RIGHT?" :roll:

Or there might be something here we don't know about - these things are usually more nuanced that we think.

[Mojo Jojo]

Jobs certainly does have a reputation. :)

I think we shall be seeing this appear on television and such as the trial date gets closer. I am sure some of the 'entertainment news' shows like Xtra and E! will pick it up.

That being said, I am curious about the phrase 'Even bad press can make for good mindshare.' and if in the end the buzz generated by this will do more for getting the iTunes music store into the public collective then the original commercial ever did.

[Felix Torres]

That being said, I am curious about the phrase 'Even bad press can make for good mindshare.' and if in the end the buzz generated by this will do more for getting the iTunes music store into the public collective then the original commercial ever did.

That might be what Jobs has in mind but he'd better be careful; this is *NOT* the time to be developing a reputation for disrespecting IP, not with the start of the Patent Wars upon us. He's one of the guys whose outfit *needs* IP to survive in the decade to come...

Getting sued (properly) by Eminem and the Beatles is not the kind of resume to build when you're more likely to be a plaintif than a defendant in the trials to come...

[Mr. MacinTiger]

I love Steve Jobs and his creative vision...I really think he is the closest thing to Walt Disney we have today.....That said though, I agree with the above comments about his hubris. It has been his undoing before and I hope that he had learned from it and how to keep it in check.

[Felix Torres]

I love Steve Jobs and his creative vision...I really think he is the closest thing to Walt Disney we have today.....

Not sure how you meant that but the comparison may be more appropriate than you realize since in the animation industry a great many people think of Disney as more of a self-promoting huckster who made his name on the backs of his employees, creativity than as an actual creative talent; more businessman than artist; more facade than reality...

So yeah, Jobs is about as close as we get to a Disney today. :twisted:

[Mojo Jojo]

Getting sued (properly) by Eminem and the Beatles is not the kind of resume to build when you're more likely to be a plaintif than a defendant in the trials to come...

The Beatles I can agree with, their image is very pure and good guy, so pulling one over them(and estates) appears bad. But for Eminem? Screwing him over might actually make some people rejoice. :D

My stance is it is wrong no matter who the artist is.

[Phoenix]

http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/eminem.gif
Say Whuh? Doohooooood...
I'm like, so wasted.

[Felix Torres]

My stance is it is wrong no matter who the artist is.

That's what the law says.
And, despite what some would like, the law covers everybody more or less equally. ;-)

[Gary Sheynkman]

Felix is right...although i am not a big fan of rap in general.....that is worse than using kazaa!!