Sony vs. Kozyndan Update

Background

For those of you who’ve missed the drama, I’ll try to bring you up to date. Last week, we posted the latest spot in Sony’s Bravia campaign. The project was created by Passion Pictures for Fallon, the ad agency who’s handled the previous two high-profile Bravia spots, “Balls” and “Paint.”

I think everyone will agree that it’s a fantastic spot, and that Passion did a great job bringing the whole thing to life. The problem is that the concept for the spot looks strikingly familiar to some bunny-inspired work by design and illustration team Kozyndan. (See a side-by-side comparison here.)

It didn’t take long for more mainstream outlets like Gizmodo and BoingBoing to catch the story and start slamming people left and right, namely Passion Pictures and Sony. (Fallon somehow escaped most of the blasting.)

The Response

An official joint response from Sony, Fallon and Passion Pictures was posted on the Guardian website:

“Sony would like to stress that the advert conception, creative and final animation is not based on any pre-existing artwork,” states an excerpt from the official statement. “Sony Europe, its agency Fallon, production company Gorgeous, and animation company Passion Pictures, assert that the wave, whale and bunnies were arrived at without reference to these artists.

“In the original script, the rabbits were one of many creatures to cavort around a cityscape. In fact, the location was only finalised shortly before the shoot”.

Some people, including Kozyndan themselves, point to the fact that Passion Pictures had requested work samples from Kozyndan about a year prior to this Bravia spot. This has raised suspicions that maybe Passion kept this work on tap and referenced it to create the Play-doh bunny concept.

The Backlash

While no one can claim for certain what really happened (except maybe a few people at Passion and Fallon), the design community has by and large taken the opportunity to bash the living hell out of Passion and Fallon for what is being called a blatant “rip-off.” I’ve received several angry emails on the subject and read many impassioned posts on other sites skewering the parties involved with varying levels of vitriol. The degree of anger in these responses is directly proportionate, I’m guessing, to those persons’ personal experiences with similar situations.

Obviously the Kozyndan work and the Bravia spot seem to have grown from a similar conceptual seed. Whether or not that seed was planted by the same hand or if the deviations caused by its growth into a full-blown spot are weak enough to justify the use of the term “rip-off” is, I suppose, the real cause of debate.

An Issue of Semantics?

There is no doubt that ripping is a problem in this industry. I’ve seen and heard well-documented examples of agencies and clients calling for pitches only to take the best idea and then outsource it to India. That kind of myopic thinking is only hurting the clients in the long run. By undermining the creative efforts of quality studios, they are financially crippling those studios’ abilities to continue pitching great ideas.

And that hurts everyone. Boutique studios can only roll the dice on ballsy pitches every now and then. When it works, the results can be ground-breaking and innovative, the kind of stuff we love posting on Motionographer partially because it’s come out of left field from a relatively unknown upstart. But when agencies and clients poach ideas from these studios it discourages them from trying so hard next time. A kind of general cynicism starts to blanket the industry, muffling what might be exciting new voices and ideas.

That’s bad.

But the term “rip-off” is thrown about way too much. Troll through some of the comments from the last three years of Motionographer and you’ll find countless accusations that Company A ripped off Freelancer B or that Freelancer B ripped off Illustrator C. In most cases, there are similarities between the work, but correlation isn’t grounds for causation. Just because two works look alike doesn’t mean that they sprang from the same source.

Often times, two projects are merely tapping into the same cultural zeitgeist, employing trends that no single person can claim credit for creating. It’s a common misconception that the first person who does something is the “inventor” of that trend. Not until the idea has been picked up and repeated a few hundred times does it become a trend. Thus, the act of reproduction and emulation is as crucial to authorship as the original instance of the idea.

It is our egos that convince us otherwise. It is our egos that tell us we have original ideas that somehow pop into being within our own private creative vacuums. That is, of course, complete nonsense. Almost every act of originality is, in fact, a novel configuration of older “original” ideas.

