Gizmodo
What the Hell. When I saw this morning's post on the awesome Sony Bravia Bunny Ad, featuring multi-hued rabbits climbing through a cityscape transforming into a tidalwave, I assumed it was the work of my favorite artists, the LA-based kozyndan. By my front door, I have a framed print of one of their limited edition NYC bunny panoramics, which I've put below. Aside from this, they're probably best known for reworking of Hokusai's "Great Wave off Kana gawa" with bunnies inserted in the place of the white wash, which was featured on a Giant Robot magazine cover. I was only half right about kozyndan's involvement with this Sony project, unfortunately. They were robbed: For pretty damning proof, watch the video, and read on.
Apparently, the Passion Pictures animation studio ripped off kozyndan's after requesting samples of their work and never called them back. Dan just wrote me an email about it to confirm that this is pretty much the story, at least from their side.
I hear this happens often in advertising, but that doesn't make it fucking right. I guess it's not Sony's fault, but they should at least get their money back or get Passion Pictures to give a fair chunk to the artists. I'm pissed and not sure what I, or anyone else can do about it. Thoughts? [Passion Pictures vs KozyNDan]
Comments
Turns out this qualifies as one of the cons.
I wouldn't call this a rip-off. KozynDan doesn't own the idea of bunnies and waves. Yeah, it influenced the commercial, but it's not the commercial. The original art focuses on a 'classic' Japanese piece of art being mixed with rabbits, and the video's about stop-motion rabbits mixed in with people in NYC.
As fun as it is to rage against a company vs. a small artist, this is a case of artistic influence.
yeah -- I've got the same posters in my house (so stop ripping me, off, 'kay?) and I met those dudes coming out of the moca and gushed a bit -- tastefully, mind you. Nice people, great artists.
The shame of it is it's a beautiful commercial. Hope it's a comfort to the creative directors watching it on an endless loop while they're burning in hell.
creativity: you have it.... or you copy.
the same with good - interesting- old ideas.
old debate for copyright law.
Except in reverse (where bunnies become water) and with motion and with colors, and with other shapes- otherwise a complete rip off.
I saw this add with people talking- it was a complete rip-off of another advert. wich was a rip-off of another advert, which was...
@r0n:
Yeah, don't blame Sony.
Whoever sony has thats responsible for PR is brain dead. Theres been snafu after snafu, from the white/black PSP ads to the EU God of War 2 party.
Things like this make it easier for people to portray sony as unable to do anything right... I personally don't trust them for anything more complicated than a cd player, and CD's are soooo 20th century.
Easy change.
Replace "Sony Bastards"
With "Sony's Bastards"
The commercial is awesome. The work put into it is extraordinary. If it wasn't for Sony this video wouldn't exist to be enjoyed and admired. So... what's the problem?
how does this commercial rip of a picture of a wave with bunnies on it. So the commercial has bunnies jumping around and a wave. This is a hell of a lot more detailed than that pic. I didn't see anyting in the commercial that was the same as that picture.
I'm calling this kinda senseless hatred.
Ok, the wave is there. For a few seconds, but it's there.
So... ?
I mean, the ad is not a big bunny wave period. It would be really nice if Sony had at least given credit for people who deserved though.
But if we're gonna bash the advert just because a second of it was not "original", we might as well discard all ads from the past 10 years or so claiming that they were all "inspired" by this or that.
Truth be told: If the ad wasn't great as it is, the "original" wave creators wouldn't even talk about it.
Ad companies pull this crap all the time, but they usually claim they had no knowledge of the original work. If they have a record of them requesting samples, then it's time to go to court and win.
It pisses me off when ad companies rip of artists like this. If you are a fan of Don Hertzfeldt, you know what I'm talking about (Pop Tarts.)
@dhaberer and Bokusatsu
It's not just the wave, look at the panorama pic Brian provided. That's the one the really got ripped off in my eyes.
call Sony and tell them they aren't getting any of your money until the original artists get paid.
