Immitation or Inspiration?

Me too, Kaarina - original was a beautiful piece. :)

Love the original: love the article Danny!

Love the original: love the article Danny!

I just now read this post and had no idea that this video was "remake" of anything. Can’t say that it doesn’t disappoint me because it does, since something as special as this shouldn’t or can’t be duplicated (at least in my mind). Ah, but what a great favor that you brought this to our attention - I’m grateful you did!

I saw the Purplefeather one on another video channel and practically fell apart. But ... this one made room for a grander scale of emotion. I think the longer one is more powerful simply because the gentleman removes his glasses when he speaks to the blind man. You saw his compassion; his eyes told the story. The young woman did not connect that way; therefore it feels a bit colder now. It also portrays a desperation in the blind man that you did not gather so much from the shorter video. It’s very powerful when he feverishly grabs at the coins. Yes this was longer, which allows for more; however, it was the “little” things that made a huge difference in the final product – you really can’t compare.

My leaning here is definitely imitation and from that perspective I lose tremendous respect for the imitator on this.

With kindness,

Elena

I just now read this post and had no idea that this video was "remake" of anything. Can’t say that it doesn’t disappoint me because it does, since something as special as this shouldn’t or can’t be duplicated (at least in my mind). Ah, but what a great favor that you brought this to our attention - I’m grateful you did!

I saw the Purplefeather one on another video channel and practically fell apart. But ... this one made room for a grander scale of emotion. I think the longer one is more powerful simply because the gentleman removes his glasses when he speaks to the blind man. You saw his compassion; his eyes told the story. The young woman did not connect that way; therefore it feels a bit colder now. It also portrays a desperation in the blind man that you did not gather so much from the shorter video. It’s very powerful when he feverishly grabs at the coins. Yes this was longer, which allows for more; however, it was the “little” things that made a huge difference in the final product – you really can’t compare.

My leaning here is definitely imitation and from that perspective I lose tremendous respect for the imitator on this.

With kindness,

Elena

I just now read this post and had no idea that this video was "remake" of anything. Can’t say that it doesn’t disappoint me because it does, since something as special as this shouldn’t or can’t be duplicated (at least in my mind). Ah, but what a great favor that you brought this to our attention - I’m grateful you did! I saw the Purplefeather one on another video channel and practically fell apart. But ... this one made room for a grander scale of emotion. I think the longer one is more powerful simply because the gentleman removes his glasses when he speaks to the blind man. You saw his compassion; his eyes told the story. The young woman did not connect that way; therefore it feels a bit colder now. It also portrays a desperation in the blind man that you did not gather so much from the shorter video. It’s very powerful when he feverishly grabs at the coins. Yes this was longer, which allows for more; however, it was the “little” things that made a huge difference in the final product – you really can’t compare. My leaning here is definitely imitation and from that perspective I lose tremendous respect for the imitator on this. With kindness, Elena

I embedded the (longer) video in a blog article about poverty -- http://ariherzog.com/poverty-pixelated/ -- I wrote in October 2008. I have never seen it anywhere else since, until now. Kudos!

I embedded the (longer) video in a blog article about poverty -- http://ariherzog.com/poverty-pixelated/ -- I wrote in October 2008. I have never seen it anywhere else since, until now. Kudos!

Hi, Danny. Considering the message that both videos are trying to convey, it would have been best if PF was transparent about there being an original to the video that they made. So, instead of us seeing the blatant imitation that they did, we would have just seen a touching remake of a wonderful message.

Hi, Danny. Considering the message that both videos are trying to convey, it would have been best if PF was transparent about there being an original to the video that they made. So, instead of us seeing the blatant imitation that they did, we would have just seen a touching remake of a wonderful message.

Well Danny, taking the cynicism a step further, I decided to check out PurpleFeather’s site (not sure if you are dofollow inside comments, so I’m not giving them the link). What I found there I think clarifies the homage vs. rip-off question pretty definitively.

On the “Online Videos and Images” page, the video is featured as a YouTube embed. It is the sole video sample on their page, and the original is not mentioned anywhere. It is absolutely being passed off as original work on their own site. Check it out.

Well Danny, taking the cynicism a step further, I decided to check out PurpleFeather’s site (not sure if you are dofollow inside comments, so I’m not giving them the link). What I found there I think clarifies the homage vs. rip-off question pretty definitively.