I’m not trying to say there’s no such thing as creativity. I’m not trying to reduce this down to simplistic terms at all. Quite the opposite. I’m arguing that the complexity of the creative process is so vast and vague that to point confidently at something and proclaim “RIP OFF!” is almost always an intensely naive act.

I’m not defending Passion or Fallon or Sony. Nor am I defending Kozyndan. I’m asking us all to take a deep breath and consider for a moment the nature of what we do. It is inherently tangled and messy, leaning all every imaginable discipline and every source of inspiration. That’s part of its beauty.

About the author

Justin Cone

/ justincone.com
Together with Carlos El Asmar, Justin co-founded Motionographer, F5 and The Motion Awards. He currently lives in Austin, Texas with is wife, son and fluffball of a dog. Before taking on Motionographer full-time, Justin worked in various capacities at Psyop, NBC-Universal, Apple, Adobe and SCAD.

Join Motionographer on Patreon!

For as little as 7 cents a day, join our Patreon community and shape Motionographer's future!

52 Comments

monovich

Nice post, Justin.
Conversely, how horrific is it when you come up with an idea through your own developmental process, and soon after see something that looks JUST LIKE what you did. You want to be proud of what you did, but know you will be accused of “ripoff” as soon as the work sees the light of day.

Sites like Motionographer are great, but what is the effect of the same pool of artists coming to the same site(s) and being “inspired” by the same work? It gets incestuous pretty quick.

The more that graphics and crafted images pervade culture, the more often all of this is going to happen. Truly unique ideas are almost non-existant, but when they do pop up, they are even more appreciated.

squares

nothing sucks more than having your ideas taken and run with than when it’s done by a big gun like sony. I can see sony’s side of the argument… but I can also see the comparison between the two samples with my own eyes. even a child can tell you how similar they are (although, I have not tested this theory). anyways, at this stage in the game, they’re not going to recall the commercial. wouldn’t that be an interesting move, though?

JPSykes

My personal backlash was to go the Kozyndan site and buy one of their prints. I appreciate the work they’ve done and I’d happily hang it on my wall, so I ordered the Bunny Wave print. (I also ordered the Giant Robot back order and plan on having them mounted in the same frame as a context).

For me that’s the best backlash – support the artists.

mtgentry

What about the first sony spot with the bouncing balls? It was a stunt that Letterman did back in the 90’s. That stunt plus the Kozyndan inspired spot lead me to believe that they borrowed the concepts from others. If they were two separate incidents I might give them a pass.

This isnt a blatent rip off when compared to some other commercials I’ve seen in the past year. Several ytmd rip offs come to mind as well as that Gondry rubiks cube video that was made into a commercial.

tits

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vj0uvl5kbhw

I believe this is what you are referring to mtgentry?
Seems like the CD at Fallon is spending a lot of time on the internet searching for “inspiration”.

kmfix

OMG!! THEY RIPPED OFF CLAYMATION TOO!!!!

Marc B.

That fallon-cd should be fired

david000

Justin, lets not get all relativist here. There is inspiration, homage, and there is rip off. This is rip off.

justin

Okay, the Letterman thing is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Maybe Fallon *did* get the Bravia “Balls” idea from that. If so, hooray! The “Balls” spot is 1000% more beautiful than the silliness Letterman pulled off. Letterman’s is a joke; Fallon’s is a mesmerizing short.

That’s not a “rip off”—it’s a bona fide means of creativity. It’s the same basic process Shakespeare used when he sampled historical texts and contemporary playwrights, even competitors like Christopher Marlowe.