Yeah this is a blatant rip off seeing as how they both have bunnies. I mean sure KozyNDan isnt really an animation studio, they dont seem to have any film properties but come on BUNNIES! And sure no one would ever contract a print studio to do a television ad and sony was only indirectly involved but must i point out the bunnies again. This is outrageous and it will not stand! I don't care how awesome the commercial even considering the whole thing is done in stop motion with clay and no cg its still an outrage and sony needs to be punished!
(commentor's note: Brian Lam is still my hero for owning the halo fanboys)
isnt the wave bunny "art" just a ripoff of hokusai? pot calling the kettle black a bit much?
If only there was a law that stopped people from copying other peoples work with out paying for it. People have a right to make money off their work and others shouldn't be able to just copy it.
Maybe call it copyright law?
Naw, that's just crazy talk.
Isn't there a saying "Good artists borrow, great artists steal"? Or am I confusing two sayings again...?
It happens all the time. When you want to send some idea, you must do like Apple when talk about upcoming products: Say almost nothing.
btw what an amazing drawing!
@kadtech:
exakatalleee.
@saintchuck:
News is not the same as advertising. Although technically news does make good advertising, it is not illegal to repeat the news. Gizmodo always referances their sources, and always thanks their tipsters. Why I come to Gizmodo over another site is likely the same reasons as you, all the stories I want, great layout and quick load time!
I might think there was copyright infringement, if the originals weren't so lackluster. Clearly Sony's ad reps have added to the idea and created something substantially different, and greatly better, than the original.
@Neil.Will:
I wasn't referring to the news but to their coverage of the MN copyright case,in particular and the RIAA/record labels, in general.
Hypocritical to cry foul over questionable copyright infringement while at the same time lambasting the judge, jury and plaintiff in a obvious copyright case.
But hey, that's just my opinion.
@KADTECH
Good call about Hokusai. Check out the pic:
[www.andreas.com]
So Kozyndan creates something inspired by Hokusai, and Sony creates something inspired by Kozyndan. Again, I really don't see the problem.
I remember a car advertisement back in the day that looked like a Picasso painting. Did you all boycott the car manufacturer? Get a grip. The Sony hating is really getting old.
So it happens to Sony, and Gizmodo writers are vilified as hacks for placing the blame on the ad studio. But Apple does the same with their ads (repeatedly and even more brazenly) and the same commentors are the first to jump to defend the mac attack? How utterly consistent.
You know what? USA-chan is by far my favorite kozyndan work, has been for a while, and I didn't even make the connection between it and the Sony ad. I feel really dumb.
kozyndan can still sue for copyright infringement. I once worked with a starving (though popular) artist who had his work replicated (not copied, but redone, like it is here). He walked away will millions from the company of the product -- NOT the agency or any of the contractors.
So, don't worry. If the artist has a claim, they will get money from Sony itself.
@saintchuck: Lol, agreed.
@El Guano: Yeah, it's bullshit.
@kadtech: Fucking right.
What's the deal here Giz? Please explain yourself.
Not exactly sure how its Sony's fault they didn't know of some obscure artist's work.
The art of headline's. Make it reflect the content of an article.
FAIL.
You get the point, it's not Sony who made this animation. In the promotional world, this isn't uncommon.
They actually contacted you about Sony ripping them? Christ. Their own work is the most obvious rip of one of the Hokusai's 36 views of Mount Fuji I've ever seen. What a whiners.
@brucifer: That's not the way copyright works -- even when something is "ripped off" unknowingly, it's still a violation. Don't like it? Take it up with UK (and US) copyright law, 'cuz that's the way it is.
@arashi: Homage =/= "ripping off"...besides, Hokusai died on April 18, 1849...so his work is well out of copyright. Kozyndan's, however, is still covered (at least it would be in the UK and US, I'm not sure about elsewhere).
