ok...well first of all, i want to state something before i go into anything. i am not a mac fanboy. i use macs, and i do think they are more productive than windows for what i do. there is a critical difference between people who use macs for a reason and love them for THAT reason, and people who just love macs cos they think they are great.

the argument i want to make is about the recent intel ad that apple made for their new intel based computers. this was posted on the Postal Service website (Postal Service is the band that everyone thinks the intel ad is very much similar to):

It has recently come to our attention that Apple Computers' new television commercial for the Intel chip features a shot-for-shot recreation of our video for 'Such Great Heights' made by the same filmmakers responsible for the original. We did not approve this commercialization and are extremely disappointed with both parties that this was executed without our consultation or consent. -Ben Gibbard, The Postal Service

let's clarify something. "a shot-for-shot recreation" means just that, either an exact copy of it, or footage meant to replicate the same image, shot-for-shot. the mac + intel ad is not a shot-for-shot reproduction. in fact, of the two, there is probably only 3 scenes that remotely indicate similarity. firstly, Ben Gibbard of The Postal Service, do not make such a rash claim, such as apple making a shot-for-shot reproduction.

firstly, the videos would have to be the same length to be a reproduction. why?...because the definition of "reproduction" is: 'the action or process of making a copy of something'. a "copy" is 'a thing made to be similar or identical to another'. your video is much longer than the 35 second ad apple had made. secondly, of the 140 odd different scenes you had in your video, approximately 3 resemble some similarity to it from the apple commercial. this by no means constitutes a "shot-for-shot recreation".

thirdly, the party that made both your video and apple's commercial has the free right to use their idea as many times as they want, as they are the intellectual owner of the idea. I assume you hold the copyright to the work produced, as US copyright law states "In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author", and while you may have copyright over the work produced, you are not able to hold copyright over the idea used. The idea or concept for the video is the copyright of the author who came up with the concept. why you cannot lay claim to that is illustrated in the following example: a company is preparing a new logo. there are several proofs for that logo and a decision is made upon the final one to be used. all other ideas and concepts are not copyrighted to the logo copyright owner. therefore, ideas or derivatives may be used for other companies, as they were not bought or copyrighted in the name of the company acquiring the logo. hence, the work produced in your situation, the video, is your copyright. you may lay claim to copyright infringement if there is a copy made. but there is not. 3 of approximately 140 scenes bearing some similarity does not indicate copying, and definately does not inidicate a "shot-for-shot recreation".

basically when it comes down to it, Ben Gibbard, nobody cares whether or not you "approve this commercialization" or not, and certainly nobody cares if you are disappointed with any parties involved with the making or ownership of the mac + intel advertisement. nobody needs your consent or to even consult with you. you hold no legal right to have any say in the matter either as you, as expressed above, do not hold any copyright over a particular scene that occurs in the natural world (which appear in your video) and no copyright has been violated.