#142216 - 02/24/0403:56 AMRe: Apple sued by Eminem over iTunes ad song<br>
I read the wire story, and they're suing over the little kid that was singing with the head phones on....I am astonished that the agency or Apple or somebody didn't get clearance...<br><br>Eminem's Publisher Sues Apple Over Song<br>2/24/2004 5:06:00 AM<br><br>DETROIT, Feb 24, 2004 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- 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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>"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.<br><br>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.<br><br>Eminem responded by ending discussions with Apple, according to the suit.<br><br>Eminem, 31, whose legal name is Marshall Bruce Mathers III, grew up in Detroit and several of its blue-collar suburbs. He has sold more than 33 million records, according to industry estimates.<br><br>Copyright 2004 Associated Press, All rights reserved<br><br><br><br>[color:blue]Enjoy every sandwich</font color=blue>
"in excess of 10 million" - that tells you about his integrity right there. For him, it's all about the money. You would think that someone with his background would have a different perspective.<br><br>I never had any respect for Eminem.<br><br>Regardless, I'm not sure if he can win this case. Aren't record stores allowed to advertise and play clips of the music they sell? They didn't even play a clip - it was a cover.<br><br>
#142218 - 02/24/0409:52 AMRe: Apple sued by Eminem over iTunes ad song<br>
It's the publishing....<br><br>It would be the same if they got a cover band to sing 'Lose Yourself' in a Gillette razor commercial. <br><br>They just should have gotten clearance...everything is cleared these days...samples, songs used in commercials...all that stuff. My guess is the ad agency screwed the pooch here....not sure where the $10 million figure comes from, looks like a judge will have to decide.<br><br>Oddly enough, they probably would have gotten away with it if they had shown a picture of the album cover and said 'Eminem, Lose Yourself,' now for sale on the iTunes music store." Recorded works can be used in commercials to promote the sale of the recorded work. In this case, the iPod was the item being advertised. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]Enjoy every sandwich</font color=blue>
#142221 - 02/24/0411:23 AMRe: Apple sued by Eminem over iTunes ad song<br>
Oh wow...didn't know that. I thought it was strictly an iPod ad. <br><br>In that case, if they were pushing his music on the iTunes store, then this really looks frivolous, especially considering Eminem makes money from Apple. <br><br><br><br>[color:blue]Enjoy every sandwich</font color=blue>
Loc: Pacific NW, USA
Macworld Daily News<br>Tuesday - February 24, 2004<br><br>Eminem sues Apple<br><br>By Macworld staff<br>Eminem is cleanin' out his closet, filing suit against Apple Computer and MTV over alleged misuse of one of his songs in an ad for the iTunes Music Store.<br><br>Eminem – real name Marshall Mathers and known too by the name Slim Shady – and representatives from the star's publishing company are suing Apple over the use of his "Lose Yourself" track. The ad featuring the track starred a ten-year old singing the song, and ran on MTV for three months beginning July 2003. The ad was also available on Apple's Web site.<br><br>The Detroit News states the lawsuit, filed in US District Court in Detroit claims: "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".<br><br>The report reveals that Apple CEO Steve Jobs personally contacted Joel Martin, manager of Eight Mile Style Music (publisher of Eminem's songs) to ask the company to "rethink" it's position regarding use of the track. Responding, Eminem told Apple to 'Lose Yourself', ending negotiations.<br><br>[color:red]Apple may face some mitigation in the courts, as it appears the track wasn't copyrighted until October 27, 2003, while the suit alleges the ad was screened earlier in the year.</font color=red><br>http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/top_news_item.cfm?NewsID=7994<br><br><br>'nother link<br>http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,13558,00.html<br>Eminem is the target of his own copyright claim after a California woman sued the rapper last fall alleging that he illegally sampled a section of music from her late husband's film score for his 1999 debut The Slim Shady LP.<br><br>Harlene Stein accused Marshall Mathers and his mentor Dr. Dre of swiping a 24-second instrumental cue, titled "Pigs Go Home," from her hubby Ronald Stein's composition for 1970's Getting Straight for Em's tune "Guilty Conscience" without paying her a dime.<br><br>And it's not the first time Em has been accused of losing himself in other people's music.<br><br>In April of 2002, French jazz artist Jacques Loussier filed a $10 million copyright-infringement suit against Eminem, claiming he stole parts of his tune, "Pulsion," for his violent tirade on the track "Kill You," off 2000's Grammy-winning album The Marshall Mathers LP.<br><br><br>hmmm...<br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Actually, MacZ, the ad was to sell the song.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Actually, the song was used to promote the iTunes music service and the iPod, not the song. MZ was correct. On the other hand, you are not.<br><br>Do you need a link?<br><br>Moo?