Why do we remember Shakespeare instead of Marlowe? Because Shakespeare added his own genius to those things he “ripped off.” You could argue that even if Passion/Fallon/Sony did rip Kozyndan, they added so much of their own inventiveness that they took the work to the next level, they created something much more engaging, something “original.”

tits

“original” is hardly the word. Its simply “appropriated”. Which is a fancy PC term for “ripping off” somebody elses idea or technique and fitting it into your own context. Which is what Fallon and Passion did… brilliantly. Unfortunately for them, we are living in an age where references are very easy to track down and acquire, and creatives like the CD at Fallon will have to work a lot harder to cover their tracks. Or simply be exposed for the high paid hacks they really are.

skeletor

@ justin – ‘appropriating’ an illustrator’s flat artwork and re-creating it in motion does indeed take it “to the next level”, but this action can hardly be elevated to the level of original thinking. Sony/Fallon/Passion had a tonne of cash and resources to execute their ‘take on things’, but who’s to say that if the originators Kozyndan had the same opportunity they wouldn’t have made an even better spot? We will never know. But one thing’s for sure; this shit stinks – there’s no smoke without fire. I’m tired of people trying to dance around such blatantness with debate. Everybody with one eye and half a brain can see that the concept and seed has been stolen.

squares

kmfix… you can’t be serious. the simpsons is satire, which by definition depends on preexisting material. this is totally different.

tits

http://www.designobserver.com/archives/014444.html

The last paragraph sums up this whole issue very well, by noted and respected graphic designer Michael Beirut.

mtgentry

In regards to the Simpsons, all of their references are made in a very “wink-wink” sort of way which acknowledges the original creators. Fallon doesnt give any credit to Letterman or Kozyndan which is why people are so mad. Its fine to build on past works of art, just give them their due place in the credits.

suprememoves

I don’t know I didn’t see any whales or any tsunamis in the kozyndan piece…..

justin

I find this all a little funny, considering that Kozyndan’s most popular work is an “appropriation/rip-off” of Hokusai’s Great Wave painting.

Or is that instance okay because Hokusai is dead? Or maybe it’s okay because Kozyndan are “artists”?

I’m not sure. My point is that none of this is as cut-and-dry as many of you would like to think. If I’m saying anything, it’s that this whole matter is intensely complex.

mtgentry

Good point Justin : ) But even Kozyndan acknowledge the original work.

http://www.kozyndan.com/new_portfolio/GR28.html

movecraft

Valid points all around. I would say the difference is that Hokusai isn’t kozyndan’s contemporary or competitor, and they are satirizing a popular work in the cultural zeitgeist.

I wouldn’t have any problem with the spot after seeing the two works side by side (like… cmon… they are just colorful bunnys. Were not talking about the colonels secret recepie here) if it were not for the fact that the agency requested work FROM kozyndan (who ARE their comtemporaries) which included the bunny print (and probably the hokusai wave satire one, too) and then never contacted them again. Then, suddenly, “not based on any pre-existing artwork,â€? the multicolored bunnys invaded a city.

Even if the agency had just seen the kozyndan work on the net, it probably wouldn’t feel as personal if they hadn’t contacted the artists themselves and requested samples of their work.

That being said, I think that cream always rises. Just keep working on your stuff. Success comes in some form or another to everyone who doesn’t worry about it and just keeps focusing on their own deal. Kozyndan are super talented and should worry about this for exactly 3 nanoseconds and then start on something new. No one can steal your propensity for imagination.

justin

@mtgentry: So all this would be okay if Passion/Sony/Fallon would have acknowledged that their spot was an “homage” to Kozyndan?

mtgentry

Yes, thats the least they could do. But they claim to have thought up the bunnies by themselves w/o Kozyndan’s help. I just don’t buy it.

I think if Sony/Fallon were honest about the whole thing , Kozyndan wouldn’t be considering legal action:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kozyndan/1485861244/

daphex2

There’s very very very little talk on mograph about ad agencies mainly because most mograph houses tend to deal with networks – both directly and indirectly. Very few do commercial work and when they do, it’s not the same type of work a place like Anonymous or Blink would get.

So for those who actually have agency experience, there is almost no debate in this matter. This commercial idea was stolen/appropriated/inspired/etc — by another source (in this case koyzdan).

This isn’t Sony. This isn’t Gorgeous. This is all Fallon with slight suspicion on Passion. But more on Fallon.

