Leo Burnett Hong Kong
- Started
- Last post
- 41 Responses
- fibonacci0
ukit, are you retarded? It's about justice! That's what the copyright laws are based on, fairness and justice.
It's not right to take from Mr. Peters or Mr. Farrows hard work and creativity while they're still living. This is why copyright laws extend to the duration of someone's life, and often beyond it. So the originator can fairly profit from and protect his work.
This isn't some abstract argument. People's livelihoods get hurt by this sort of shit. Our lives are affected.
Design from 100 years ago? It doesn't really hurt anyone. The creators are long gone. This is the idea of a copyright entering the public domain.
Seriously ukit, the fact that you're even challenging these facts of life announce that you have no business being in a creative industry. gtfo.
- fibonacci0
Some of you art school dropouts have no business being in this thread.
- ukit0
LISTEN, YOU FUCKING IDIOT RETARD..
you..hahaha...OK, sorry, I can't do the art director hissy fit thing as well as you...but listen, seriously...
It obviously isn't a question of copyright because you can't copyright something that is that different from the original. Copyright has to be very strictly defined to stand up in court and this would obviously not meet that standard.
I mean, cmon, being such a worldly guy at the top of your game you should know this stuff right?;)
Also, the analogy I made does show the contradictions that are out there...think about how much shame a pop or hip hop producer would get from lifting a sample directly from one of their contemporaries...legal or not they'd be accused of lack of seriousness and artistic laziness...but go back 20 years and lift a 30 second loop from James Brown and you're golden. There's obviously some kind of red line there but it's more culturally determined than it is legal.
- I agree with you! That fat lady has sung!FredMcWoozy
- Fred, GTFO of this thread you retard.ukit
- ukit0
Not defending the piece...just raising the question. If my questions trouble you, then perhaps you have no business being in this thread, which is very serious.
- OSFA0
Should've hired Fairey...
- Bullitt0
"Talent borrows, genius steals."
"Talent Creates, Smart ass borrow, Dirty rat mother fucker steals!!!"
Bullitt
- tomkat0
confuciusism.
whatever.
- jevad0
This has been an interesting couple of weeks in the local industry for sure...
- neandersthal0
- Giles Revellneandersthal
- I apologize profusely for missing monNom's link. Just spotted it. Sorry dude.neandersthal
- babaganush0
I think we've ascertained that poured liquid over a body isn't original. However I do think the Yoga pose and composition of the Burnett's stuff is a bit of a rip off...but again poured liquid over a body is like a writing with light concept, probably done by a photographer not long after the process was invented.
I guess another point is should it have won an award?...anyhow most awards mean fuck all so...
- Horp0
"ukit, are you retarded? It's about justice! That's what the copyright laws are based on, fairness and justice."
What copyright has been broken here exactly Fibonacci?
Sure, in an ideal world it would be better for advertising to come up with its own ideas rather than appropriating the work of others. At the very least it would be ethical for the advertising industry to have a rule that if they want to appropriate someone else's creative discovery then they have to commission the same person to do it... but there is no copyright infringement here.
You can't apply a process to a shape and then expect to be the sole owner, globally, of any similar process using similar shapes or subject matter, it can't be done. We would all be sat here in legal straight jackets if that ever came to pass.
To my mind the ads are a bit of a fail anyway. The original use, with its blood suggested something morbid and dark, and the process worked well for that. Here though, they're trying to create a positive and desirably body image that looks aspirational and in optimal health, and frankly they all look a bit chewed up and deformed, and covered in slurry.
- cannonball19780
Depends on copyright law. In most places in the US, copyright law is defined as copyright upon inception, but can only be provable with legal documentation.
As per the question of "does it really matter", of course it does. An idea is work, and stealing another person's idea is stealing their work. Even though that isn't measurable in terms of lost value, it's still theft, which makes it ethically wrong.
The problem is that there are no ethics in the ad world.
- cannonball19780
"Talent borrows, genius steals."
Why do people use this quote like it justifies something?
- MrT0
If this hadn't won an award it could and would have been dismissed as another advertising world rip-off. The campaign would have finished and life would go on.
It says nothing new about advertising or the culture of the majority awards out there.
- ukit0
The point is that this isn't anywhere close to a viable copyright case.
A copyright case that is actionable is like what happened with Shep Fairey and AP, where he literally traced over one of their works.
- ukit0
- True.MrT
- yeah but did the BIG agencies copy it too?akrokdesign
- akrokdesign0
it's clear where they go the idea from. so now when they are busted, they keep telling "we never saw it, before".
on the other hand, those yoga ads are pretty far out. not sure who they trying to target but don't think it's up the yogi ally.
- it's clear where they GOT the idea from. (correction)akrokdesign
- SlashPeckham0
Why don't you ask John Ross what he thinks - he's been in the ad business for years and I'm sure he's borrowed a bit himself in that time - he's a nice guy and seemed to like publicity (met him years ago) http://www.johnross.co.uk