Pitchfork Media ran an interesting story today regarding the accused "plagiarism" of a Postal Service video in a new advertisement for Apple Computers ("Postal Service Accuse Apple of Plagiarism"). Ironically, the directors of the advertisement, Josh Melnick and Xander Charity, are also the directors of the original music video that was supposedly the source of the plagiarised material. This raises all sorts of interesting questions regarding authorship and ownership.
Since the song itself has not been ripped off, do Gibbard and Tamborello really have a convincing case against Apple? A music video is an inherently collaborative medium. The musicians bring an original recording to the table and the director (plural, in this case) does his or her best to set that recording to images. The end result is an artistic product wholly separate from the song itself. The song and images may retain mutual associations in their separate contexts, but the object of the music video still relies on the juxtaposition of the two elements.
With this symbiotic relationship firmly in place, who now can claim authorship to the video? Gibbard and Tamborello probably have legal ownership, but it is very different to own something than to author something. One could argue that the video is co-authored; Gibbard and Tamborello supplying the music and Melnick and Charity supplying the accompanying visuals.
Presumably Gibbard and Tamborello are free to recontextualize their song however they see fit. Should Melnick and Charity not be granted the same freedom with their visuals? If the song had been licensed for a commercial, could Melnick and Charity sue the musicians for stealing the music from their video? I don't think anyone could reasonably make that claim, so why should Gibbard and Tamborello have control over the filmmakers' visuals? The cinematic art concieved by Melnick and Charity is as much their intellectual property as the song is the property of Gibbard and Tamborello.
Did the filmmakers have the right to reappropriate these ideas and images in other, unrelated works? Who is the author of these concepts and visuals? Do authorship and ownership always correspond? Should they?
Right now I'm inclined to side with the filmmakers. I'm not sure if I can legally support such an argument, but ethically and creatively I stand by them. Still, this remains a rather puzzling and daunting dilemma raised by a seemingly inconsequential news item.
This post also appears at Bryan McKay's blog.
Article comments
1 - Sterfish
For now, I'm on the filmmakers' side as well. However, the one thing I wonder about is whether or not the directors of the video/commercial actually came up with the ideas themselves. Artists do frequently write the treatments to their videos (or at the very least contribute a lot of input). If Postal Service actually came up with the concept for their video, then they may actually have a more legitimate reason to be upset apart from the images in their video losing their "uniqueness."