\n<\/p>\n
A new ad from Under Armour featuring boxer Anthony Joshua has come under fire from creatives on Instagram after its director claimed it as the \u201cfirst Ai-powered sports commercial\u201d \u2014 but critics in the industry say it blatantly reused others\u2019 work without credit as part of an AI hype cycle cash grab.<\/p>\n
Director Wes Walker posted the spot, along with several variations and riffs, on Instagram earlier this week<\/a>, saying: \u201cUnder Armour asked us to build a film from nothing but existing assets, a 3D model of Anthony Joshua and no athlete access. This piece combines Ai video, Ai photo, 3D CGI, 2D VFX, Motion graphics, 35mm film, digital video and advances in Ai voiceover. Every current Ai tool was explored and pushed to the maximum.\u201d [I have left \u201cAI\u201d as \u201cAi\u201d throughout.]<\/p>\n Seen on its own, the ad is not in itself objectionable. Live footage is intercut with 3D models, landscapes, and abstract scenes, all rendered in contrasty monochrome.<\/p>\n Walker claimed that the whole thing was done in three weeks flat, which is quite short for a major brand and athlete, and noted of the reliance on AI that \u201cKey in this industry shift is that we stay true to the core of what we\u2019re here to do \u2013 tell powerful stories and uplift the human soul with beautiful, provocative and interesting visions\u2026Ai will integrate into our workflows in ever evolving ways \u2026 but the heart and the mind that peer behind the veil and doors of perception \u2026 is still and will always be ours.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cOurs,\u201d however, may have been an overstatement. While this is all be quite run of the mill self-promoting pablum, as one often finds in such captions, the director was quickly taken to task by other creatives who pointed out that his ad in large part repackaged another\u2019s work \u2014 and much more difficult and valuable work at that.<\/p>\n The caption says that 35mm was a part of this \u201cmixed media\u201d production. What probably should have been said is there was an entire existing but unmentioned film-based production<\/a>, directed by Gustav Johansson<\/a> two years ago. \u201cCool film, But all the stuff with athlete is shot by Andr\u00e9 Chementoff and from a commercial I did?\u201d asked Johansson in a comment.<\/p>\n It looks really good! But neither creator was initially credited in the caption, a professional courtesy that costs nothing and would have much more honestly represented who actually created the images seen here.<\/p>\n Johansson, Chementoff, and others showed up in the comments incensed not that their work had been used (it\u2019s inevitable in commercials) but that it was seemingly just redeployed as a cost-cutting measure and credit taken without acknowledging their contribution.<\/p>\n In an apparently now-deleted comment, Walker says that they did ask for access to Joshua, but \u201cwere rejected several times. UA had limited time, limited budget, 3 weeks from ideation to delivery\u2026 Timeline, budget, access, and the realities of production are all real and highly limiting concerns with commercials of this level.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cUA get to do what they want with the footage of course but slippery slope you as a creative saying it\u2019s AI when it actually humans behind it? AI has nothing to do with it really, it\u2019s more how you choose to label and promote your work [is] even more important when times are shifting,\u201d wrote Johannson in conversation with Walker.<\/p>\n \u201cThe future is brands training Ai on their products, athletes, aesthetics + repurposing existing footage bases + using Ai to do more with less in less time,\u201d wrote Walker. (After arguing for some time, he did relent and successfully petitioned to have credits for them and others added to the post.)<\/p>\n This perspective had creatives from around the industry coming out of the woodwork to decry what they perceived as another step down the road of AI not replacing what they do but being used by companies to take advantage of them. While there is an expectation that commercial work will be abused and reused to some extent, they pointed out there is a vast gulf between shooting stock footage or everyday stuff, and being commissioned to create a film with a unique treatment and creative vision \u2014 but both are being treated as raw material<\/a> by brands.<\/p>\n Wrote cinematographer Rob Webster<\/a>: \u201cIf times are shifting, surely it\u2019s the responsibility of creatives to resist changes that allow agencies and brands to steal work from colleagues without appropriate credit\u2026. The use of this technology is inevitable but the application of it, and discourse around it is very much in our hands.\u201d<\/p>\n Video production firm Crowns and Owls<\/a>: \u201cIf you\u2019re somebody that shoots for Shutterstock then you know you\u2019re handing over work with the literal purpose behind it being re-use\/recyclability. There\u2019s a fundamental difference if you did a commercial three years ago and then it\u2019s kept on a hard drive by a brand just so they can wheel it out and bastardise it whenever they don\u2019t have \u201ctime or budget\u201d, which let\u2019s be honest, is almost always and will be increasingly so.<\/p>\n \u201cThe legality is the legality \u2013 corporate worlds will always thrive in the grey area, but there\u2019s a blatant artistic moral coding that\u2019s been overstepped here, and it signifies a pivotal moment. The change is already underway. As artists, now more than ever we must prove our worth and we must be in dialogue.\u201d<\/p>\n