Independent filmmaker accuses Malia Obama of ripping off her movie for Nike commercial
Director Natalie Jasmine Harris claimed Obama ripped off a scene from her recent short film "Grace" in which two characters play "pat-a-cake" in her Nike commercial, starring WNBA star A'ja Wilson. Harris maintains that Obama ripped off the "cinematic tools" used to shoot the childhood game.
"Initially, I was disappointed and hurt — not just for myself but for my entire team," Harris told Business Insider.
Michelle Obama Says The 'Ultimate Job' For A Parent Is To Let Kids Fail And Build Resilience
Obama's Nike commercial, "Teaching the Pro," features a young girl explaining the complex choreography of a customized game of "pat-a-cake" to Las Vegas Aces Center A'ja Wilson as she initially struggles to keep up.
Harris, 27, claimed that the camera angles, shots, framing and even the color palette used in the ad echoed a similar scene from "Grace," which she described as a "Black Southern Gothic short about a girl who's being baptized and questioning her feelings for her best friend."
Read On The Fox News App
"If they wanted these shots that were similar to my shots, why not hire me to direct?" Harris asked Business Insider.
Harris claimed she met Obama, 26, at a directors' brunch and other events at Sundance 2024, where their short films "Grace" and "The Heart," respectively, were in competition. Obama, who goes by Malia Ann professionally, was also a writer on the Amazon Prime series "Swarm."
Female Athletes Direct Pointed Messages Toward Nike In New Ad
The "Grace" director said her experience speaks to a larger frustration that big brands aren't willing to provide opportunities to burgeoning filmmakers. She said that brands' reluctance to take a chance on unknown filmmakers results in a loss of innovative films and original storytelling.
"The route that used to work for the Spike Lees and Steven Spielbergs of the world feels less viable today. If we're continuously overlooked, how is the next generation of filmmakers going to exist?" Harris told Business Insider.
Harris has enjoyed her fair share of commercial work, shooting spots for Verizon and Hyundai. Her student film "Pure" was purchased by HBO, but still, she describes independent filmmaking as a "struggle" and says she relies on freelance work to pay the bills.
She said she has not heard back from Obama or Nike since she began speaking out about the similarities.
Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture
The filmmaker claimed that she was reluctant to raise the issue, fearful of taking on a president's daughter and a major brand, but felt she had to address what she sees as a major problem in her industry.
"I've poured too much into my work to just sit by and watch."
Obama, Nike and Harris did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.Original article source: Independent filmmaker accuses Malia Obama of ripping off her movie for Nike commercial
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Helen Mirren went from criticizing Netflix to starring in one of the streamer's new movies
Six years ago, Helen Mirren criticized Netflix for its impact on the communal moviegoing experience. Now, she's starring in the streamer's movie, "The Thursday Murder Club." "Ted Sarandos was understanding in what I meant," Mirren told BI of the Netflix CEO's response. Standing in front of thousands of movie theater owners and executives at CinemaCon in Las Vegas in 2019, Dame Helen Mirren uttered two words that were met with thunderous applause. "Fuck Netflix!" Six years later, weeks away from starring in the Netflix original movie, "The Thursday Murder Club," the 80-year-old actor emits a wry laugh when reminded of her explosive proclamation. "Before saying that I did say, 'I love Netflix,'" Mirren told Business Insider over the phone. (She's right: her full comment was, "I love Netflix, but fuck Netflix!") That quote, she added, was specifically about how the rise of streaming has threatened the existence of the communal moviegoing experience. "Many generations of people enjoy the process of going to the cinema and crying or laughing around strangers. That is a special experience. So my words, it was really related to that." Mirren said. "And I have to say, Ted Sarandos was understanding in what I meant." The Oscar, Tony, and Emmy winner didn't have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a project on the streamer, either. As a fan of the Richard Osman book series of the same name, which follows a group of amateur detectives solving cold cases in an English retirement home, Mirren thought she would be a good fit to play the Thursday Murder Club's no-nonsense ex-spy Elizabeth Best, who's one of the club's founders. "In the back of my mind while reading, I did wonder, 'Will they ever make these into a movie? Because I would love to play this role,'" Mirren said. Mirren got her chance. The resulting film is an entertaining whodunit in which Mirren leads an ensemble cast stacked with talented actors, from Pierce Brosnan, Ben Kingsley, and