What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
106 Comments
- redtaboo, on 09/16/2008, -2/+55I sell 3M products in the company I work for, and they are the most ARROGANT company I've ever dealt with.
We sell over 600 different product lines and they are the only company that puts restrictions on what we can sell or to whom we can sell to.
This is Stupid, they very easily could afford $2000 to license that photo, especially at the prices they sell their products!!
**BTW -- I work in automotive and they won't sell me Post-it's.... - dreicher, on 09/16/2008, -14/+63So, they wanted to do the campaign, sent the guy an e-mail, offered him $1000 for photo rights, he countered at $2000 and they said "we can do it for cheaper" and did? Why the outrage, again? They didn't steal his idea (it's been done before) or his photos and were willing to pay him but he declined their offer.
- inactive, on 09/17/2008, -7/+44So Diggers complain about pirating movies and television shows, yet spaz when a corporation refuses to pay $2000 for a ***** photo?
Hypocrisy is nice
For $2000 I could get a PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, a KFC Family Meal, the entire Matrix and Lord of the Rings trilogy and still have enough left over for a hooker - vinceislegend, on 09/17/2008, -1/+31Or you could just get a better hooker.
- Pyehole, on 09/16/2008, -1/+25What a shame that the marketing sleaze bag's contact info was obscured.
- twoyups, on 09/17/2008, -0/+21Dugg for comparing viral marketing to Elaine's dancing
- DjArcadian, on 09/17/2008, -0/+18I'm sure office supply stores like Staples, Office Max, etc. have a lock on the more everyday items like post-it notes. 3M probably doesn't want to alienate these stores by selling wholesale direct to other businesses. It's not worth damaging their relationship with their biggest customers.
I'm not defending them but this really isn't that unusual in the world of business. You cater to your bread-and-butter clients. - FoxOrian, on 09/17/2008, -2/+16Considering it's not the most original thing in the world, and it's something that 3M could've done themselves for cheaper, hell, I would've taken the $1000.
- dvsbastard, on 09/17/2008, -4/+15I think the problem here is 3M intends to make money off the image / concept (through increased sales as a result of marketing) and are not going to give an appropriate cut to those who came up with it...
This is very different to people downloading movies and TV shows, where there is no new revenue stream (this doesn't make it right, but it is not the same)... If someone was downloading TV shows / movies, adding in their own ads, and redistributing it, I am sure diggers would be up in arms about it too... - Pake, on 09/17/2008, -2/+13Someone needs to take this guy out back and beat him senseless until he realizes how retarded he was for passing up $1000 for a well known prank that 3M could have done (and did) for cheaper. I mean my god, what next will people do? Sue Charmin for taking a picture of a tree that has been TP'ed?
- springboks, on 09/16/2008, -0/+9Either way. What a waste of paper. I hardly use 3M stickies anymore. People wrote their passwords on post it notes in the 90's. Now we just smother cars with Post It notes!
- rowjimmy, on 09/17/2008, -1/+9you do know that if a band does a cover (and sells it) they have to pay for the rights, yeah? or if an artist copies an artwork (that is currently copyrighted) and sells it they have to pay for the rights, yeah?
the naysaying comes because 3M is using this idea to make money. when i pirate music/tv-shows/movies i don't sell them, nor do i upload them to my own site with ads. - Pyehole, on 09/17/2008, -0/+7"they" may say that, but that doesn't mean it's true.
- se1zure, on 09/17/2008, -2/+9I love the Digg hypocrisy!
Is this not the same site who has poster 30 times the "Piracy is not stealing image" but when 3M imitates the styling (Doesn't even copy the original, but completely re-creates a new and different image) it's stealing! - Asianwaste, on 09/17/2008, -1/+8or a ***** load of chicken
- megamike23, on 09/17/2008, -4/+10The guy is an idiot and just pissed he lost out on 1000 dollars. The new image is at least 30% different, 3m did nothing wrong except try to save money
- satyr9us, on 09/17/2008, -0/+6I see a lot of reality-challenged posters on this thread. Folks: The photographer HAS NOT SUED.
What's this about? 3M thought it would be cool to co-opt an existing viral campaign-- they thought they understood how viral messages work, presumably after some whiz kid in the board room gave a power point about this cool new thing called viral marketing, which is dirt cheap and has amazing reach.. They thought it would be just a real neat coup if they hijacked an existing viral meme, if they cut out and gave the proverbial finger to the guy who started the whole thing should he ask for more than peanuts, and if the same people who were into the meme initially would continue to spread their message for them virally, for free. Go ahead and take a dump on the community; those viral folks just love that.
