[MW Forums]

The owners of the movie and television rights to George Orwell's "1984" have spoken out about the recent Barack Obama political ad that uses footage from Apple's classic "1984" television ad. more

[leicaman]

The "Owners" of the 1984 TV and Movie rights are full of it. Was this a scene from 1984? Of course not! A 1984-esque reference in a video is hardly a copyright violation to begin with. Apple is not guilty, and this guy isn't guilty.
To interpret copyright law in light of this bogus cliam made by these bozos would throw out 99 percent of what's produced today. Such a stretch of copyright would mean we can't even use the term Big Brother! Nonsense!
They're just up tight because they didn't make a buck. Tough. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[macFanDave]

Gina Rosenblum, you ignorant [censored].
You are flat out lying about Apple's 1984 commercial. The commercial became obsolete two days after the one and only viewing. It clearly states that the Macintosh was coming in the future. The commercial was shown on January 22, 1984 and the Macintosh went on sale on the 24th, thus the future arrived two days after the showing. Your cease-and-desist letter (if you are even telling the truth about that) had no effect on Apple.
I've read the book twice and almost none of the imagery is described therein. I remember the Two Minutes Hate where the people scream at Goldstein on the big screen. Winston Smith was not a hot chick in a tight tank top! The rights holders of George Orwell's novel have no legitimate complaint against the makers of the pro-Obama commercial. (Apple and Chiat/Day might, but the clearly political use of the work is protected by the First Amendment.)
Every reference to 1984 actually promotes the reading of the actual book, so when these idiots whine about infringement, they are trying to squelch free publicity. Dolts!

[the__fox]

Saying that the "1984" spot was pulled because of their C&D order is completely false. I've worked with one of the guys who created that spot (an art director at Chiat/Day at the time, he is now a commercial director), and he gave me the whole story of how that ad -- and one for the Lisa that Jobs pushed for -- and that ad was only supposed to run during the Super Bowl. It was supposed to air more than once, but that's a story for another day.
Remind me not to do any ad with a sword-wielding little person in it so I won't get sued by Tolkien's heirs.

[jeffala]

I think you're okay as long as they don't have hairy feet.
Ms. Rosenblum's claim seems a bit too far fetched to be believed.

[scotts13]

Balderdash. There is absolutely zero chance that anyone, believeing major intellectual property has been violated, would send a letter, not get a reply, and drop it entirely for the next 23 years.
I know that in court, lawyers are used to having people pretend to take seriously their wildest prevarications; but this even pushes that too far.

[Peter Cohen]

Oh, I have no doubt that Rosenbaum's statement is true: That a cease and desist letter was sent, and that Apple never aired the ad again. But Rosenbaum leaves it up to the reader to infer a causal relationship between those two facts. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Ain't spin great?

[harristype]

Not to mention that a couple of years ago Apple rereleased an edited version so that the girl was wearing an iPod. Did Apple ignore a cease and desist order? I think not. I'll go ask my Big Brother... oops! please don't sue me!

[macFanDave]

Quote:

---

I'll go ask my Big Brother... oops! please don't sue me!

---

Don't worry. If Rosenblum comes after you, say that you were ignorant that Big Brother was a termed coined in "her" book. Remember:
Ignorance is Strength
Oh, st! Now I'm on the hook!!!

[Spark]

Rosenblum may not sue you, but watch out for Janis Joplin and the rest of the Holding Company..

[lwdesign]

Wow, does this mean that Big Brothers of America is in trouble? And Big Sisters by association?

[501user]

Quote:

---

... when these idiots whine ...

---

And when idiots like you start whining here one has to wonder why.
What have you got to get priggish about? And why exercise your priggishness on behalf of the offender?
This was a highly unoriginal copy of what Apple had already done, and, morevover, a cynical misuse of imagery from a very, very great novel by a little toerag for petty purposes. It would arouse nothing but disgust among those with any sensibilities and any understanding of the novel.

[leicaman]

Good point, it was a poor use of Apple's work. The guy deserved to lose his job over it. Such politicizing and demonizing members of your own party only gives the other party more creditility in their attacks on democrats. This guy, like the people trying to stir up controversy between Hillary and Obama (republicans or at best republicrats) is only damaging what they pretend to support. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[veggiedude]

Did they sue David Bowie for writing '1984' on his Diamond Dogs LP back in 1974?
No. And many of the songs on that album relate to Orwells novel.