Creative individuals from Instagram have expressed a problem with a recent Under Armour advertisement starring a boxer, Anthony Joshua. The filmmaker of the video stated it was the initial athletic commercial driven by artificial intelligence (AI). Still, detractors in the field argue it simply copied work from other individuals without giving credit, apparently as a component of a money-grabbing Technology hype loop.
A few days ago, filmmaker Wes Walker shared a video on Instagram featuring a few different takes and variations. He wrote, “Under Armour requested him to create a film using only the current resources, such as a three-dimensional representation of Anthony Joshua and not having any athlete access.” This work incorporates motion graphics, digital video, 35mm film, three-dimensional computer-generated imagery, motion-capturing photos, and advancements in artificial intelligence voiceover. Every available artificial intelligence tool was investigated and optimized.
When viewed separately, the advertisement is not offensive. Live footage is blended with contrasty monochromatic models in 3D, panoramas, and conceptual settings.
Walker stated that the process took only three weeks, which is impressive for an established company and athlete. Walker also mentioned the industry shift’s dependency on artificial intelligence and noted it’s important to stick to our core values of telling compelling stories and inspiring people with thought-provoking, captivating visions. Artificial intelligence will incorporate itself into our processes in ever-changing ways. However, the emotions and intelligence that look through the doors and curtain of vision will always always and forever belong to us.
Our version, nonetheless, might have been exaggerated. It is a straightforward self-promotional pablum that one frequently sees in these captions. Still, other creative professionals swiftly called the director out, pointing out that his advertisement essentially recycled someone else’s work and made a far more challenging and meaningful effort to do so.
According to the description, this “combined media” production included 35mm. Gustav Johansson directed a film-based production that existed but was not acknowledged two years earlier. Johansson remarked, “Nice movie, but André Chementoff [Chemetoff] filmed everything with the athletes along with an advertisement I made.”
It appears excellent! However, at first, no creator received acknowledgment in the caption—a professional courtesy that is completely free and would have far more accurately indicated who took the pictures that are displayed here.
Not because their efforts were being used—which happens in commercials—but rather because it appeared to have been simply redistributed as a minimizing expenses strategy, and acknowledgment was extracted without giving due credit—Johansson, Chemetoff, and other commenters expressed their displeasure in the section for comments.
Walker claims they requested permission to speak with Joshua but were repeatedly denied in an allegedly now-deleted statement. UA only had three weeks from conception to delivery, a small budget, and restricted time… For ads of this caliber, financial resources, time accessibility, and reality production are all significant and severely limiting factors.
UA is free to use the film in any way they choose, but as a creative, how can you refrain from giving credit where credit goes to individuals since humans truly do the work? Johansson stated in an interview with Walker, ”AI has nothing to do with it. Rather, it is more about deciding what to call and advertise what you do. It represents even more crucial when circumstances are shifting.”
Walker stated that implementing artificial intelligence to achieve more with less in a shorter period would involve brands training it on their athletes, products, and aesthetics and repurposing already-existing footage bases. He continued his argument for a while before giving up and eventually petitioning to have their and other people’s credits included in the blog.
Creatives from all over the industry emerged in response to this viewpoint, protesting what they saw as another step towards artificial intelligence not replacing human labor but instead being exploited by businesses. They noted a big difference between receiving permission to make a film with a distinctive approach and creative vision and shooting existing footage or common items. Although commercial productions are expected to be misused and repurposed to a certain extent, they are viewed as raw stuff by brands.
Cinematographer Rob Webster wrote: “If circumstances are changing, creatives should resist changes that permit companies and brands to use content created by colleagues without giving proper credit.” Technology will be used, but how we use it and discuss it is entirely up to us.
Crowns and Owls is a production media company. If you shoot for Shutterstock, you are aware that the work you turn in has the explicit goal of being reusable or recyclable. There is a major distinction if you produced an advertisement several years before and the company keeps it on file so they can use it and trash it anytime they have no “time or funding,” that, we’re going to face it, has become a situation businesses will find themselves in with increasing regularity.
Legislation is legislation; corporate environments will always flourish in an ethically ambiguous area, but this is a critical moment where a clear artistic moral code has been crossed. The shift has already started. More than ever, our creators are responsible for demonstrating our value and participating in discussions.
Producer Elise Tyler inquires: After watching the original, it is easy to figure out why this discussion has to start sooner rather than later. Why did they not simply appoint the initial director once more? Why did a newly appointed director charge an outrageous day rate—by most measures—to “direct” this? They had no need of a crew, no need to find a location, no need for a craft, etc. As we explore this revolutionary AI environment, filmmakers must unite. Don’t overlook it. Ignore it by saying, “Unfortunately, it is tomorrow!”
As director Ivan Vaccaro put it, rejection is the last option for creatives. Our most effective creative and human resource is the ability to say no to both a customer and an agency, Which artificial intelligence will never accomplish.
Walker and his creations might be the week’s villains, but they are not original in their methods. In fact, Under Armour bears some of the blame for hurrying a quick turnaround to cash in on the AI craze rather than Walker for taking work that could either be or not be morally right. They should have judged the creators’ enthusiasm, whose distinctly analog and human-centered methods yield unique and captivating content.