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>it appears the track wasn't copyrighted until October 27, 2003<p><hr></blockquote><p>The song was copyrighted on it's completion. That it wasn't registered as copyright until 27 Oct has no bearing on the copyright holder's prior claim. It does have an effect on the nature of the damages that may be claimed in litigation though. I would speculate that it's the reason the suit hasn't surfaced until now.<br><br>Just a musing here folks...<br>Is it OK for Apple to flout the copyright conventions simply because it's Apple we're talking about?<br><br>If not, what excuses their conduct?<br><br>As always...<br><br>Moo?
Yes, I would like a link.<br><br>I watched the other commercials (the Eminem one wasn't available). If I remember correctly, the ad copy went something like "Everyone has a favourite song" ... "Download yours for 99 cents". While the person in the ad is holding an iPod, it isn't featured or even mentioned. Not only that, the URL listed is www.applemusic.com - when you go there, you don't get an iPod page, you get an ad for the iTMS. It sure seems like an ad to buy music, with the Eminem song being featured by the actor.<br><br>Here are the other ads for you to look at:<br>http://www.apple.com/music/ads/<br><br>Unless the Eminem ad in question wasn't like those, I believe I am correct.<br><br>
Thank you for proving my point. The MM story says this:<br><br>"As reported yesterday, Eight Mile Style, Eminem's music publisher, is suing Apple claiming that the company used one of the rapper's songs—"Lose Yourself" from the 2002 film "8 Mile"—in an iTunes television commercial without permission. "<br><br>An iTunes commercial. Not an iPod commercial. iTunes is a music store that sells Eminem's songs. Watch the commercials - they are for the iTunes Music store. They are not for the iPod.<br><br><br>
Here is what you wrote.<br><br>"Actually, MacZ, the ad was to sell the song. The ad was about favourite songs and said that you could "download yours for just 99 cents" ".<br><br>You quote the article thus:-<br>"the company used one of the rapper's songs—"Lose Yourself" from the 2002 film "8 Mile"—in an iTunes television commercial"<br><br>Note that it does not claim that it's a commercial for the song "Lose Yourself", but a commercial for the iTunes Music Service, and by featuring the performer using an iPod, demonstrates the link between ITMS and the iPod.<br><br>So you claim that the article proves your point, yet the piece you quote quite clearly proves you were mistaken and that MZ was correct.<br><br>And in case you missed it, here it is again...<br><br>You said:<br>Actually, MacZ, the ad was to sell the song.<br>It clearly was not to sell the song. As you so gleefully point out, it was to sell the ITMS. If you can show how that is the same as an ad for Eminem's "Lose Yourself", then you are indeed a gifted soul. <br><br>Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes here but you seem to be denying the obvious - Apple were not advertising Eminem's music. They were using Eminem's music to sell Apple.<br><br>An entirely different thing.<br><br>Moo?