Creative directors at agencies are not by nature true creatives. Most agencies won’t even hire you to do a spot unless your reel conveys exactly what they want to do. They’re not thinkers. They don’t have any interesting insight or ideas. I wish I could start posting boards that float around town without getting caught (great website idea by the way!). Most CD’s can’t even spell and by default are terrible with grammar.

In agency world, everyone is a ‘lifer’. They’re there forever. Those interested in becoming creative directors have to go through a decade’s worth of passive aggressive shit eating before they can even see a single board (most of the time it’s years worth of copy for lower tier spots).

Moreover, they’re programmed to agree with everyone and think everything is brilliant. When they finally do surface into a place of their own, they’re so trained to be non-thinkers, that it almost seems likes cardboard is falling out of their mouths.

It’s very clicky and petty and silly and super passive aggressive and the people who work at agencies tend to be the least insightful, least interesting people I’ve ever met. Sure they may be nice, but c’mon who really likes eating the smile of a ghost?

I know you may think I’m being harsh, but realistically, those who move through this space have no other option than to look to ‘artists’ for ideas. At an agency, there is no space for independent thought.

CD’s will object to this rant because you’re all trained to be ‘creative thinkers’. What rot.

I apologize if I am offending any mograph people, but those who’ve worked with agency creatives know exactly what I am talking about. And for those currently within an agency, your best bet is to get out now.

xpez2000

why are people so concerned about this NOW????

BITING has been going on for decades….

This kind of problem is par for the course for advertising…THIS IS WHY ADVERTISING ISNT AND WILL NEVER BE ART.

Advertising people pride themselves on their keen ability to identify interesting visual phenomena and recontextualizing it to fit the needs of a brand….its creativity from the hamburglar school of thought…

wil

Props to Justin for asking people to stop and consider – the links between work (art, design, advertising etc) is, as he said, part of what makes it beautiful. The execution of the ad is what makes it so stunning to me – i don’t see the timelapse/playdough being conveyed in the kozyndan work. Never the less, there’s certainly a degree of influence there.

And the buck keeps going. Should Kozyndan be accused of stealing hording bunnies from the makers of Watership Down?

The real issue is whether the request work from Kozyndan was paid for, and under what agreement was it supplied.

All else aside, I hope this provides a lot of good positive press for Kozyndan. As for the Ad … it’s gorgeous, but i still won’t buy a bravia.

Ramin

Would you call someone a rip off if they invented a rounder wheel?

I wouldnt.

govinda

Justin, you’re hedging a loooot here. This is Fallon doing a blatant rip. Fallon, not so much Passion Pictures, but Fallon. The way things normally work, they would’ve been in charge of this thing when the crime happened.

I’d love to do a case study of how this steaming pile of theft made it from concept to creation, through probably 100 people, without one crying foul along the way. Surely at least six people knew this was flat-out larceny, the AD/CW team, the CD, the agency producer, the director and probably the lead Account Manager. It’s typical of the way some organizations work–you could see the same thing in a larger scale with Enron.

Let’s not have any illusions here. There wouldn’t have been a bunnies idea without Kozyndan’s panoramic, and Fallon didn’t improve upon the idea, nor did they comment on it ironically, nor did they build on it thematically. I agree with you, Justin, about the standard–that the appropriators need to add something to the idea. In this case, the standard’s not met. It’s a very thin line, and I don’t think it gets crossed as much as those who cry ‘ripoff’ reflexively, but this one crosses that line by a mile.

The fact that this has happened at least twice now is a sign that motion graphics shops (psyop, for the Eminem iPod ad) and illustrators (in this case)–forget that, EVERY boutique creative–needs to make an example of these kinds of thieves.

