U2’s GOYB video not quite ready…
The video for “Get On Your Boots” was supposed to premiere today on the Irish Independent web site, but as we all know by now … that didn’t happen.
Still, an unfinished version of the video has managed to somehow leak out online (anyone know where it came from?) and fans are absolutely loving it (with a couple exceptions, of course).
We say “unfinished” because it seems this might be the reason for the delay: There are several scenes in the video where you can see a Getty Images watermark from the photos/images that appear behind the band.
Whoops!
Last 4 posts by m2
- Video: Bono accepts RFK Center award - December 12th, 2009
- Bono + VEVO = Uh-oh - December 9th, 2009
- What do U2 and Mastodon have in common? - December 8th, 2009
- Guess who called me today? - December 3rd, 2009
Ah, the risks of using stock photography…
That seems a little amateurish. To promise the vid to a web site, allow them promote it, and then pull it back at the last minute because somebody didn’t scrub the photos?
I agree Silvrlvr. I bet U2 is pretty angry about the delay. I would not want to be in Courtes’ shoes right now.
The watermark on the stock photo would suggest that the photo was not paid for.
Here’s what I’m guessing happened. They asked for copyright clearances to use the images in the video and not all of those clearances came in time for the premiere, causing the delay. Which means that the blame most likely lays with Getty Images, not Courtes or U2.
Jer, that’s a plausible explanation, but if you didn’t have clearances by today, then it means the video wasn’t finished to show to the Independent, either. Shades of Pop, eh?
Have to say this is a bit of a fiasco and a PR disaster for U2….presumably the video will not be ready to air on ITV @ 11:35 tonight either.
I’ve seen the video. The images flash by so fast that and there’s so much going on that you really can’t see anything. Granted, if I were to watch again I might pick up on it, until this blog I had no idea.
Okay, so a second viewing proves me wrong. The watermarks are really conspicuous.
On a plus side, it looks as though (in the crappy pixelated version at my disposal, at least I think it looks as though) Bono has resurrected the leather pants. And he pulls a few moves that are vaguely reminiscent of MacPhisto’s movements on stage.
The video was NOT REMOVED FOR COPYRIGHT CLEARANCES! A topless woman with strategically placed metals appears exactly 59 seconds into the video. A nipple is visable. The video is being re-edited for all audiences.
It’s very common in design for the production team to locate photos they want to use on stock photo services, place them in the product, and not purchase them until the client has signed off and approved all the images. You do this whether you’re making videos or web sites or any kind of media. I used to do it all the time when building web sites … and if the client didn’t like a certain image, you go back and find a replacement, put it in with the watermark, and wait for approval again. Once you have approval, you go pay for all the images and put the no-watermark images in.
It’s not about copyright or anything like that.
Somewhere in this process, something went wrong. If they were rushing, it’s understandable for something like this to happen. They should be able to redo the video pretty quickly with the final, approved images.
What I don’t understand is where the video came from? If it never appeared on the paper’s site (which it didn’t), someone had to leak it early. Who?
If you wear tinfoil hats and believe in conspiracy theories, then you might wonder if the leak wasn’t done on purpose.
ah BS U2! Show the nipple!
nice video - definitely some sexy women.
gotta thank u2 for conducting this experiment to see how quickly it would spread underground ;D
Bono’s nipple also appears at 2:41, that could be it also
m2 is exactly right. That’s why companies like Veer market themselves to registered users with handy little hooks like “our comp images are X% bigger and have no watermarks!” You still have to pay attention to whether or not the thing is rights-managed or royalty-free, though.
I should also add that all the professional photographers I know have described the stock photo companies in ways that are not safe to reproduce on family-friendly, work-safe sites like this one. Let’s just say that they claim the relationship is not always a fair one. Of course, that might not be true for everyone.
A screen cap is at http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3122/goybscncapoo0.jpg. Just an FYI, must be 18 or over to follow the link.
Is the Edge on fire…in the clouds?
I noticed the watermarks from Getty…. I thought they were there on purpose, that U2 was playing on it while using all those images… ZooTV kinda thing… who owns art/stealing from the thieves. Placemarkers, harumpf! I say keep ‘em, and don’t pay royalties, just to be rock’n'roll about it.
Thanks for the leak, and the nip! Best U2 video in ages.
video can be viewed @ u2jam if your quick
yeah dude its definitely because the nipple
aww..come on! we got to see side-nipple in ‘with or without you’…why not here?
NO NIPPLE ON THE HORIZON
Ah…..fitting isn’t it? It’s always about the nipple. Reminds me of a Superbowl a while back where Janet Jackson was…..
@keir, on the other hand, Getty Images and the other stock companies are professional to deal with, if you do business with them regularly. The Getty web site is super easy to navigate if you have an account with them, and the Getty folks have been good to bloggers over the years.
I also wonder how the “rogue” copy got out. I suspect somebody who had a copy of it and was susequently told to hold onto it might be the culprit. At least two Web sites (the Irish Independent and ITV) would have had an advance look at the vid, since they were both scheduled to post it, and you know something like that would probably get passed round interoffice.
Looks like there were legal issues involved after all. According to U2.com it had to do with the watermarks and “legal issues”: “if you saw that ruff-cut the give-away was the watermark copyright details in some of the images. Turns out there were legal issues involved” And they’re ticked about the leak of the “rogue copy”, so it’s not a conspiracy to amp up the hype for the video, either: “Word is that everyone was pretty fed up about an unfinished bootleg leaking out before the production team had finished their work.”
you can still check it in my blog:
http://www.i-have-heard.blogspot.com
go there and leave a comment