New ad from Under Armor featuring boxer Anthony Joshua has come under fire from creatives on Instagram after its director claimed it was the “first Ai-powered sports commercial” — but industry critics say it blatantly reused other people’s work without credit as part of an AI hype circular cash grab.
Director Wes Walker posted the spot, along with several variations and riffs, on Instagram earlier this week, saying: “Under Armor asked us to make a film out of existing assets, a 3D model of Anthony Joshua and no athlete access. This track combines Ai video, Ai photography, 3D CGI, 2D VFX, motion graphics, 35mm film, digital video and advances in Ai voice signal. Every current Ai tool was explored and pushed to the limit.” [I have left “AI” as “Ai” throughout.]
By itself, advertising is not in itself objectionable. Live footage is combined with 3D models, landscapes and abstract scenes, all rendered in monochrome contrast.
Walker claimed that the whole thing was done in three weeks, which is very short for a major brand and athlete, and noted that the reliance on artificial intelligence is that “The key to this transformation of the industry is that we stay true to the core of what we do.” you are here to do – tell powerful stories and uplift the human soul with beautiful, challenging and interesting visions… Ai will be integrated into our workflows in ever-evolving ways… but the hearts and minds that look behind the veil and doors of perception… it is still and always will be ours.”
“Ours,” however, may have been an exaggeration. While this is all pretty much the stuff of the self-promoting mill you often find in such captions, the director quickly came under fire from other creatives who pointed out that his ad was largely repackaging someone else’s work — and much harder and valuable work on this.
The caption says the 35mm was part of this “mixed media” production. What should probably be said is that there was one of the entire existing but unmentioned film productiondirected by Gustav Johansson two years ago. “Nice movie, but all the athlete stuff is shot by André Chementoff [Chemetoff ] and from a commercial I did?’ Johansson asked in a comment.
It looks very good! But none of the creators were initially credited in the caption, a professional courtesy that costs nothing and would have given a much more honest representation of who actually created the images shown here.
Johansson, Chemetoff and others appeared in the comments outraged not that their work was being used (it’s inevitable in ads), but that it was seemingly just used as a cost-cutting measure and credit taken without acknowledging their contributions.
In an apparently now-deleted comment, Walker says they did request access to Joshua, but “were turned down several times. UA had limited time, limited budget, 3 weeks from concept to delivery… Timeline, budget, access and the reality of production are all real and extremely limiting concerns for ads of this level.”
“UAs can do whatever they want with the hardware, of course, but does the slipperiness make you say it’s AI when there are actually humans behind it? AI has nothing to do with it really, it’s more how you choose to label and promote your work [is] even more important when times change,” Johansson wrote in conversation with Walker.
“The future is brands training Ai for their products, athletes, aesthetics + redefining existing footage bases + using Ai to do more with less in less time,” Walker wrote. (After arguing for some time, he relented and successfully asked to have credits for them and others added to the post.)
That prospect prompted creatives across the industry to decry what they perceived as yet another step in artificial intelligence that doesn’t replace what they do, but is used by companies to exploit them. While there is an expectation that commercial work will be misused and reused to some extent, they pointed out that there is a huge gap between shooting or everyday materials and being commissioned to create a film with a unique edit and creative vision — but both are addressed as raw material from the brands.
He wrote director of photography Rob Webster: “If times are changing, surely it is the responsibility of creatives to resist changes that allow companies and brands to steal work from colleagues without proper credit…. The use of this technology is inevitable, but its implementation and the conversation around it is very much in our hands.”
Video production company Crowns and owls: “If you’re someone who shoots for Shutterstock, then you know that you’re delivering work with a literal purpose behind it to be reused/recycled. There’s a fundamental difference if you did an ad three years ago and then it’s kept on a hard drive by a brand just so they can pull it out and flaunt it whenever they don’t have ‘time or budget’, which let’s be honest. it almost always is and will increasingly be.
“Legality is legality – corporate worlds will always thrive in the gray area, but there’s a blatant artistic moral code that’s been crossed here and it’s a watershed moment. Change is already underway. As artists, now more than ever we have to prove our worth and we have to be in dialogue.”
Produced by Elise Tyler he asks, “When you see the original, you start to understand why this conversation had to happen in the first place. Why didn’t they reassign the original director? Why would a new director make an ungodly by most standards daily wage to “direct” this? They didn’t need crew, they didn’t need locations, they didn’t need craft… Filmmakers need to stand together as we traverse this new AI landscape. Don’t turn a blind eye and say “but it’s the future!” “
Director Ivan Vaccaro epitomized what may be the creatives’ last resort: denial. “Saying no to a client and a company is the most powerful creative and human tool we can have. Something that no artificial intelligence will ever achieve.”
While Walker and his production may be the villain of the week, they are not unique in their approach, and indeed it may not stop with him accepting a job that may or may not be ethical, but with Under Armor that rushes quickly. turn to take advantage of the AI madness. Perhaps they underestimated the passion of creators whose analog and human-centered processes produce truly original and compelling content.