But the Shakespeare analogy needs to be put on a shelf. Comparing across eras in which there were different ethical standards isn’t sound reasoning. Something happened around the time of Bob Dylan, and the rules of right and wrong wrt originality underwent a change that upended a millenium of creative practice. Am I exaggerating? Anyone who’s read of the pseudoepigraphia of the proto-orthodox Christan knows that plagiarism and appropriation in fact made it into the Bible itself.

daphex2: What? I rarely say someone is full of shit, but you’re utterly full of shit. I was agreeing with you ready to rejoice at your putting the finger on Fallon, until you went off the rails with lines like ‘[Creative Directors] aren’t thinkers.’ I almost think that you’re assuming that nobody else will call you on something that you yourself know isn’t true, which is pretty bad form.

Creative directors at good ad agencies are almost always there because they were conceptually better than others. It’s 75% a meritocracy and probably 25% horseshit, whereas your post seems to reverse that apportionment. Note that I said good agencies, and in this category I’m including maybe 20-30 places in the US. Naturally I’m including Fallon, which is one of the five or so best agencies in the history of advertising, not even a question about that, see Bildsten, Bruce for examples. Let’s take my old agency, Hal Riney, as an example, one of the worst of the ‘good agencies’ in the best of years. Even there, CDs were awfully fucking good at creating ads. If we include John Doyle’s period as a CD at Riney, I think anyone who knows advertising will agree that it’s case closed. Dave O’Hare had more than his share of great ads before becoming ECD. The hacks you’re describing populate places in the second or third tier, the FCBs, DDBs, JWTs, Greys and those godawful hives of lifers and turf-guardians, but even some of them at one point were very good creatives. BBDO NYC for example is famous for being the place great creatives go when they get mortgages, never to be heard from at the One Show again.

So I’m shocked that this was Fallon. In their glory days from the mid-80s to the late-90s, you couldn’t find a higher standard of originality. The people I knew who worked there told stories about having their stuff shot down for being too close to other ads. I got shot down for an original ad of mine when I visited with my portfolio, another writer telling me it was too close to a Nike ad that I’d in fact never seen.

To close a long comment, three points:
1) It was Fallon, almost certainly.
2) People have to do something, legally or just with a swarm of derision that makes national news, or this is just going to keep happening.
3) I can’t believe this was Fallon. Huge disappointment.

sensitive40asa

I agree with every word, daphex2… my experience of working in agencies brought me exactly to the same conclusions… creative agencies are just everything but creative… maybe because none of them ADs and CDs ever had to learn how to do anything practical.
but in the end, I have to agree with Justin.
Inspiration and ripping-off are basically the same thing and it is always hard -and maybe not so useful- to draw a line somewhere. The things that we don’t rip-off consciously we basically do uncousciounsly. Just have a look at this if you have’t already. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyQjr1YL0zg

daveo

I tried to type a few replies to this, but can’t really come up with anything that’s not already been said.

It’s a great ad, and I think that it’s a bit unfair to slate Fallon entirely – in the end they either A) created a wicked ad that looked similar to an existing drawing or B) added a fourth dimension to an existing drawing.

If they did reference it (and it’s pretty close), then they should own up to it and credit the creatives somewhere.

You show me a designer that hasn’t ever seen something and taken it somewhere else, and I’ll eat my hat. We all reference things, get inspired, half rip things off, whichever way you want to look at it – as long as teh outcome is suitably different from the inspiration and takes it somewhere new, then that’s not too bad is it?

It’s just unfortunate that people can’t see the wood for the trees on this.

jasfish

Govinda : “I got shot down for an original ad of mine when I visited with my portfolio, another writer telling me it was too close to a Nike ad that I’d in fact never seen” ..

And doesn’t this dis-prove everything you just said?
That, in fact, it is possible to do something you think is original, but others might immediately peg as referencing someone else’s work, even if it was completely unintentional?

sensitive40asa: nice link on YouTube .. found it very interesting. There’s an interesting series floating around that talks about something similar .. I believe it’s the Century of Self (?) .. about how the field of psychology and Freud’s work has completely influenced advertising. Fascinating program.