They thought they grokked viral messaging, but they didn't. Epic PR fail for 3M. That's what this is about, and that's all. - bieber, on 09/17/2008, -2/+8Especially considering their photograph is probably much better than his, having been professionally produced, rather than just recording an office prank...
- se1zure, on 09/17/2008, -1/+7Not sure how he is a sleeze bag. They offered him $1000 to use a photo the guy took. He said no, so they made their own car for less than the guy wanted.
- mattampd, on 09/17/2008, -0/+6This wasn't just another car covered with Post-Its. They recreated that particular photo... when they easily could have done something completely different. Anyone saying the creator was greedy is dumb.
- whatrocks11, on 09/17/2008, -1/+7So, wait... how can anyone say 3M did NOT rip this guy off, when they REACHED OUT TO HIM to ask permission, then unilaterally decided to use the idea anyway after just one round of negotiations went sour?
The very fact that there was contact between the two parties suggests to me that 3M is in the wrong here. They were obviously inspired by this particular "prank". They got in touch with this guy... then screwed him just to save a grand? Ugh. - Shabadoo, on 09/17/2008, -0/+5Dugg for the perfect dancing Elaine reference. That was awesome.
- crazyhorse13, on 09/17/2008, -0/+5You probably should have thought twice before posting someone's email and cell number for all to see.
- thatsmyaibo, on 09/17/2008, -2/+7Digg is the kingdom of double standard. As far as the consumerist, you have to remember that site is devoted to people who bitch about stuff.
- deeboe, on 09/16/2008, -10/+15How did the "Steal" it? Those two images are very different. Now, tell me they recreated and I would agree and would tell you that you are wasting everyones time. Dont make ***** up to get diggs. Buried.
- redtaboo, on 09/17/2008, -0/+4okay, link to the original article:
http://www.all-about-content.com/2008/09/3m-carjac ... - pyry, on 09/17/2008, -1/+5Submitter is totally sponge-worthy.
- inactive, on 09/17/2008, -0/+4It's IP theft! It's piracy!
It's stealing!
/RIAA/MPAA - Murdats, on 09/17/2008, -1/+5That sounds an awful lot like how apple operates.
I used to work in a department store, and accross the whole store, dvd's,games,clothes,kitchenware,linen,electrical appliances,laptops and so on, apple products were the only thing we sold that had a special return policy, special buying rules and so on. - cobalt8888, on 09/17/2008, -1/+5So they liked somebody's prank that involved their product. Big deal. I didn't know you had to license pranks. Somebody please tell me who to write the check to for all the times I've put saran wrap on the toilet. I apparently owe somebody some royalties for the idea.
- inactive, on 09/17/2008, -0/+4Good link, that's the same article I read redtaboo since I don't particularly trust everything consumerist has to say. Sure the idea's been done but if you scroll down and look at the image on the box of the post it, anybody with a little bit of reasoning and common sense can tell that 3m deliberately copied the concept, pattern, and color scheme from the poor chap and then put a big youtube logo on it to try to promote it in the same way. They didn't even think it was worth paying tribute ($2000) to the original innovation in their multimillion dollar ad campaign. That is ***** low.
Illegal? That's in question right now. Shameful? Hell yes!!!
This article needs to be shared just to put the shame on 3M. If I ever used postits, I'll be sure to boycott it now. - malanic, on 09/16/2008, -3/+7http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/iMedia_PC ...
mgebbie@mmm.com - whatrocks11, on 09/17/2008, -0/+3"30%" different? How did you come up with that figure, exactly?
The guy isn't an idiot; he thought 3M would negotiate in good faith. They basically admitted to using his idea when they contacted him. Then they blow him off. Nice. - quakerwildcat, on 09/17/2008, -0/+3EXACTLY. This isn't about whether 3M has a right to put Post-It's on a car. Nobody is suing them. It's called capitalizing on borrowed interest. 3M wanted shoppers viewing their displays to see the same thing that they'd seen forwarded around on YouTube and Flickr. THAT'S WHY THEY CONTACTED THE PHOTOGRAPHER. In the end, the "e-marketing supervisor" decided it was cheaper and easier to just confuse consumers. Butt if their objective was to make people THINK that they were working with the photographer, then they should work with the photographer.