Loc: The Wizard's Balcony
From the OED:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>semasiology<br><br>That branch of philology which deals with the meanings of words, sense-development, and the like. <br> <br> [a1829 C. K. REISIG Vorlesungen über Lateinische Sprachwissenschaft (1839) II. 286 (heading) Semasiologie oder Bedeutungslehre.] 1847 J. W. GIBBS Philol. Studies (1857) 18 The development of intellectual and moral ideas from physical, constitutes an important part of semasiology, or that branch of grammar which treats of the development of the meanings of words. 1877 R. MARTINEAU tr. Goldziher's Mythol. Hebrews iii. 43 Some phenomena in the semasiology of Arabic words. 1884 Athenæum 27 Sept. 395/1 Philology is now advancing towards a new branch having intimate relations with psychology, the so-called semasiology of Abel and others.<br><p><hr></blockquote><p>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>It clearly was not to sell the song. As you so gleefully point out, it was to sell the ITMS. <p><hr></blockquote><p>I see your point.... but if you think that a kid rapping an eminem song on television doesn't help to sell his song then you're kidding yourself.<br><br>In the end it looks like eminem will get advertisement for the song on television (for free), publicity for his copyright lawsuit garbage AND he'll get paid! What a guy, I think I'll go out buy one of his delightful albums right now. <br><br>
THat's an obsolete term more or less. The current jargon is semiology and/or semiotics and/or semianalysis, dpeending on whether you're a linguist, an anthropologist, or a cultural studies type.<br><br>
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
I claimed Apple was using it to sell music - including Eminem's song. I'm not claiming Apple gets no benefit out of it. But you don't actually think they would use that they would use that song to sell Nana Mouskouri albums, do you?<br><br>You claimed they were using it to sell iPods - that is where I disagree.<br><br><br>
The post I took issue with was your response to MacZilla where you wrote (and this a copy and paste from your post)...<br><br>" Actually, MacZ, the ad was to sell the song."<br><br>If you meant "Apple was using it to sell music - including Eminem's song", it would still have been incorrect. In the ad in question, there is no mention of any of the following:<br>The artist's name<br>The title of the song<br>The album from which the song was taken<br>The media on which the song might be purchased<br>The label on which the artist records<br>Any visual reference to the artist or album<br><br>Which would make it pretty darn difficult to justify as an attempt to "sell [the] music".<br><br>In fact the only branding in the ad is for Apple. Unless you suffer from myopia, it's glaringly apparent this and the other ads in the series are promoting the ITMS.<br><br>No, Eminem's music is highly unlikely to sell a Nana Mouskouri album, nor a Gregorian chant compilation But it is likely to catch the attention of people interested in the genre that Eminem's music resides within. But you already knew that, so I can only conclude that you were being facetious in the absence of any real point.<br><br>You may well disagree that the ad was also intended to sell iPods, but I would point out that Apple itself is on record as saying that it makes no money on ITMS and that the service is primarily a vehicle to drive the iPod's sales.<br><br>If you disagree with Apple on this, you might wish to take that up with them directly. I'm happy to take their word for it. <br><br>Since I originally replied in defence of MacZilla's position and since he has shown no interest in countering you position himself, I see no further need to debate this.<br><br>Thanks for the discourse hayesk, and have a good day.<br><br>Moo?
Given what you said, how can anyone claim it was to sell iPods? There was also no mention of iPods. There was however, the URL for www.applemusic.com which points to the iTMS. There is an audible reference to Eminem's song (the kid singing it), and the tagline to download a favourite song.<br><br>I still maintain the ad was for iTMS including Eminem's music - as opposed to iPods. If you can't see that based on the evidence I presented, then there's no point in continuing this discussion.<br><br>
copyright laws are pretty confusing and i think both sides could make a worthwhile case depending on the case law they use.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>A television film crew, covering an Italian festival in Manhattan, recorded a band playing a portion of a copyrighted song "Dove sta Zaza." The music was replayed during a news broadcast. Important factors: Only a portion of the song was used, it was incidental to the news event and did not result in any actual damage to the composer or to the market for the work. ( Italian Book Corp, v. American Broadcasting Co., 458 F. Supp. 65 (S.D. N.Y. 1978).)<p><hr></blockquote><p>certainly, the song used by apple was not "incidental" to the commercial...it was the essence of the commercial. i think it would be hard for eminem to argue that he lost any sales because of the commercial, but he probably has a case when he says that he lost endorsement money. of course, his potential earnings are much less when he is not the artist and is merely the author of the words ($10 million seems outrageous, fwiw). i wonder if apple could argue that their use was educational in nature (educating about the iTMS -- not a chance in hell)...they'd win using that fair use policy easily. <br><br>--------------<br>"Question with boldness even the existence of a god."<br> A letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787 by Thomas Jefferson
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.