I definitely agree more with Justin on this dialog. I think there’s a lot more gray in this, than the black and white so many people want to make it.

ddaker

Dude, I couldn’t have said it better, and if I had, it would have been called plagerism, is this the dawn of patent pending motion graphics? or creative intellectual property…ofcourse not, who invented the wheel…and the countless photocopies (of the wheel idea) that will carry you through to a new life…lets face it peeps, inspiration is everywhere, and if it works and our brains spit it out, let go with it, no one (i assume) proposes stealing, i condem that, but how do you prove it?

so what are we actually pissed off about? the fact that someone got money or recognition for some idea that will dissipate with time? lol

how old are we?

Yussef

I think it is true that you hear the term ‘rip-off’ a lot in the design world. and i think it is true that most of the time these kids are crying wolf.

the thing is: they may be taking it too far, but there is still a whole lot of incest going on, more than i am comfortable with. as monovich pointed out places like motionographer are bright blinking beacons for the entire industry. and if we aren’t careful, or if we’re downright sloppy, this sort of thing will continue to happen.

i haven’t been freelancing for that long but i’ve already been asked to take inspiration from (watch the quicktime and duplicate the hue, tone, elements, pacing, camera work, everything short of main concept which is generally swapped out) an older piece of mograph work… sometimes years older. which is frustrating. and the sad thing is i’m beginning to think that there’s something wrong with me! that i’m being too naive in thinking that we shouldn’t be getting our inspiration from our competitors and instead should be looking elsewhere: nature, art history, film, comics, food, whatever, but not grabbing ideas off of motionographer.

i’m just a bit worried is all. i think inspiration is a great thing and of course it comes from the past. but from *where* is the issue, and *how* you are inspired is the issue, and – as justin points out – how you develop and advance the original idea is the issue. i don’t think we should attack of the idea of inspiration but we should voraciously attack the idea of lazy mimicry.

sidewalksurfing

99.9% of it falls on Fallon. almost all agency creatives are hacks. We worked on an ad that we found out later 100% ripped off an established fine artist. guess what – 2 days after it aired lawsuits were FLYING and it had to be pulled. why is kozyndan any different than a fine artist? i think they should do the same. who knows, maybe someone will think twice about doing that in the future if enough people get mud on their faces.

the fact of the matter is that this shit is rampant in the industry. sometime these agency “creatives” show up with tv ads in hand saying “we want this!” and i’m NOT talking about looking at things for inspiration – i literally mean they want to see the same camera angle, same composition, same color pallette, etc.

frankly, i’m really inspired by companies that are starting to do more direct to client stuff – cut out these bloated, disorganized, scared-of-their-own-shadow middlemen.

monovich

I’ve got to agree somewhat with daphex2. The majority of experiences I’ve had with agencies have been of the “make it look like this other spot” variety.

You can’t throw the baby out with the bath water, though. There are some amazing agencies out there who are inventing the spots others are ripping off.

ddaker

Are we all driving (drunk) towards an age of TEMPLATE driven graphics and ideas? how many times have we seen trapcode factory presets reach broadcast, or that “spray effect” or the little calligraphy number, are our bosses strangling creative effort, for the security that time = money and if excellent creative = time, time becomes a luxury no one can afford, which leads to washed-out-creative that often only targets the wrong market group, or should I just say: the kids of this world who suck up everything at face value.

rip-offs aside, what the hell is so compelling about a bunch of rabbits spawning around a city block, sure the art directors-on-pot will tell you its the emancipation of mans alter ego, trying to escape the mundane and explore mankind’s youthfulness…bla bla bullsh**, but how the hell does a spot like this turn into money for Sony? where is the equation that people will actually go out and buy this tv based on the emotions felt during this spot?

with competition increasing almost exponentially and so many ‘factory presets’ and kids watching youtube learning new programs and feeding off ‘good creative’, is society in general, giving birth to the ‘ford production line’ of motion graphics and advertising, to meet ridiculous deadlines and ever decreasing budgets?

are we heading towards a global community of freelancers working at incredible speeds at low budgets, only to spawn a myriad of carbon copies that do nothing more or nothing less then oversell a simple product. and ultimately annoy or confuse the consumer, at the end of the day, you better be ripping off a damn good idea, because this one is pathetic. the bouncing balls wins by yards. but who cares? as long as the TV sells…right?

govinda

Jasfish:
“And doesn’t this dis-prove everything you just said?
That, in fact, it is possible to do something you think is original, but others might immediately peg as referencing someone else’s work, even if it was completely unintentional?”

