Creatives on Instagram have criticized a new Under Armor ad featuring boxer Anthony Joshua after its director described it as the "first AI-powered sports commercial." However, industry critics say he blatantly repurposed the work of others without credit as part of an AI hype cycle to make money.
"Under Armor asked us to make a movie from nothing but existing assets, a 3D model of Anthony Joshua," director Wes Walker wrote in Instagram, sharing the ad along with variations and riffs. This work combines AI video, AI photography, 3D visual effects, 2D visual effects, motion graphics, 35mm film, digital video, and advances in AI voiceover. All current AI tools have been studied and optimized.
The announcement alone is not a reason for objection. 3D models, landscapes and abstract scenes are interspersed with live images in monochromatic contrast.
Walker stated that everything was completed in three weeks, which is quite short for a major brand and athlete, and noted that "the key in this industry change is that we stay true to the core of what we do," referring to to dependence on AI. «It is our mission to tell impactful stories and uplift the human spirit through engaging, provocative and intriguing visions. The heart and mind that look behind the veil and doors of perception are still here, and will always be ours, even as AI integrates into our workflows in ever-evolving ways.
"Our mission," on the other hand, might have been an exaggeration. While this is all common self-promotion, other creators were quick to criticize the director and point out that his ad largely repackaged someone else's work, making it much more difficult. and valuable work on that.
According to the title, a 35mm section was included in this "mixed media" production. It is likely that it would have been mentioned that two years ago Gustav Johansson He directed all current film production but it is not made. Johansson commented that "the movie was good, but everything related to the athlete was filmed by André Chementoff and from a commercial I did."
It's very nice! However, neither creator was initially credited in the title, a professional courtesy that costs nothing and would have much more truthfully represented who actually created the images seen.
Johansson, Chementoff and others appeared in the comments outraged not because their work had been used (it's inevitable in commercials), but because it was apparently redeployed as a cost-cutting measure and credit was taken without acknowledging their contribution.
Walker claims in a now-deleted comment that they requested access to Joshua, but "were rejected multiple times." Under Armor was short on time and short on money, and they had three weeks from idea to delivery. With commercials at this level, schedule, budget, access, and the realities of production are real and highly limiting concerns.
Even though Under Armor has the ability to manipulate footage, is it a mistake as a creative to claim it's AI when there are actually people involved? Actually, AI has nothing to do with it. Instead, how you choose to label and advertise your work has more to do with it. Johannson wrote in a conversation with Walker that "this is even more important when times change."
Walker wrote that in the future, brands should educate Ai into their products, athletes and aesthetics, as well as reuse existing footage bases and use Ai to do more with less and in less time. After arguing for a while, he relented and successfully requested that credits be included for them and others in the post.
As a result of this perspective, creatives across the industry came out of the woodwork to denounce what they perceived as another step on the path of AI being used by businesses to leverage rather than replace them. While it is expected that commercial work will be used to some extent, they noted that there is a huge gulf between shooting archival or everyday footage and being commissioned to create a film with a unique treatment and creative vision, but both are being addressed. as raw material for brands.
The director of photography Rob Webster wrote. "If times are changing, it is surely the responsibility of creatives to resist changes that allow agencies and brands to steal work from colleagues without proper credit..." The use of this technology is inevitable, but the discourse around it and its application are largely in our hands.
The video production company Crowns and Owls said: “If you work for Shutterstock, then you know that your jobs are meant to be reusable and recyclable. "There's a fundamental difference between making a commercial three years ago and then saving it to a hard drive so they can take it out and bastardize it when they don't have 'time or budget', which, let's be honest, is very common and will continue to be."
«Legality is legality: corporate worlds will always thrive in the gray area, but there is a blatant artistic moral code that has been overstepped here, and that means a turning point. A change is already taking place. As artists, now more than ever we must be in dialogue and prove our worth."
La producer Elise Tyler asks: "When you see the original, you begin to understand why this conversation needed to happen now." Why didn't they hire the original director again? By most daily standards, why would a new director pay an ungodly fee to "direct" this? They required no equipment, accommodation or skills. As we navigate this new AI landscape, filmmakers must stay united. Don't ignore it and simply say: "It's the future!"
The director is Ivan Vaccaro. He summed up refusal as the last resort available to creatives. «The most creative and human tool we can have is to say no to a client and an agency. Something no AI can do.”
Although Walker and his production may be the villain of the week, they are not alone in their approach and, in fact, the blame may not fall on him for taking a job that may or may not be ethical, but on Under Armor for Quickly catch the AI craze. Perhaps they underestimated the enthusiasm of creators whose clearly analog, human-centered processes actually generate original and engaging content.