Celia Imrie to Jonathan Pryce, David Tennant, Richard E. Grant, and Naomi Ackie. Being a fan of the source material came with its own pressure to embody the character right. "With a book that's so popular, there is a responsibility because you don't want to disappoint people who love it," Mirren said. "I don't want people watching the movie and going, 'I loved it, but I didn't think Helen Mirren was great as Elizabeth.'" If the pressure from fans seems minor compared to the responsibility of playing the Queen of England — Mirren won an Oscar playing Queen Elizabeth in the 2006 drama "The Queen" — well, Mirren disagrees. "In a weird way, it's harder to play the imaginary character, especially if it's a character from a beloved book. With the Queen, you just have to sound like the Queen, walk like her, dress like her," she said. "With Elizabeth, from costuming forward, everything you do, you have to engage in other people's imagination of what they think she would look and act like. That was a challenge to get that right. " That said, Mirren is happy with her performance and experience on the film, and is open to doing another "Thursday Murder Club" installment if the ensemble returns. She also is setting her sights on returning to another medium: the stage. "I didn't want to about a year ago, but now, I love going to the theater. Every time I go, I have a yearning to be back on stage," Mirren said. So what changed? "This goes back to what I said about Netflix — the communal experience of theater is a very special experience," she continued. "If it's a great play and brilliantly performed, there's nothing quite like that experience as an audience." In the meantime, you can enjoy "The Thursday Murder Club" from your couch. Read the original article on Business Insider Play Farm Merge Valley
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why does Mark Zuckerberg want our kids to use chatbots? And other unanswered questions.
Meta is under fire for its AI chatbots being allowed to talk "seductively" to kids. Meta is investing heavily in AI, and Mark Zuckerberg says "personal superintelligence" is the future. Business Insider correspondents Katie Notopoulos and Peter Kafka discuss why Meta is pushing these chatbots. Peter Kafka: Welcome back from vacation, Katie. You were out last week when Reuters broke a story I desperately wanted to ask you about: A Meta document had been telling the people in charge of building its chatbots that "It is acceptable to engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual." It's a bonkers report. A Meta spokesperson told Business Insider it has since revised the document and that its policies prohibit content that sexualizes children. I have so many questions for you. But maybe we can start with this one: Why does Meta want us to use chatbots, anyway? Katie Notopoulos: It was a bonkers report! I imagine Meta sees what companies like or Replika are doing — these companion chatbots that people are sinking hours and hours and real money into using. If you're a company like Meta that makes consumer apps for fun and socializing, this seems like the next big thing. You want people to spend lots and lots of time on your apps doing fun stuff. Of course, the question is, "Are these chatbots a good thing?" Peter: You read my mind, Katie. I do want to get to the Is-This-A-Good-Idea-In-General question. Let's stick with the Is-It-Good-For-Meta question for another minute, though: There are lots of things that people like to do online, and if Meta wanted to, it could try doing lots of those things. But it doesn't. I think it's obvious why Meta doesn't offer, say, porn. (Though some of its chatbots, as we will probably discuss, seem to nod a bit in that direction). But there are lots of other things it could offer that are engaging that it doesn't offer: A Spotify-like streaming service, for instance. Or a Netflix-like streaming service, or… OK. I think I might have partially answered my own question: Those two ideas would involve paying other people a lot of money to stream their songs or movies. Meta loves the model it has when users supply it with content for free, which is basically what you're doing when you spend time talking to an imaginary person. Still, why does Meta think people want to talk to fake avatars online? Do many people in tech believe this is the future, or just Mark Zuckerberg? Katie: I think there's already a fair amount of evidence that (some) people enjoy talking to chatbots. We also know how other big AI leaders like Sam Altman or Dario Amodei have these grand visions of how AI will change the world and remake society for good or evil, but they all really do still love the idea of the movie "Her." Remember the Scarlett Johansen/OpenAI voice fiasco? Peter: OK, OK. I'll admit that I kind of like it when I ask ChatGPT something and it tells me I asked a smart question. (I'm pretty sure that most people would like that). I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time talking to ChatGPT for that reason, but I get it, and I get why