No. Kozyndan are so well-known in creative circles that to be an art director at an elite place like Fallon you’d have to be asleep not to have run across them. Believe me, art directors always looking through illustration books, and they subscribe en masse to magazines where Kozyndan get major coverage and even do cover art. Second, there’s a big difference between unconscious tap on something you may have seen once, and an ad that puts multicolored rabbits in a street scene precisely like Kozyndan’s panoramic. My case was neither–I’d never seen the ad that I’d supposedly copied, and the Fallon guy was the only one who ever thought it was close to unoriginal. The point I try to illustrate is that Fallon is the least likely place for this to have happened.

I’ve looked around and too many people are falling into the trap of not differentiating between ‘the good’ and ‘the rest’ among ad agencies. Sidewalksurfing and monovich are right in saying that 99% of ad agency creatives are hacks. Fallon is absolutely in that 1% of agencies that aren’t (normally). The rest of the ad world is like high school; Fallon, Goodby, Martin in Richmond, Crispin Porter Bogusky, Wieden, and a few others are the NBA. You’re literally one in 5,000 to get a job there, and normally to reach CD level, you’re the best of the best. When you meet these people, you can tell the difference. Add to that, their kind of creativity is different. It’s about sitting and finding a good idea for maybe two weeks solid without making a single move toward the computer, not as much about execution or design. By the time they get to us, they’ve already done their job and are just coasting on supervisor mode.

Which is what makes this kind of thing out Fallon such a shocker. When Chiat did it to Psyop, it wasn’t a tenth of a surprise as this.

movecraft

100 of millions spent I and I still don’t know what the hell a “bravia” is.

Marc B.

I think bravia are tasty colored marzipan bunnies to rival the gummy bears.

Allan W.

@ daphex2: Good Lord man, you must have worked in some seriously dysfunctional agencies, with some real flacks. I’m sorry to hear about your experience – quite depressing. NYC?

I started my career out West in Portland, and my experience with CD’s was quite different. Maybe it’s the small town feel, or that agencies here tend to be smaller. Although, now that I think about it, your experience sounds a lot like stories I hear out of W+K… but we have a lot of top-tier agencies out here, and not all of them are filled with faceless, soulless automatons.

I think you’re on to something that speaks to assembling vast bureaucracies around creative work – the way larger agencies operate. Govinda, good insights; for sure, to reach CD level at a place like W+K you’ve gotta have world-class game.

martz

if all of you “designers” took all the energy slaving away at your laptops writing essays about the origins of an idea and applied to a collaborative project the worlds problems could be solved.

there is a war still going on in the middle east

many many people die in africa from lacking basic things we take for granted

the environment is being poisoned by our recklessness

the government is taking out rights and our privacy

there are many many nuclear weapons

hate crimes still exist, people are still raped and killed for no good reason

look at us! we are arguing about an advertisement to sell a product that has no need to exist in the first place!

yet you hold onto your worthless opinions like children

can we please push things forward!
please!

justin (and all of the contributors) im sure you never intended the comments on your site to be of this nature, i apologize for how shitty people can be sometimes.

