If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 03/29/2007 6:49:39 PM PDT by Swordmaker
The copyright holder of George Orwell's classic novel 1984 may sue over the video that used Apple's 23-year-old Macintosh advertisement to jab at Senator Hillary Clinton, a lawyer for Rosenblum Productions said Wednesday.
"We're not filing [a lawsuit] at this point; we're monitoring the situation," said William Coulson, who represents Rosenblum Productions. "But we certainly reserve the right to do so in the future." Coulson did not specify whom Rosenblum might sue -- the video's creator, YouTube or both.
The 74-second video, a mashup that substitutes the droning Big Brother of the original Apple television ad with images and words from the New York Democrat, has been extremely popular on YouTube's video sharing network. As of today, the video had been viewed more than 3.8 million times.
Clinton is a rival of Senator Barack Obama for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
Last week, the video's creator stepped forward. Phil de Vellis, who was fired from his position at Blue State Digital, a Washington-based technology firm that specializes in political campaign support, said he made the video on his Mac in a single weekend afternoon.
On Tuesday, Gina Rosenblum, president of Rosenblum Productions, rattled a legal saber. "The political ad copies a prior commercial infringement of our copyright," said Rosenblum in a statement. "We recognize the legal issues inherent under the First Amendment and the copyright law as to political expression of opinion, but we want the world at large to know that we take our copyright ownership of one of the world's great novels very seriously."
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.
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."
In 2001, Rosenblum settled out of court with CBS Television and Viacom Inc. over copyright and trademark infringement charges against the reality program Big Brother. The financial details of the settlement were not disclosed, said Coulson, who also represented Rosenblum in that case. "But it was mutually satisfactory to both parties," he said.
Apple has ignored requests for comment on its position over the de Vellis video.
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.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Hey I know you're very passionate about certain technology companies, but this story really isn't about Apple. :)
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.
"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.
She must be taking some industrial strength recreational pharmaceuticals. I wonder what color the sky is on her planet?
I wonder how much Mrs Bill Clinton paid for this "mulling"?
Besides there are plenty of other works from which Orwell borrowed consciously or unconsciously. For example: Fritz Lang's 1927 film classic Metropolis. Or Bellamy's futuristic fantasy of 1881 "Looking Backward". Many others.
They pretty much sidestepped the Obama ties to this. Started to, but stopped well short of it
Mr. Orwell could be spinning in his grave.
Entirely defensible as political satire.
Lucky for Orwell we have such wise copyright laws. I hate to think the artist would be cheated of the fruits of his labor!!!!!
Oh yeah, I almost forget book's thrilling climax where the blonde in shorts throws a hammer through the super-huge television screen.
In fact, it makes no sense at all unless you've seen the original Apple 1984 ad.
Politics and parody...
absolutely protected. Just ask Roy Orbison (or his estate)
Let's see them prove damages.
Of course, any idiotic American jury will just see the Big Pockets.
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.
Yup. And if you go to Project Gutenberg Australia, you'll find that 1984 is not under copyright there. Neither is Animal Farm
Many other books and authors that are available because Australia's more reasonable laws, are available HERE
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.