other people may really like it. It still strikes me that many of the people who will want to spend time talking to fake computer people might be very young. Which brings us to the Reuters story, which uncovered a wild Meta document that spells out just what kind of stuff a Meta-run chatbot can say to kids (or anyone). Stuff like this, as Jeff Horwitz reports: Horwitz notes that this wasn't the result of some hopped-up Meta engineers dreaming up ideas on a whiteboard. It's from a 200-page document containing rules that got the OK from "Meta's legal, public policy and engineering staff, including its chief ethicist," Horwitz writes. I've read the report multiple times, and I still don't get it: Meta says it is revising the document — presumably to get rid of the most embarrassing rules — but how did it get there in the first place? Is this the result of the Mark Zuckerberg-instituted vibe shift from the beginning of the year, when he said Meta was going to stop listening to Big Government and just build without constraints? Is there some other idea at work here? And why do I keep thinking about this meme? [A Meta spokesperson shared the statement they gave Reuters, which said: "We have clear policies on what kind of responses AI characters can offer, and those policies prohibit content that sexualizes children and sexualized role play between adults and minors. Separate from the policies, there are hundreds of examples, notes, and annotations that reflect teams grappling with different hypothetical scenarios. The examples and notes in question were and are erroneous and inconsistent with our policies, and have been removed."] Katie: My real issue here is even if Meta makes it so that the chatbots won't talk sexy to kids — does that make it "safe" for kids? Just because it's not doing the most obviously harmful things (talking sex or violence or whatever), does that mean it's fine for kids to use? I think the answer isn't clear, and likely, "No." Peter: We both have kids, and it's natural to focus on the harms that new tech can have on kids. That's what politicians are most definitely doing in the wake of the Reuters report — which highlights one of the risks that Meta has anytime a kid uses their product. I think it's worth noting that we've seen other examples of AI chatbots — some accessed through Meta, some via other apps — that have confused other people, or worse. Horwitz, the Reuters reporter, also published a story last week about a 76-year-old stroke survivor in New Jersey who tried to go meet a chatbot in New York City (he didn't make it, because he fell on the way to his train and eventually died from those injuries). And talking about kids eventually becomes a (worthwhile) discussion about who's responsible for those kids — their parents, or the tech companies trying to get those kids to spend their time and money with them (short answer, imho: both). I'd suggest that we widen the lens beyond kids, though, to a much larger group of People Who Might Not Understand What A Chatbot Really Is. Katie: Have you seen the r/MyBoyfriendIsAI subreddit for women who have fallen in love with AI chatbots? I am trying to look at this stuff with an open mind and not be too judgmental. I can see how, for plenty of people, an AI romantic companion is harmless fun. But it also seems pretty obvious that it appeals to really lonely people, and I don't think that falling in love with an AI is a totally healthy behavior. So you've got this thing that appeals to either the very young, or people who don't understand AI, or people who are mentally unwell or chronically lonely. That might be a great demographic to get hooked on your product, but not if you're Meta and you don't want, say, Congress to yell at you. Peter: Katie, you've just made the case that Meta's chatbot business will appeal to very young people, people who don't understand the internet, and people who are unwell. That is, potentially, a very large audience. But I can't imagine that's the audience Meta really wants to lock down. So we're back where we started — I still don't know why Meta wants to pursue this, given what seems to be limited upside and plenty of downside. Katie: It leaves me scratching my head, too! These chatbots seem like a challenging business, and I'm skeptical about wide adoption. Of all the changes I can imagine AI bringing in the next few years, "We'll all have chatbot friends" — which Mark Zuckerberg has said! — just isn't the one I believe. It's giving metaverse, sorry! Read the original article on Business Insider Play Farm Merge Valley
Hypebeast
3 hours ago
- Hypebeast
Sushi Club x Nike Air Force 1 Low 人氣聯名鞋款發售情報率先公開
名稱：Sushi Club x Nike Air Force 1 LowSKU：II6234-100配色：White/Summit White建議售價：$150 美元發售日期：2025 年秋季發售渠道：Nike 繼早前僅向 Friends & Family 派發的首發版本後，Sushi Club x Nike Air Force 1 Low 終迎來更大規模上架。由 Chris Stamp 與 Nobu Matsuhisa 聯手操刀的原創設計早在 2024 年 10 月低調亮相，今次則以 $150 美元進軍零售市場。 鞋款以經典白色皮革為基底，透過一系列低調奢華的細節升級層次：深米色麂皮 Swoosh、金屬質感鞋墊徽章，以及側身覆片上壓印的「Sushi Club」字樣；鞋舌與後跟則以灰白色調壓印雙方聯名標誌。整雙鞋配置白色中底與外底，搭配備有筷子造型銀色 Dubrae 的白色鞋帶，為這次聯乘點題收結。
