Streisand Effect: Apple Gets Concept Renderer To Take Down Concept Art For Being ‘Too Realistic’
from the out-of-the-bag dept
Let’s dial the clock all the way back to 2007 for just a moment. Beyonce was topping the charts with Irreplacable. Nicholas Cage, the greatest actor of all time, helped make National Treasure: Book of Secrets a hit at the box office. And Apple finally settled a years-long lawsuit against a website called Think Secret, which published rumors it came across about what Apple was going to release next. That settlement included a requirement that Think Secret cease publication, despite it having never leaked anything about Apple directly. Instead, it merely published the leaked information it received. And if that sounds like journalism to you, well, you’re not alone.
But the point is that Apple has a long history of litigious behavior when it comes to leaks and those who report on them. On the flipside, Apple has long had a copacetic view of what are referred to as “concept creators.” These are the folks that, with presumably no insider information or leaks, create mockups of Apple products that don’t exist. Sort of like a near-science fiction wishlist for Apple products, if you will. Or even if you won’t; I don’t care, it’s still what they do.
It appears that those two different types of publication may have inadvertently converged when concept creator Antonio De Rosa produced the following image of what he called the “iPhone Air Flip” phone.
De Rosa created that image as a concept. It’s not a real phone… or is it?
See, Apple’s lawyers contacted him and asked him to alter “some of [his] concepts”, which included that one, based on the reporting I’ve seen. They did so, according to these lawyers, because they were concerned that there would be confusion in the public. Not that they wanted De Rosa to cease creating these sorts of concepts, mind you. They just wanted this one changed.
The official explanation is that because De Rosa’s designs are so widely circulated, they “may actually create consumer confusion”. Apple’s lawyers said that, and also said that they didn’t want De Rosa to stop posting; “we’d rather talk through the nuances of the issue and ideally find a reasonable solution that works for everyone.”
According to De Rosa directly, however, the explanation was a little different.
“Too realistic” is really important here, because it is leading that same public Apple was so afraid of confusing to draw a conclusion that sure seems to make sense to me.
But the conspiracy explanation is that De Rosa’s renders are too good not just because of his obvious talent, but because he’s got too close for comfort with some of his renders. The lawyers don’t appear to have singled out any renders in particular, but if I were a betting woman my money would be on the iPhone Air.
If that’s indeed the one that’s got Apple worried, that raises another question: why? It’s possible that the concept is incredibly close to what Apple’s making. But it’s also possible – and funnier –that the concept is so pretty that the real folding iPhone won’t be as exciting.
So there are a lot of unknowns here, obviously. Still, for De Rosa to walk away with the idea that any of his images were “too realistic” for Apple’s tastes doesn’t really comport with its claims of customer confusion, except if the image includes something that the real Apple phone doesn’t.
But either way, look! That image in the post? The same one that is being widely circulated across even more publications now, in true Streisand Effect? Seems to be a whole lot more eyes on De Rosa and his renders than there was before Apple got its lawyers involved.
Filed Under: antonio de rosa, iphone, realistic, renders
Companies: apple
Comments on “Streisand Effect: Apple Gets Concept Renderer To Take Down Concept Art For Being ‘Too Realistic’”
“Too realistic”
If we are being generous, Apple’s lawyers could have been saying “this render is too photo-realistic—we are worried that use of the Apple logo could lead consumers to falsely conclude that the concept depicted is a real product.”
I think this risk is magnified by all the low quality scrapping and social media posts that will strip or mangle the original context.
Streisand Effect: Apple Gets Concept Renderer To Take Down Concept Art For Being ‘Too Realistic’
Apple’s attempt to suppress Antonio De Rosa’s concept render backfired spectacularly. By trying to mitigate “consumer confusion,” they ended up fueling curiosity and drawing even more attention to his designs. The Streisand Effect in action proves once again that overreaching attempts at control often do more harm than good.
Re:
Or, perhaps Apple was hoping for a Streissand effect on this one…
Regardless of what the request actually is, I think I’d just take the Apple logo off and call it a day. I really don’t think the logo should be on there to begin with and I would like to believe that is most likely the real and only problem Apple and their lawyers have with the render. But then again, it would be really easy for the lawyers to just say that.
Sounds like the renderer was on the money, and Apple is scared because the concept art is basically a spoiler.
Intentional?
Maybe Apple intended to invoke the Streisand Effect for the free pre-publicity it would generate, thereby causing the hard-core, “must have the newest thing first” Apple fans to start salivating and forming lines around the Apple stores?
Maybe it is an advertising version of FDR’s saying about politics: “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”
So... Why?
Why would Apple care about “consumer confusion” unless they are planning something similar? And why would they not be at least planning or exploring something similar? There are plenty of rumor sites dedicated to guessing what Apple is thought to be doing.
Or are they worried that when they do introduce their product, this picture may get circulated as theirs by some of the less diligent journalists. The phone does seem to be abnormally thin – leaving the less discerning consumers with unrealistic expectations… which would then result in nuisance lawsuits against Apple in overlawyered America.
However, it does seem Apple is taking a lesson from some video game makers who issue takedown notices over mods and videos – when in doubt, go after your biggest fans.
The "Shit" Sandwich
Our local social group has a term for couching a criticism or negative request between two compliments: The Shit Sandwich. It’s handy in situations like the where you need to make an unpleasant statement or ask, but you want to remain on good terms with the receiving party.
In this case something like:
“Hello Mr. de Rosa,
We at Apple were recently made aware of your creative and expertly rendered concepts of potential future Apple products. While we appreciate your continued enthusiasm and the effort you’ve clearly put into your work, we ask you to please respect the Apple trademarks and branding.
In the case of your art and concepts, the execution of your work is of such a caliber that our marketing and legal department is concerned that there might be confusion among the the public should the images be taken out of context.
Thank you for your consideration, and your continued support of our company, and we hope to have exciting news for you soon!
Apple”
remove the logo and they probably have not recieved a takedown .they could say this is what a new folding phone could look could be from apple or google maybe.
Re:
In the US, Notice and Takedown applies to copyrighted content, not trademarked logos, making your argument facetious.
They want him to change them so when they steal his designs to make their next phone it looks like it was their idea.
Too realistic? He does concept art of terrible design and execution, followed by un-repairability (and threats if you repair anyway), and telling customers how stupid and wrong they are and everything is their fault?
Damn, that’s some next-level concept art.
Next do some concept art of how Apple and it’s lawyers fuck off to hell, i’ll buy a print.
Remember when Apple sued Samsung?
Apple is afraid that if some other company creates a similar looking phone, they won’t be able to claim that their design is original and novel, since the design was already published before Apple disclosed the details of the phone. In other words, this rendering will stop Apple suing companies producing similar looking phones in the future.
I have to object to this characterization, only because I’m not fond of subjective absolutes. However, I am perfectly on board with:
“concept art” of a new iphone. so basically the last iphone in a slightly different color, but still with a shitty 2012 OS?