Under Armor's new ad featuring boxer Anthony Joshua is under fire from Instagram creators after its director claims it is the “first AI-powered sports commercial,” but industry critics are is a cash grab from the AI hype cycle that some claim is blatantly reusing other people's work without credit.
Director Wes Walker posted the spot on Instagram earlier this week, along with several variations and riffs, saying: “Under Armor asked us to build a film using only existing assets, the 3D model of Anthony Joshua, and without any athlete access. We combined CGI, 2D VFX, motion graphics, 35mm film, and digital video to evolve AI narration. All current Ai tools were considered and utilized to their full potential.” [I have left “AI” as “Ai” throughout.]
If you look at the ad itself, it's not offensive. Live footage is intercut with 3D models, landscapes, and abstract scenes, all rendered in contrasting black and white.
Walker claimed the entire work was completed in three weeks, which is extremely short for a major brand and athlete, and said of the reliance on AI: The task here is to tell powerful stories and uplift the human spirit with beautiful, provocative and interesting visions… AI will continue to be integrated into our workflows in ever-evolving ways… The hearts and minds that look beyond the veil and the door are still… and always will be – ours. ”
However, calling it “ours” may have been an exaggeration. This is all very run-of-the-mill self-promotional pablum, as is often the case with captions like this, but the director points out that most of his ads are repackaged works of others. The job was quickly taken over by other creators. And valuable work there.
The caption says 35mm was part of this “mixed media” production. What probably should have been said is that there was an existing but unmentioned film-based production directed by Gustav Johansson two years ago. “It's a cool movie, but everything about the athletes was shot by Andre Kementov and from the commercials I made?” Johansson asked in the comments.
It looks really good! However, neither author was originally credited in the caption, courtesy of a professional at no cost, and should have given a more honest representation of who actually created the images you see here .
Johansson, Kementov et al. were not outraged that their work was used (as is inevitable in commercials), but that it was simply reused as an obvious cost-cutting measure, without acknowledging their contribution. He made an angry comment that his accomplishments had been taken away from him.
In a comment that appears to have been deleted, Walker said he had asked for access to Joshua but was “refused several times.” UA had limited time, a limited budget, and he only had three weeks from idea to delivery…The realities of timelines, budget, access, and production are all realistic and extremely difficult for a commercial of this level. It's a limiting concern. ”
“Of course, UA can do whatever it wants with the footage, but is it dangerous for you as a creative to say it’s AI when there’s actually a human behind it? has nothing to do with it, but rather how you choose to label and promote your work. [is] Even more important when times are changing,” Johansson wrote in a conversation with Walker.
“The future will see brands training AI on their products, athletes, and beauty, reusing existing footage bases, and using AI to do more in less time.” writes Walker. (After some bickering, he relented and successfully petitioned to add their own credits and other people's posts.)
From this point of view, industry creators openly denounce what they see as another step on the path of AI, where it is used by companies to leverage AI rather than replace its functions. Did. While it is to be expected that commercial work will be subject to some degree of abuse and reuse, there is a difference between shooting stock footage and everyday objects and being commissioned to make films that have a unique treatment and creative vision. They pointed out that there is a huge gap between, but both. The brand treats it as an ingredient.
Cinematographer Rob Webster writes: “If times are changing, it is certainly the responsibility of creators to resist changes that allow agencies and brands to steal work from their colleagues without proper credit… Although the use of this technology is inevitable, , its application and discussion about it are in our hands.”
Video Production Company Crowns and Owls: “If you shoot for Shutterstock, you know that we're literally taking over the business with reusability/recyclability in mind. , there's a fundamental difference when that commercial is stored by a brand on a hard drive so that it can be brought out and pranked whenever it doesn't have the “time or budget.” To be honest, it's almost always the case, and it will continue to be the case more and more.
“Legality is legality. The corporate world always thrives in gray areas, but here the artistic code of morality has been overstepped, and it marks a pivotal moment. Change has already begun. As artists, we have to prove our worth and engage in dialogue now more than ever.”
asks producer Elise Tyler. “If you watch the original version, you'll understand why this conversation had to happen already. Why didn't they ask the original director again? Why for a new director to 'direct' this?” , pay a per diem that is unreasonable by most standards? There was no need for film crews, locations, or artifacts… Filmmakers must come together as they traverse this new AI environment. Please stop turning a blind eye and saying, “But that's the future!” ”
Director Ivan Vaccaro summed up what may be a creator's last resort: refusal. “Saying no to a client or agency is the most powerful creative and human tool we have. This is something that artificial intelligence can never achieve.”
Walker and his production company may be the villains of the week, but their approach is far from unique, and it certainly doesn't stop him from getting paid for taking on jobs that may or may not be ethical. , Under Armor is paying off for rushing. A turnaround to take advantage of the AI boom. Perhaps they underestimated the passion of creators whose decidedly analog and human-centered processes actually produced original and engaging content.