On the “Online Videos and Images” page, the video is featured as a YouTube embed. It is the sole video sample on their page, and the original is not mentioned anywhere. It is absolutely being passed off as original work on their own site. Check it out.

Well Danny, taking the cynicism a step further, I decided to check out PurpleFeather’s site (not sure if you are dofollow inside comments, so I’m not giving them the link). What I found there I think clarifies the homage vs. rip-off question pretty definitively. On the “Online Videos and Images” page, the video is featured as a YouTube embed. It is the sole video sample on their page, and the original is not mentioned anywhere. It is absolutely being passed off as original work on their own site. Check it out.

G'Day Danny,
Never seen either before. After watching the remake I thought, "how clever; good way to emphasize the power of the right words." The original brought tears to my eyes.

I've been a published author for over 50 years. I accept that plagiarism and all the rest is part of the deal. I ask only for acknowledgement or attribution for my original idea.

But what's original? A friend of mine is one of the few, if not the only genuinely creative person, I've known. He always smiles and says, "creativity is merely inventive plagiarism."

The Alvarez video is the vastly superior product. The other is a good ad.
"Marketing," as Al Ries and jack Trout told us 30 tears ago, "occurs in the mind."

Did you know that they've made yet another movie version of "Brighton Rock?"
It was Graham Greene who said that "heresy is just another word for independent thought."

It's all a bit much for me. I'm just a salesman.

Best wishes,

Leon

G'Day Danny,
Never seen either before. After watching the remake I thought, "how clever; good way to emphasize the power of the right words." The original brought tears to my eyes.

I've been a published author for over 50 years. I accept that plagiarism and all the rest is part of the deal. I ask only for acknowledgement or attribution for my original idea.

But what's original? A friend of mine is one of the few, if not the only genuinely creative person, I've known. He always smiles and says, "creativity is merely inventive plagiarism."

The Alvarez video is the vastly superior product. The other is a good ad.
"Marketing," as Al Ries and jack Trout told us 30 tears ago, "occurs in the mind."

Did you know that they've made yet another movie version of "Brighton Rock?"
It was Graham Greene who said that "heresy is just another word for independent thought."

It's all a bit much for me. I'm just a salesman.

Best wishes,

Leon

G'Day Danny, Never seen either before. After watching the remake I thought, "how clever; good way to emphasize the power of the right words." The original brought tears to my eyes. I've been a published author for over 50 years. I accept that plagiarism and all the rest is part of the deal. I ask only for acknowledgement or attribution for my original idea. But what's original? A friend of mine is one of the few, if not the only genuinely creative person, I've known. He always smiles and says, "creativity is merely inventive plagiarism." The Alvarez video is the vastly superior product. The other is a good ad. "Marketing," as Al Ries and jack Trout told us 30 tears ago, "occurs in the mind." Did you know that they've made yet another movie version of "Brighton Rock?" It was Graham Greene who said that "heresy is just another word for independent thought." It's all a bit much for me. I'm just a salesman. Best wishes, Leon

Mummy: Thanks for your response. I agree that there's great joy in living in this world.

Plagiarism extends legally WAY beyond academia. George Harrison was taken to court for the melody of "My Sweet Lord" as being ripped from the song "He's So Fine." The result? He admitted it. He surrendered all royalties. The author of The DaVinci Code was sued for stealing a story structure - but he prevailed. Joe Biden's earlier U.S. presidential bid was brought down years ago over a plagiarism issue.

We've known since well before Jacques Derrida and Lyotard that no ideas are "original" or come out of nothing. I think Eliot said that fiction writers borrow whereas poets just steal. There's little post-modern about that idea about ideas' non-originality. But art is an original combination of elements and ideas. And Pf fails there, too.

You have a fair point about Pf making an advertisement out of a film, but it's still not emulation, in my view, just b/c the firm made the original version more 'slick.' In fact, that slickness took out the believability factor for this viewer (and believability is critical for powerful art). It's gross imitation - and not good advertising for a firm that posits itself as a content maker.

Anyway, I do agree that there's great joy in this world. and it's an artistically liberating one. But liberation doesn't mean we're excused to be irresponsible, unethical, or sloppy - which, I think, is part of the spirit of Danny's blog.

Just my two cents.

Cheers.

Mummy: Thanks for your response. I agree that there's great joy in living in this world.