- thatsmyaibo, on 09/17/2008, -0/+3I always found that funny. When people cover someones car or room in post its who really loses? It takes like 3 days to do an 2 minutes to remove.
- mphung, on 09/17/2008, -0/+3dougmc - yep, they only thought about what they could get away with legally. Plenty of ideas are legal to carry out. Does that make them good ideas?
- mphung, on 09/17/2008, -0/+3Ideas are not copyrightable, but the specific expression of an idea is.
A song about boy meets girl, girl dumps boy, boy is depressed is not something that can be copyrighted. But if you mimic, in a recognizable way, a specific and well-known song whose lyrics are about that concept, then you will in fact get sued for copyright infringement.
This isn't about copying an idea. This is about copying specific expression of that idea. Both the law and public opinion see those two things as different. - NavS, on 09/17/2008, -2/+5it doesn't look even the slightest bit the same... the only thing those two pictures have in common is the care and the post-its.
- jenseits, on 09/17/2008, -0/+3Who cares... the whole debate about whether they *legally* had to get a license is a total red herring. They f****ed up - it's a marketing/PR issue, not a legal issue.
So many people weighing in with their interpretation of IPR law when they clearly can't even tell the difference between a patent and a copyright - ya'll have your heads stuck where the sun don't shine, frankly - but y'all are still completely missing the point, which is this: 3M tried to orchestrate a viral marketing campaign and fubar'd it.
End of story. - inactive, on 09/17/2008, -3/+6The thing that amazes me is the guy actually wanted an outrageous $700-1000 for such a simple idea. I'd do exactly what 3M did. If he were a photographer and made his livelihood from photographing, I'd see it differently. This is just a spur of the moment idea, he should have taken the $700-1000, had an office party with it, and let it be used by 3M. That's way more than it's actually worth even.
- mphung, on 09/17/2008, -0/+3Not only could they have, but they admit that they've done plenty of "cover something with Post-Its" publicity stunts previously... which means they could have used photos from any of their own previous examples. Do they do that? No.
They already owned photos they could have used. Instead they recreate one that went viral -- one they knew would get more attention than their earlier corporate orchestrated ones. - jon02129, on 09/17/2008, -2/+5I think you're missing the fact that they needed _that_ particular photo for a contest they are holding. They wanted to use the photo to basically say "Hey, remember that neat email you got from your coworker with the car covered in post-it notes? We want YOU to be just ask creative!".
They didn't simply want a picture of a car covered in post-it notes for an irrelevant reason, they wanted (or more so, needed) the original picture of which they are referring to (and more than likely got the whole inspiration for the contest from). - jenseits, on 09/17/2008, -0/+3First of all, I don't see him whining, where is he whining?. Unlike you with your fake outrage. What's your beef anyway?
Second of all, how is anything you say relevant? He's not the one who claimed it was creative, 3M is the one who approached him. They're the ones who valued the work. If they didn't value it at the price he offered (either before or after he lowered it) then they were free to go do something else.
People seem so eager to prove their cool, either by pretending they could have done better or worse by pretending they know any of the parties involved where thinking that they're missing the point.
They tried to create some viral advertising. It was lame. They tried to go viral with displays at Staples. Lamer. They tried to save a measly thousand bucks out a campaign that cost many, many more times that by recreating someone else's photos (and YES they are similar enough to fool consumers into thinking theirs are the same) rather than paying or just creating an ORIGINAL idea of their own. Epic Lameness. - SEOhack, on 09/17/2008, -0/+2THANK YOU! I was starting to wonder if I read a different article than everyone else. I don't see where all this talk of the photog's "greed" or "stupidity" come into play - it's about them trying to make interweb gold off of someone else's success.
3M started the discussion and ended the discussion without even a response to the photographer's counter offer. It's as arrogant as it is ****ty. - tghd, on 09/17/2008, -0/+2If this is true than he has a case, if not 3M will be in the right. Unfortunately, 3m is probably going to come out the victor regardless of any of this.
- theojanke, on 09/17/2008, -2/+43M is getting a lot more publicity from Consumerist writing this article than they would have even received from the advertisement by itself.
You know what they say: "Any publicity is good publicity." - whatrocks11, on 09/17/2008, -0/+2Yeah, this is a silly argument. They took the guy's idea, and couldn't pony up $2000? Worse yet, they didn't even bother negotiating after the original offer.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is