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.
Could be the simplest explanation. Free pub for apple.
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.
That is quite a theory you have come up with but what is the simplest explanation?