Plagiarism extends legally WAY beyond academia. George Harrison was taken to court for the melody of "My Sweet Lord" as being ripped from the song "He's So Fine." The result? He admitted it. He surrendered all royalties. The author of The DaVinci Code was sued for stealing a story structure - but he prevailed. Joe Biden's earlier U.S. presidential bid was brought down years ago over a plagiarism issue.

We've known since well before Jacques Derrida and Lyotard that no ideas are "original" or come out of nothing. I think Eliot said that fiction writers borrow whereas poets just steal. There's little post-modern about that idea about ideas' non-originality. But art is an original combination of elements and ideas. And Pf fails there, too.

You have a fair point about Pf making an advertisement out of a film, but it's still not emulation, in my view, just b/c the firm made the original version more 'slick.' In fact, that slickness took out the believability factor for this viewer (and believability is critical for powerful art). It's gross imitation - and not good advertising for a firm that posits itself as a content maker.

Anyway, I do agree that there's great joy in this world. and it's an artistically liberating one. But liberation doesn't mean we're excused to be irresponsible, unethical, or sloppy - which, I think, is part of the spirit of Danny's blog.

Just my two cents.

Cheers.

Mummy: Thanks for your response. I agree that there's great joy in living in this world. Plagiarism extends legally WAY beyond academia. George Harrison was taken to court for the melody of "My Sweet Lord" as being ripped from the song "He's So Fine." The result? He admitted it. He surrendered all royalties. The author of The DaVinci Code was sued for stealing a story structure - but he prevailed. Joe Biden's earlier U.S. presidential bid was brought down years ago over a plagiarism issue. We've known since well before Jacques Derrida and Lyotard that no ideas are "original" or come out of nothing. I think Eliot said that fiction writers borrow whereas poets just steal. There's little post-modern about that idea about ideas' non-originality. But art is an original combination of elements and ideas. And Pf fails there, too. You have a fair point about Pf making an advertisement out of a film, but it's still not emulation, in my view, just b/c the firm made the original version more 'slick.' In fact, that slickness took out the believability factor for this viewer (and believability is critical for powerful art). It's gross imitation - and not good advertising for a firm that posits itself as a content maker. Anyway, I do agree that there's great joy in this world. and it's an artistically liberating one. But liberation doesn't mean we're excused to be irresponsible, unethical, or sloppy - which, I think, is part of the spirit of Danny's blog. Just my two cents. Cheers.

Danny:
When I first read your post without viewing the videos, I thought, "Oh, Danny's just over-reacting. It's probably a case of emulation." Then I watched the videos.
1.In fields of art, we often discuss imitation versus emulation - which is what I think you're getting at. Cicero taught his students of public speaking first how to imitate the masters; then, once a young speaker assimilated the best of the pros, that young rhetorician developed his own flair, his own combination of the given tools, made references and allusions and proper 'homages' to masters who'd gone before him. To develop such an art is emulation. The student who has no ideas, no style of his own remains a student.
2. In music, a song writer might 'sample' another song's melody, but if done well the final result is still emulation. Even when a vocalist 'covers' a classic, if the singer's really good at her craft then her voice adds something, contributes something to the original. But it's not a copy. Otherwise, why not just listen to the original?
3. In Hollywood, a story premise might be similar to any myriad other premises because there are a finite number of story premises in our human repertoire - but the difference is in the details. OR there's payment made to the producers of the original if a "remake" is done or an "adaptation" of a novel.

Sorry, this is plain imitation. It's plagiarism - right down to the details of the blind man identifying the benign stranger by touching her/his shoes. There is nothing in the Purplefeather piece that contributes to or adds to the original (a requirement of emulation). It does nothing even to try to 'one-up' (often a motive of emulation). If this were a case of two books instead of two videos, Purplefeather would be in court for plagiarism being duly sued.

Sorry, there's really no justifying it, legally, philosophically, aesthetically, or cynically.

This kind of short-cut sloppiness results sometimes in a culture that breeds speed and short-cuts as opposed to mastering a field as well as building the creative and critical habits.

And your point about the business of Purplefeather - content creation - is, unfortunately, a bit of irony apparently lost on the makers of the Pf vid.

Thanks for the post.

