[Swordmaker]

Her firm has defended the 1984 franchise at least twice before. After Apple aired its Mac introductory ad during Super Bowl XVII, Rosenblum sent a "cease and desist" letter to the computer maker, she said in Tuesday's statement. "When the Apple 'Big Brother' television commercial was aired during the 1984 Super Bowl telecast, we immediately objected to this unauthorized commercial use of the novel, and sent a 'cease-and-desist' letter both to Apple and to its ad agency," Rosenblum said. "The commercial never aired on television again."

Apple never intended for it to be played more than the once (plus a single late night showing on a single TV station to qualify if for an award in December before the Superbowl) As for it being a use of the "novel" it isn't. It may have been evocative of the novel, but it certainly did not repeat the story in any detail.

As a matter of fact, Apple reworked the ad about a year ago and released it with the addition of a digital iPod on the runner... Shows that they are certainly not in fear of a civil copyright infringement lawsuit from this pipsqueak law firm.

[Swordmaker]

1984 copyright owner rattling lawsuit saber over anti-Hillary Clinton spoof of Apple's 1984 Superbowl ad... PING!

If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.

[Doohickey]

Hey I know you're very passionate about certain technology companies, but this story really isn't about Apple. :)

[Rodney King]

So any work that hints at oppressive government is a copyright infringementt on 1984? Wha a load of crap. The overuse of copyright restrictions is a great drain on our economy.

[weegee]

"The novel remains in copyright until at least 2044."

Our revised copyright extensions (which the author of this article sees as having a potential to change yet again) fly in the face of our Constitutional fair use provisions (all works were to eventually lapse into the public domain).

And while this book may be of British origin, Europe didn't extend the copyrights on American music the last time around. They consider Elvis, Sinatra, and other recordings from 50 years ago public domain.

All of that postdates Orwell's work.

[Natty Bumppo@frontier.net]

She must be taking some industrial strength recreational pharmaceuticals. I wonder what color the sky is on her planet?

[Tarpon]

I wonder how much Mrs Bill Clinton paid for this "mulling"?

[MindBender26]

Entirely defensible as political satire.

[Richard Kimball]

This is just some bozo that got copyrights, and goes around threatening legal action hoping to get a few peanuts from people with deep pockets so they can avoid seeing their name and "lawsuit" in the same article.

[tubebender]

Does this litigant also sue mom and pop stores over some obscure ADA rule...

[Tribune7]

Rosenblum acquired the copyright to 1984 from the Orwell estate and Sonia Orwell, the widow of George Orwell, in 1981. The novel remains in copyright until at least 2044.

Lucky for Orwell we have such wise copyright laws. I hate to think the artist would be cheated of the fruits of his labor!!!!!

[Tribune7]

The copyright holder of George Orwell's classic novel 1984

Oh yeah, I almost forget book's thrilling climax where the blonde in shorts throws a hammer through the super-huge television screen.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Ok...now I'm confused. The recent anti-Obama ad has NOTHING whatsover to do with the Orwell novel 1984. No refence to the numerals 1984 nor to Big Brother.

In fact, it makes no sense at all unless you've seen the original Apple 1984 ad.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Sorry. Make that anti-Hillary ad.

[Silly]

The original Apple ad and the new Hillary ad are absolutely brilliant.

And no amount of kvetching by some attorney is ever going to change that.

Hurray for great advertising. More production value per second than any other medium.

[SunkenCiv]

I'm afraid I have some devastating news for the copyright owner...

http://sami.is.free.fr/Oeuvres/orwell_1984_1.html

[steve-b]

Given that the ad uses, at most, a tiny snippet evocative of 1984, that evocative snippet is an element that is rather similar to the look and feel of earlier works (e.g. Fritz Lang's Metropolis), and that the anti-Hillary version is clearly a parodic use, the only rational judicial response is something along the lines of, "Baliff, whack his pee-pee."

[MrsEmmaPeel]

Copyright of the visual arts does not apply to the literary arts and vice versa. A visual work entitled "1984" is in itself a copyright work. If it incorporated text from the "1984" novel into the visual work, there would be grounds for copyright infringement, but as that didn't happen, their "cease and desist" letter is nothing more than idle smoke.

Additionally, copyright is for the life of the author PLUS 70 years. George Orwell died in 1950. 1950 + 70 = 2020. 1984 will become public domain in 2020 and there ain't nothing they can do about it.