Physics lecture cribbed for TV commercial

MIT quantum computing researcher Scott Aaronson reports that the actors' lines in an Australian TV commercial for Ricoh Printers were lifted right from one of his physics lectures available online. On YouTube, the ad is credited to the agency LOVE. In the commercial, two fashion models are discussing quantum mechanics. From the TV commercial:

Model 1: But if quantum mechanics isn’t physics in the usual sense – if it’s not about matter, or energy, or waves – then what is it about?

Model 2: Well, from my perspective, it’s about information, probabilities, and observables, and how they relate to each other.

Model 1: That’s interesting!

And from Aaronson's Lecture 9 from his class Quantum Computing Since Democritus:

But if quantum mechanics isn’t physics in the usual sense – if it’s not about matter, or energy, or waves, or particles – then what is it about? From my perspective, it’s about information and probabilities and observables, and how they relate to each other.

Link (site currently down) to Scott Aaronson's blog, Link to YouTube video , Link to Aaronson's lecture (via Scientific American, thanks JR Minkel!)

• [54N71460]

  … and the guys who think this stuff up call themselves CREATIVES (really, thats their job title)!

• [MadMolecule]

  By the way, it’s entirely possible that the professor doesn’t own the copyright in the lecture anyway. A lecture prepared by a professor is almost certainly a “work for hire,” in which case MIT would own the copyright.

  17 U.S.C. sec 101 defines a work for hire, in part, as “a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment.” In law school I had a few conversations with my Cyberlaw professor about this, and it appears that lectures are works for hire under the statute.

  So while the lecture was cribbed, Aaronson likely doesn’t have standing to enforce the copyright law; MIT would have to do that.

• [Merc]

  … and the guys who think this stuff up call themselves CREATIVES (really, thats their job title)!

  Yeah, they used someone else’s words, but the content of those words didn’t really matter. They were essentially technobabble to get across the (imho creative) idea “smart models”. It’s too bad they didn’t ask for permission or give any credit, but it’s not like the commercial hinges on the words they’re saying. It’s really not much different than taking a small audio clip from a movie and using it in a song, or even reusing the Wilhelm scream over and over again.

  Look at the bright side — this is probably the only time you’re ever going to hear a scientifically accurate discussion of quantum mechanics on TV.

• [dculberson]

  Man, people sure do react funny.

  Read and re-read the title and content of this Boing Boing post. Do you see any concrete value judgments? I don’t. I’d like you to point them out if you do.

  [mutter, mutter]

• [54N71460]

  I was referring more to the whole (imho) lameness of the spot, from the concept to the realization than to the fact that the (I guess that’s why they call it) copy of the ad was lifted from some physics lecture.
  But I have to admit, my post was heavily fuelled by the general hostility I feel towards the advertising industry. I used to work in ads, for a production company, not an agency, and I really got to hate it.

• [Eric Norman]

  Attribution is expected when exercising fair use rights.

  This seem more like a case of plagiarism.

• [Javier Candeira]

  I saw the ad on TV with my girlfriend, who is a researcher and also teaches Quantum Physics at university, and we looked at each other in complete incredulity. The ad just doesn’t work, and not because models can’t be smart, or read Physics textbooks for fun, but because the writing is incompetent. That exchange is completely stilted in any setting, be it a fashion show, a Physics faculty or our bathroom (I have been known to accost her with asinine questions about QM).

  Now, have the models be at the makeup station, sipping a diet drink, in their dressing gowns, with their hair up, and have one of them lift her head from a book and make the question… and the other one retort with a “duh” look (barely taking her eyes from her Nintendo DS)… and it may work, if you rewrite the lines a bit and change the ending. The first one wouldn’t say “that’s interesting” but rather sheepishly repeats the “duh” to herself, or say “of course it is” before plunging back into the book. How to reveal that they are models is up to the director (maybe the makeup guy coming to interrupt them and a wide shot making clear that this is the backstage to a fashion show).

  Scott Aaronson is usually great, but I think he is overreacting a bit. The only reason to raise a stink is not that the two lines were plagiarised (fair use, man), but that the execution is so shoddy as to make the lines (which are great) trite and soulless, and his work is associated to mediocrity.

• [phasor3000]

  This is one of many cases where freely available material on the net is being used by for-profit companies. These guys were just unusually lazy parasites who didn’t bother to change a few words to make it less obvious. You can’t stop this sort of thing without big brother policing and copyright-enforcement tasers, you know…

• [Infinite Jones]

  Another ad that’s been on Australian TV recently that appears to borrow heavily from something else on Youtube is this one:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgNsFFbFfeM

  It’s for a mediocre brand of instant coffee and everything, from the all-in-one-take filming to the ker-razee dance moves to the clothes to the music itself looks just like the OK Go video… it’s a different ad agency but it looks like the creative people are making the most of this cool Youtube website, eh…

• [Merc]

  Blog link is missing, it should be:
  http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=277

  I’d say this might qualify as fair use, especially because it’s a tiny portion of the copyrighted work, and it has a negligible effect on the market for the copyrighted work. It might be nice if they cited him as the source of the dialogue, but I have yet to see a commercial with credits.

  Having said that, there’s always the RIAA approach: They pirated his lecture and stole food right out of his mouth, and as a result his entire tuition at MIT is now useless (since obviously even models now know as much as he does about quantum physics) so he should be compensated for 4 years of tuition at $33,600/year.

  I wonder if he could get the clip taken down off youtube using the DMCA.

• [Setharian]

  “Love Communications: you might just work for us”

• [Robert]

  Perhaps the commercial is parodying his lecture?

  In any case, aren’t boingboingers supposed to be FOR free information sharing?

• [rasimkilic]