Danny:
When I first read your post without viewing the videos, I thought, "Oh, Danny's just over-reacting. It's probably a case of emulation." Then I watched the videos.
1.In fields of art, we often discuss imitation versus emulation - which is what I think you're getting at. Cicero taught his students of public speaking first how to imitate the masters; then, once a young speaker assimilated the best of the pros, that young rhetorician developed his own flair, his own combination of the given tools, made references and allusions and proper 'homages' to masters who'd gone before him. To develop such an art is emulation. The student who has no ideas, no style of his own remains a student.
2. In music, a song writer might 'sample' another song's melody, but if done well the final result is still emulation. Even when a vocalist 'covers' a classic, if the singer's really good at her craft then her voice adds something, contributes something to the original. But it's not a copy. Otherwise, why not just listen to the original?
3. In Hollywood, a story premise might be similar to any myriad other premises because there are a finite number of story premises in our human repertoire - but the difference is in the details. OR there's payment made to the producers of the original if a "remake" is done or an "adaptation" of a novel.

Sorry, this is plain imitation. It's plagiarism - right down to the details of the blind man identifying the benign stranger by touching her/his shoes. There is nothing in the Purplefeather piece that contributes to or adds to the original (a requirement of emulation). It does nothing even to try to 'one-up' (often a motive of emulation). If this were a case of two books instead of two videos, Purplefeather would be in court for plagiarism being duly sued.

Sorry, there's really no justifying it, legally, philosophically, aesthetically, or cynically.

This kind of short-cut sloppiness results sometimes in a culture that breeds speed and short-cuts as opposed to mastering a field as well as building the creative and critical habits.

And your point about the business of Purplefeather - content creation - is, unfortunately, a bit of irony apparently lost on the makers of the Pf vid.

Thanks for the post.

Danny: When I first read your post without viewing the videos, I thought, "Oh, Danny's just over-reacting. It's probably a case of emulation." Then I watched the videos. 1.In fields of art, we often discuss imitation versus emulation - which is what I think you're getting at. Cicero taught his students of public speaking first how to imitate the masters; then, once a young speaker assimilated the best of the pros, that young rhetorician developed his own flair, his own combination of the given tools, made references and allusions and proper 'homages' to masters who'd gone before him. To develop such an art is emulation. The student who has no ideas, no style of his own remains a student. 2. In music, a song writer might 'sample' another song's melody, but if done well the final result is still emulation. Even when a vocalist 'covers' a classic, if the singer's really good at her craft then her voice adds something, contributes something to the original. But it's not a copy. Otherwise, why not just listen to the original? 3. In Hollywood, a story premise might be similar to any myriad other premises because there are a finite number of story premises in our human repertoire - but the difference is in the details. OR there's payment made to the producers of the original if a "remake" is done or an "adaptation" of a novel. Sorry, this is plain imitation. It's plagiarism - right down to the details of the blind man identifying the benign stranger by touching her/his shoes. There is nothing in the Purplefeather piece that contributes to or adds to the original (a requirement of emulation). It does nothing even to try to 'one-up' (often a motive of emulation). If this were a case of two books instead of two videos, Purplefeather would be in court for plagiarism being duly sued. Sorry, there's really no justifying it, legally, philosophically, aesthetically, or cynically. This kind of short-cut sloppiness results sometimes in a culture that breeds speed and short-cuts as opposed to mastering a field as well as building the creative and critical habits. And your point about the business of Purplefeather - content creation - is, unfortunately, a bit of irony apparently lost on the makers of the Pf vid. Thanks for the post.

Hi Danny,
I've been chewing on this one for a day or two and I have to admit, I'm not all that worked up over it. We're in an age of sharing (yes, this one was more on the side of copying) but I'll bet the original has gotten LOTS of hits as a result of the remake. And as seen here in the comments, you have lots of folks who prefer the original and some who are quite fine with the remake. I like them both, for different reasons, but completely get that in the small bite world we live in, the remake is likely more palatable. For the Purple Feather folks it's certainly working for them in exposure.

Did you see the T-Mobile remake of JK's wedding entrance video? Or, know the story of Randy Wood, the founder of DOT records who introduced Black R&B music to white audiences by remaking them with white singers? I just heard this today on CBS Sunday Morning (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/14/ap/entertainment/main20054127.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;3), but the gist is that the originals didn't get the air time they so richly deserved. The "white" versions were exact remakes/covers and ultimately brought more attention to the original singers. Certainly, Ron Wood did it with profit in mind, but he also maintained the integrity of the music, by keeping the lyrics as they were written and not for the new 'white' audience. He's since been credited with helping black musicians break into the 'mainstream'.

