Please AT&t can add any disclaimer they want but anyone who had the oppoortunity to see “The Gates” know’s that was the same concept. The commercial is of the The Gates plain and simple. I waited for hours to see the moving installation at Central Park. It’s a shame that they needed to rip off the artist, don’t they have their own artistic department? Shame on AT&T.

I do agree with you, which is what came up when I first saw this tvc. What’s a shame! BBDO.

This was such a blatant “Gates”esque ad I assumed it was licensed or done in collaboration. It wasn’t until the 5th time I saw it did I read the “Disclaimer”. Shitty al the way around – AT&T/BBDO

The artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude don’t own the color orange. ATT was using it for years. Strange how people have to associate things. SO if some one painted a canvas orange they would be copying them.

the christo part is so bad, no one is even mentioning the blasphemous editing of ‘from the morning’

I am so glad to see someone addressed this.
Every time the commercial airs (even with the legal disclaimer which I instantly noticed, but am glad they included), I am stunned they actually conceived of, executed and produced this… despite the old adage that “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”.

While lots of television commercials “borrow” from fine art (remember the Sony Bravia Kozydan Bunnies debacle? http://ifitshipitshere.blogspot.com/2007/10/sony-bravias-bunnies-rip-off-you-tell.html), this is just simply a little too close… given the fabric, the color and the fact that they are ‘draping’ a city and monuments, all of which are attributes of Jeanne-Claude Christo’s work.

The second I saw it I thought it was a Cristo/Claude installation. Then realized it was a commercial for AT&T. What crap. They could have at least used a different color.

It’s not the gates. I don’t see the connection at all (except the similar color). It’s much more like Christo’s The Pont Neuf Wrapped except BBDO’s is more of a kinetic art performance (and a different color).

When something that you’ve done becomes so instantly recognizable that it becomes part of culture it’s an honor. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery after all. Should AT&T have paid them? Yes. Will this commercial bring about publicity and stir up interest in the artist? Yes. They did not directly copy a work of his, they used his concept. An artist to transcend the realm of miss understood to recognizable mass media is a major accomplishment.

Bill: “Gates” is just the most recent example of their work. They’ve covered entire buildings and bridges over the past decades, which is exactly what AT&T is doing in their commercials.

It’s an homage and the fact that it’s about coverage (something that Christo has done several times, Louvre, Islands, etc.) makes it completely sensible to ape Christo in the ad. It makes sense they would use Orange because that’s AT&T’s signature color.

I think the problem here is that it’s a corporation or an ad firm doing it. If it were a parody on SNL, no one would have a problem. It’s when money changes hands where the problem starts.

I think that since Christo’s work is in the public consciousness and part of Pop Culture, that this “moment” or comment on coverage is fine. Sure you can call it a ripoff, but I think that it actually brings Christo’s name to the forefront more and that can’t be a bad thing, right?

Brody: Yes, that is my point – The Gates is not covering anything except its own work. The BBDO piece actually bears the most resemblance to my high school piece “Friends House Wrapped in Toilet Paper” and I should be given the credit as well as current and future residuals.

@Von Dada:
If you’re an artist and a corporation attaches your signature imagery to their brand – without your permission or renumeration – then yes, that certainly can be a bad thing. The point really isn’t whether or not the commercial brings more attention to Christo and Jeanne Claude – if that happens, great, but that doesn’t excuse AT&T for co-opting Christo and Jeanne Claude’s decades-long body of work for their own commercial gain. And for you apologists who are claiming that there’s little or no resemblance to Christo’s work or defending AT&T because “Christo doesn’t own the color orange,” educate yourselves: if AT&T’s own legal department recognized the similarity, so should you.

There is always ambiguity and of course they can’t own the color orange.
—
What tipped the scales toward plagiarism for me was the roll of orange fabric falling from the St. Louis Arch. I worked on “The Gates” installation crew while in graduate school and the method of Christo’s “unveiling” was identical.
—
The AT&T spot was made in bad taste and in bad faith.
—
If AT&T wants to make good they should advocate for approval of Christo’s last unrealized project called “Over The River,” a temporary installation of fabric spanning a 20 mile stretch of the Arkansas River in Colorado.
—
That would honor Jeanne-Claude’s memory. It’s the only thing Christo wants in the world.
http://www.christojeanneclaude.net/otr.shtml

Does anyone know of any petitions to attempt to convince AT&T to pay Christo (and Jeanne Claude, rest in peace)?

I don’t see the resemblance, sure the color and material are the same but the context and story are completely different. To be different or altered from a patent or such things there only needs to be a 10% change. In fact the AT&T’s add is more clever and appealing then Christo’s work. Even if Christo’s work influenced AT&T add it is a great honor for Christo, his work is mainly odd and unnecessary and being introduced to a functional useful means is applaudable. Not an issue for people rebelling against AT&T. There are many people out there who hate on large companies, but in all respects they are providing a key service.

Randy,

If you had experienced “The Gates” you wouldn’t say that AT&T’s advertisement is more clever, nor would you claim it’s an HONOR for Christo to be ripped-off like that. “The Gates” brought our city together and got everyone talking about something other than crime or The Yankees. And it was a refreshing gentle spectacle to behold after 9/11. Some even consider it a rebirth.

It is certainly your right not to like Christo’s work, but to claim that a 30 second CGI TV spot is more appealing than one of the most massive public art installations of all time is just ignorant.

This is only one reason I would not use AT&T. Lawsuit should follow……disclaimer is not sufficient…..sue the idiots!!!!!

Sorry to be obtuse, but did ATT really drape these buildings, or was this some sort of computer graphics/Photoshop deal?

@Randy:

Where to start, where to start. You’re right, of course, that the context and story are completely different: Christo and Jean Claude weren’t trying to sell cellular service. And your contention that art is elevated when co-opted for commercial advertising – that art is only “useful” when serving corporate shareholders – is saddening. That fact that Christo’s work is both “odd and unnecessary” is exactly what makes it beautiful. And while I won’t disagree that many people tend to use corporations as convenient scapegoats, I can only wonder why you would ever maintain that they provide “a key service in all respects.” Have you picked up a newspaper in the past, I don’t know, ten years?

As an aside, it simply isn’t true that a derivative work need only be 10% different “from a patent or such things.” Patent law isn’t germane in this case; U.S. copyright law, however (which I believe applies automatically to anything Christo created in the U.S. after 1978) protects the original work from copies that are “substantially similar.” Percentages have nothing to do with it. (Do you think you could alter just 10% of a Stephen King novel and publish it as your own original work? Of course not.)

@M H Myers:

I believe the commercial was some combination of live footage and CG effects, but no, I don’t think they actually draped the buildings.

Excuse me, I meant to say Jeanne-Claude, not Jean Claude.

Draping as art has been around for millennia, and so has the color orange. They are not original to Christo and Jeanne-Claude. The duo were not the first to use it, and they will not be the last. You’re being too sensitive and haughty.

If I have to hear that song one more time I will scream, can anyone understand the lyrics? I saw the disclaimer and no that isn”t enough, but patent law is way beyond
me—I just hate the dam song!

@John Todd:

By that dubious logic, you could reduce any body of work to its constituent parts and claim that since those individual parts were preexisting, no one could claim rights to work created with them. Painters could retain the rights to their work only if they invented new colors, musicians new notes, authors new words. The argument is absurd.