Posted on 03/22/2007 4:01:07 AM PDT by farlander
he Internet video sensation that targeted Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton now has rival Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) on the spot. Paid Political Advertisement
Heralded by many as the embodiment of Web-driven citizen activism, the mysterious YouTube ad now stands revealed as the work of a Democratic operative employed by a consulting firm with Obama links.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Yea Clinton minions went out to find this guy at all costs. It is a bit convenient he's got Obama campaign links. Makes for great watching.
The Republicans ought to hire this guy.
At least we could be sure that there was at least one person involved with the Republican campaign effort with a brain and a little spine.
Why are people up in arms over this video? Is it too close to the truth?
It's a bit more than "convenient" that he has Obama campaign links. Indeed, those links, combined with the intellectual property law aspects of this matter, pretty well prove that he created and published the ad with the full knowledge and consent of the Obama campaign, after careful coordination with and consent from one or more of Apple Computer's lib executives.
Since the Obama campaign's direct links have been disclosed in the article, I'll concentrate on the intellectual property law aspects.
Apple Computer owns the basic ad from which this "derivative work" was produced, the video of the female athlete throwing the hammer, and its own Logo, all of which were heavily used in the ad. If Apple hadn't consented to this use, de Vellis, YouTube, Gooogle, and de Vellis' employer would be subject to a massive, solidly grounded law suit for this extraordinarily blatant copyright violation. Apple, however, has been conspicuous by its deafening silence in a situation where it normally could have been expected to fight tooth and nail to defend its apparently violated copyrights. After all, allowing this use of its material exposes Apple to boycotting by individual Clintonoids and serious retaliation in the government contracting area if, God forbid, the ever-vengeful Witch becomes President.
Nevertheless, Apple's been dead silent. IMHO the only logical explanation is that one of Apple's many high ranking lib executives decided in advance to allow this extraordinary use of two of its IP crown jewels, the 1984 ad and its logo, in a devastatingly effective attack ad against the Witch. That, in turn, means there had to be serious advance coordination between said Apple executive and one or more persons in the Obama campaign.
This theory is further supported by the fact that de Vellis is a 33 year old experienced DemonRat campaign operative who's worked in the media area of a number of campaigns. As such, he had to learn about the pitfalls of copyright law, just as conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Paul Shanklin have had to. Hence, he wouldn't have created and posted the ad without coordinating with and receiving the approval of both the Obama campaign and Apple Computer.
It really surprises me that the MSM has so far been blind to the whole Apple Computer intellectual property law aspect of this matter when it's probably the key to what happened.
I don't think this is true. The apple ad video on which this was based has been floating around on google video and youtube for years, and they never took any action.
You can fully explain apple's lack of action very easily: this is a commercial, not a movie. They want as many people to view it as possible. They get free publicity every time NBC news (or any other) shows it on the air and says it was based on an Apple ad. The original apple ad is also getting huge numbers of hits now.
From apple's point of view, what's not to love about this situation?
No nefarious explanation is needed: apple makes out like a bandit. They would not want to discourage this kind of activity in any way.
Gee, CNN was suggesting the video may have come from Republican sources. Guess they're wrong AGAIN.
A great deal. By allowing this extraordinary use of its ad, its logo, and the clip of the female athlete Apple puts itself in the position of being subject to serious retaliation by the Clinton forces, both in the form of potential individual boycotts and, far worse, the retaliatory denial of government contracts if, God forbid, the Witch should be elected President. It also potentially exposes itself to FEC charges if the Witch's operatives accuse it of making an in kind contribution to the Obama campaign.
Could be the simplest explanation. Free pub for apple.
Why would somebody as experienced as de Vellis march into the teeth of the copyright law with a blantant infringing derivative work unless he had prior assurance from the copyright holder that no action would be taken against him? It doesn't make sense.
The dems have a long history of saying how "the republicans play dirty" and go after their candidates using "dirty" advertising. Nothing but projection. the dems always go dirty. The notorious "flowers" ad? Dem. Willie Horton? Dem. Over and over again.
Mark
I don't know. I really don't care. Intersting point to me is if the O said they didn't do it, but one of his people did. I like to track the lies.
Too conspiratorial.
Having "photoshopped" some things myself on a whim, I can see how the editor, already being in the political arena and having plenty of editing equipment at home (i.e.: cheap PC with free software), just happend to think it was a pretty neat idea, whipped it up, and tossed it out on YouTube.
Some years ago I whipped up an animated .gif (serious content) over the Elian Gonzolas affair. Stuck it on my website, posted a single link on FR late at night, and went to bed. No harm intended, just sharing a neat idea. Next morning (long story short) Drudge had linked it, my ISP's ISP had melted down, and the Associated Press wanted a word with me. Trust me, I know how these things can get out of hand fast - _without_ being conspiratorial.
Ping?
That is quite a theory you have come up with but what is the simplest explanation?
That's a real stretch. Just because they choose not to prosecute an unauthorized use of their material, when they have chosen not to prosecute broadcast of the same material for years on youtube, they made a contribution to Obama? Hardly extraordinary, there are tons of these kinds of mashups floating around on youtube.
Your logic is extremely tortured. The only way it would make sense would be if they did stop equivalent mashups against obama, which they have not (some are already floating around).
I confidently predict none of what you claim will occur.
Not everything is a conspiracy.
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.