Much like John and Ameena have said, how many original ideas are there anymore? Even if someone thinks they have an original idea, how are they or we to know they didn't 'hear' it somewhere and seemingly not pay attention to it, then later have it manifest in their 'work'. That's a tough one to truly evaluate - esp in the age of social media and constant 'streams' of information coming at us. This is certainly a we saw 'x' video and now we're going to use it to make the 'y' video, but you get the idea.

Both the original and the remake have a great message and yes, the remake is clearly copying the entire message, but in the end, they are both being heard.

Hi Danny,
I've been chewing on this one for a day or two and I have to admit, I'm not all that worked up over it. We're in an age of sharing (yes, this one was more on the side of copying) but I'll bet the original has gotten LOTS of hits as a result of the remake. And as seen here in the comments, you have lots of folks who prefer the original and some who are quite fine with the remake. I like them both, for different reasons, but completely get that in the small bite world we live in, the remake is likely more palatable. For the Purple Feather folks it's certainly working for them in exposure.

Did you see the T-Mobile remake of JK's wedding entrance video? Or, know the story of Randy Wood, the founder of DOT records who introduced Black R&B music to white audiences by remaking them with white singers? I just heard this today on CBS Sunday Morning (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/14/ap/entertainment/main20054127.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;3), but the gist is that the originals didn't get the air time they so richly deserved. The "white" versions were exact remakes/covers and ultimately brought more attention to the original singers. Certainly, Ron Wood did it with profit in mind, but he also maintained the integrity of the music, by keeping the lyrics as they were written and not for the new 'white' audience. He's since been credited with helping black musicians break into the 'mainstream'.

Much like John and Ameena have said, how many original ideas are there anymore? Even if someone thinks they have an original idea, how are they or we to know they didn't 'hear' it somewhere and seemingly not pay attention to it, then later have it manifest in their 'work'. That's a tough one to truly evaluate - esp in the age of social media and constant 'streams' of information coming at us. This is certainly a we saw 'x' video and now we're going to use it to make the 'y' video, but you get the idea.

Both the original and the remake have a great message and yes, the remake is clearly copying the entire message, but in the end, they are both being heard.

Hi Danny, I've been chewing on this one for a day or two and I have to admit, I'm not all that worked up over it. We're in an age of sharing (yes, this one was more on the side of copying) but I'll bet the original has gotten LOTS of hits as a result of the remake. And as seen here in the comments, you have lots of folks who prefer the original and some who are quite fine with the remake. I like them both, for different reasons, but completely get that in the small bite world we live in, the remake is likely more palatable. For the Purple Feather folks it's certainly working for them in exposure. Did you see the T-Mobile remake of JK's wedding entrance video? Or, know the story of Randy Wood, the founder of DOT records who introduced Black R&B music to white audiences by remaking them with white singers? I just heard this today on CBS Sunday Morning (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/14/ap/entertainment/main20054127.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;3), but the gist is that the originals didn't get the air time they so richly deserved. The "white" versions were exact remakes/covers and ultimately brought more attention to the original singers. Certainly, Ron Wood did it with profit in mind, but he also maintained the integrity of the music, by keeping the lyrics as they were written and not for the new 'white' audience. He's since been credited with helping black musicians break into the 'mainstream'. Much like John and Ameena have said, how many original ideas are there anymore? Even if someone thinks they have an original idea, how are they or we to know they didn't 'hear' it somewhere and seemingly not pay attention to it, then later have it manifest in their 'work'. That's a tough one to truly evaluate - esp in the age of social media and constant 'streams' of information coming at us. This is certainly a we saw 'x' video and now we're going to use it to make the 'y' video, but you get the idea. Both the original and the remake have a great message and yes, the remake is clearly copying the entire message, but in the end, they are both being heard.

I am really new to this fantastic world, with people like Scott Stratten, The Sales Lion and absolutely you, Danny Brown in it. I understand the point, I really do. If it wasn't about awards, I would however completely understand it. What a beautiful lesson, to us as human beings and yes, as marketers. It's too bad that it breaks all the rules we are taught to be fresh and ethical. ~Alaska Chick

I am really new to this fantastic world, with people like Scott Stratten, The Sales Lion and absolutely you, Danny Brown in it. I understand the point, I really do. If it wasn't about awards, I would however completely understand it. What a beautiful lesson, to us as human beings and yes, as marketers. It's too bad that it breaks all the rules we are taught to be fresh and ethical. ~Alaska Chick