@All the rest:
Whether you folks like it or not, should kozyndan seek a legal resolution here they've got a pretty strong case. Please take to the streets in protest if you feel that your relevant government's copyright laws are unfair to Sony in this instance.
Strangepork: I don't think so. Copyright isn't like a patent in its protection of concepts, it only applies to reproduction of the substance of the work, either as a whole or substantial sections, not to the concepts (characters, themes, settings) or small fragments.
For example, if I sat down and photocopied the first five chapters of Childhood's End, bound them, and sold them, that would be copyright violation. If I took the plot of Jurassic Park, and wrote my own book using it, but didn't include any of the actual words from the original, that's plagurism, not copyright violation. Likewise if I unwittingly had a character say a line from The da Vinci Code, that wouldn't be a copyright violation.
In this case, as the commercial only has a thematic resemblance to the stuff posted above (and even then you'd be pushing it on the wave thing) rather than actually reproducing them, it's not copyright violation in any sense. The artists would have to take Sony to court and demonstrate that they deliberately ripped them off, for example by showing their work in Sony's design briefs or something. I expect this will end the same way as the ridiculous Sophia Stewart case if they do.
(I'd like to point out that plagurism is a civil, not a criminal, matter.)
I'd like to point out that it's plagiarism, not plagurism.
You know Urban Outfitters does the same thing. They see an artists work, steal it, modify it slightly and sell it at a huge markup. The right thing to do is not shop at Urban Outfitters because its overpriced and the Sony should break the guy off some cash. Seing how if I "borrowed" some idea from them they would probably sue me.
@Sockatume: You're certainly entitled to think whatever you like, but I can tell you from experience that I've seen plenty of weaker cases result in judgements or settlements in favor of the originator. Maybe things are different in your country of origin.
My friend went through the same thing with Sprint's latest ad campaign with light animations. He shot a music video for The Willowz with light animation that was featured in American Cinematographer and YouTube. Next thing he knows, Sprint has an ad campaign using the same technique and the agency that produced it is located two blocks away from his office in Venice.
There's no form of discourse. Unfortunately, you can't copyright an idea.
I think if i were the original creator of the bunnies stuff, i would be honored that it ended up in such a cool commercial, following the bouncy balls, and paint commercials...
I think I'm going to have to take Sony's side here. As much as rabbits have come to be associated with kozyndan, it's not like they have an exclusive on little pop art bunnies. They don't have a copyright or trademark claim. Was the commercial inspired by kozyndan? Without a doubt. Did it rip them off? Not really.
dont forget that KND inspired from this famous japanese painting
[www.madprops.org]
more details
[images.google.com]
KozyNDan inspired their work from The Great Wave of Kanagawa by Katsushika Hokusai
BUT i must say the bunny panoramic is same shit
[do.palicio.us]
someone said this about a month ago
@dhaberer:
Er, you can't see how it rips it off? The bunnies combine into a big wave, just like the picture. The commercial came to be because of the painting, but it can't really be called a ripoff per se.
Ugh... It' in bad taste and business ethics to rip off the original idea like this.
However, it's not a copyright issue by any stretch of the imagination.
Copyright protects the contents of a creative work. It does not protect ideas. Those are protected by Patents. And unless the original artists had a patent on some process for animating bunnies on the streets, they don't have a patent case either.
Of course in a civil suit you can pretty much sue for any reason, so there's a possibility some retribution can be had here. Clearly there's demonstrable proof that the ad agency contacted the artists about using their concept in animated form. That intent could be argued to have carried a monetary value and have been some type of contract in good faith.
Anyway, despicable turn of events, but not something protected by copyright.
So these two people made the bunny picture and apparently its an original idea? Cuz I remember the EXACT same effect of a wave being used and unicorns coming out of it as the whitecap in the animated "The Last Unicorn" movie. Who knows who did a similar effect of it before then. So, 'kozyndan' aren't exactly breaking new ground themselves.