A brand new ad from Under Armor, starring boxer Anthony Joshua, has come under fire from creatives on Instagram after the director called it the “first AI-powered sports business” – but critics within the industry say it blatantly uses the work of others as a part of an AI hype bicycle money heist reused without citing the source.
Director Wes Walker posted the spot together with several variations and riffs, on Instagram earlier this week, said: “Under Armor asked us to create a movie using only existing resources, a 3D model of Anthony Joshua and no access to athletes. 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 has been researched and pushed to the utmost.” (I even have left “AI” as “Ai” throughout.)
On its own, the ad isn’t offensive. Live footage is interspersed with 3D models, landscapes and abstract scenes, all rendered in contrasting black and white.
Walker claimed the entire thing was done inside three weeks, which is pretty short for a serious brand and athlete, and remarked on the reliance on AI: “The key to this transformation within the industry is that we’re on the core of it staying true to what we do.” We are here to inform powerful stories and elevate the human soul with beautiful, provocative and interesting visions… AI will integrate into our workflows in ever recent ways… but the center and mind, those that see beyond the veil and doors of perception… endure and can all the time be ours.”
However, “ours” can have been an exaggeration. While that is all pretty standard self-promotional pablum often present in such captions, the director was quickly taken to task by other creatives who identified that his ad was mostly repackaging another person's work – and far harder and harder helpful work on it.
The caption states that 35mm was a part of this “mixed media” production. What probably must have been said is that there was one entire existing but unmentioned film-based productionleaded by Gustav Johansson two years ago. “Cool movie, but all that stuff with athletes was directed by André Chementoff (Chemetoff) and is from a business I did?” Johansson asked in a comment.
It looks really good! But not one of the creators were initially mentioned within the caption, an expert courtesy that costs nothing and would have provided a rather more honest portrayal of who actually created the photographs shown here.
Johansson, Chemetoff, and others expressed anger within the comments not that their work was used (which is inevitable in commercials), but slightly that it gave the impression to be used solely as a cost-cutting measure and as a credit without acknowledging their contribution.
In a comment that appears to have since been deleted, Walker says that although they asked for access to Joshua, they were “refused multiple times.” UA had limited time, limited budget, three weeks from idea to delivery…timescale, budget, access and the realities of production are all real and very limiting concerns with commercials of this level.”
“UA can after all do whatever they need with the footage, but as a creative you're saying it's AI when there are literally humans behind it? AI actually has nothing to do with it, it's more about the way you label and promote your work. This is much more necessary as times change,” Johansson wrote in an interview with Walker.
“The future is for brands to teach Ai on their products, athletes, and aesthetics, repurpose existing footage, and use Ai to do more with less, in less time,” Walker wrote. (After arguing for a while, he finally gave in and successfully applied for credits for her and others to be included within the post.)
This perspective prompted creatives across the industry to talk out and denounce what they said was one other step toward ensuring that AI doesn't replace what they do, but slightly is utilized by corporations to make the most of it. While there’s an expectation that business works will likely be misused and reused to a point, they identified that there’s a big gap between shooting archival footage or on a regular basis things and commissioning a movie with a novel treatment and to create a creative vision – but each are treated as raw materials by brands.
cameraman wrote Rob Webster: “As times change, it’s definitely the responsibility of creatives to withstand changes that allow agencies and types to steal work from colleagues without due recognition…” The use of this technology is inevitable, but its application and the Discussion about this is essentially in our hands.”
Video production company Crowns and owls: “If you’re someone who photographs for Shutterstock, you recognize that you just hand over the work with the literal purpose behind it: reuse/recyclability. There is a fundamental difference if you made a business three years ago after which a brand stores it on their hard disk drive just so that they can put it out and warp it once they don't have the time or budget, and let's face it, This is nearly all the time the case and can turn into the case increasingly often.
“The legality is the legality – corporate worlds will all the time thrive within the gray area, but there’s an obvious artistic morality that’s being transcended here, and that marks a defining moment.” Change is already underway. As artists, now greater than ever we’d like to prove our price and be in dialogue.”
Producer Elise Tyler asks: “When you see the unique, you start to know why this conversation needed to occur already. Why didn't they simply rehire the unique director? Why would a brand new director charge an ungodly day by day fee by most standards to direct this? They didn't need a crew, they didn't need locations, they didn't need tools… filmmakers have to stick together as we navigate this recent AI landscape. Don’t close your eyes and say, “But it’s the long run!” ”
director Ivan Vaccaro summarized what could possibly be the last resort for creatives: rejection. “Saying no to a client and an agency is essentially the most powerful creative and human tool we will have. Something no artificial intelligence will ever achieve.”
While Walker and his production stands out as the villain of the week, they should not unique of their approach, and the truth is the blame may not lie with him for taking a job that will or is probably not ethical, but with Under Armor for hastening U-turn to capitalize on the AI craze. Perhaps they underestimated the eagerness of creators, whose decidedly analog and human-centered processes actually produce original and compelling content.