mrpeter

Martz – yes in the scheme of things you are right

but it is okay to discuss other things than nuclear weapons and privacy – lighten up a bit

it is okay to be passionate about our craft

it is refreshing to me in this age of apathy to see people take a stance one way or another

my opinion

i think the worst thing about our field is the constant stealing – blatant ripping off

whether fallon knowingly did this is not for me to say – but seems a little fishy

there are certain designers who i know that base there careers on “reference” pulling QTs off of sites like this – and consequently rewarded – and it makes me ill to see it happen –

i have had my work ripped off as well
and it frankly is annaoying –

I have no issues with being inspired by work – but too often inspired is a cute way of saying copying

a note to all the younger designers

look beyond websites like this for your inspirations

go outside – read a book – pay attention to the living world – you may find something on your own – rather than relying on others hard work – you would only be creating xerox’s anyways

thats my 2 cents

thank you justin for starting a much needed dialogue
and for keeping this site alive

cheers

Simon Robson

Advertising is in itself a type of deception. I’ve often called it the shop window of capitalism. Advertising seeks to endow a brand with qualities that it almost certinaly doesn’t posses. Think Nike, they’d like you to think ‘just do it’. Thanks to Naomi Klein and her peers, we now know Nike stands for exploitation of workers in the third world. Nike are not alone. Much of the third world is now the ‘engine room’ of the first world. Providing the blood-fuel of our market economy.

So what’s all this got to do with Fallon, Sony, Kozyndan and a TV set. Well, to me it is obvious. Why should an industry who’s primary aim is to deceive the consumer and keep us locked in the belief that to consume is to exist, have any sort of moral ‘wobble’ over plagiarism? It’s like being surprised that Joe Stalin didn’t have a direct debit to Amnesty International. Of course they will plagiarise when it suits them. They have the money and the lawyers to prove they didn’t. And then afterwards, in come the ad men with a campaign to re-assure us that all is still cool, fine and tickety boo…

I don’t know if Kozyndan were ripped off, there are striking similarities between their work and the commercial, but then Justin’s remark about creative seeds and so on has a point too. All I’m saying is, do not be surprised when plagiarism takes place, do not even bat an eye-lid. Because you are talking about an industry who’s single purpose is to tell us exactly the way things aren’t. And if a few bunnies get squahed on the way, well thats fine by them.

hardface

In my opinion is not a good point that they do a better job, because they do a better job because they idea was done before and they then construct over it. With the money they do they can take de orginal thinkers to be part of the group and maybe a better idea could come.

zeniamai

“I’m not trying to say there’s no such thing as creativity. I’m not trying to reduce this down to simplistic terms at all. Quite the opposite. I’m arguing that the complexity of the creative process is so vast and vague that to point confidently at something and proclaim “RIP OFF!â€? is almost always an intensely naive act.”

I would have to agree with Justin. The definition of creativity and originality has now evolved to accommodate the current zeitgeist. To compete on who was first to conceive the idea is not the ultimate battle of creativity nor for originality in this case. Albeit that both wave is a bunny wave, the two is still completely different.

The creative process is indeed complex and its complex in the sense that it feigns according to the perception, culture and values of an individual. Before crying “rip-off” lets give room in understanding the art. Let’s just be more open minded and more mature in understanding this.

hardface

You can call “art” to a TV Advertising because is a thing of make money, in this case for Sony. Kozyndan make the art and the idea, then Sony make the mony with this idea. So this case is not a case of an artist making an interpretation of another artist work, is the case of a company (put in the bag Fallon and so on…) making money with the ideas of other creative people.

I think this is a good case to make a big shout, and stop this cases of rip-off.

hardface

Correction: You can call “art� > You can NOT call “art�

hardface

Anyway… if this wasn’t the first time, just fine, but…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj0uvl5kbhw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiJAsKH6dEI

Think by your self…

msader

If you take the bunny wave as an example, ok, I could agree with you, but not in the case of the bunnies panoramic in NYC . Plus the fact that Passion have approached them earlier… plus the fact that the first Bravia ad was “inspired” by another piece of work… plus all that Simon Robson added about the industry.

rhakes

“When a thing has been said and well, have no scruple. Take it and copy it.”
Anatole France

mrpeter

the words of someone with a lack of originality….

Comments are closed.