When ads reference movies, or television or other cultural artefacts no one kicks up a fuss.

They didn't "rip off" the bunny ad, kozyndan didnt make an ad. They made a picture.

The bravia "bouncing balls" ad was "ripped-off" a stunt done on Letterman. But they filmed it beautifully, and used the same visual technique to make a different point.

Meh,

mikemystery

Gary_7vn

As far as these shibari fembots with the missing limbs, I recall seeing very similar images in Heavy Metal magazine 30 years ago.

Gary_7vn

It's unfortunate that a lot of times these things happen. [youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com]

pooo

Speaking to Sony direct about this they tell me that the more people who complain the further this will go in Sony. Please complain using their feedback form…..

[www2.sony.co.uk]

Anon_Mac

i don't believe explaining the difference between parody and stealing doesn't quite fall into the same category.

mrface

LVP

kaylix

I personally felt Sony is now seriously a company without clues.

phytonix

dnzperson

For me, if the wave CONSISTED of bunnies, instead of went from "surreal psychedelic bunnies in a realistic backdrop" (following an established theme of psychedelic objects in a realistic backdrop theme that the Bravia ads have used since their inception) to a wave (then ice flows then sea creature montage), my hackles would be raised further.

I'd also want to see WHICH pieces were forwarded.

Surrealist multicolored cute creatures in a realistic backdrop isn't original enough to stand, IMO. Kozyndan can't "own" the concept since the motif has been around since the early 20th Century.

Again, there are too many elements that differ, yet enough to have a slight taint. The best way to settle this is for the agency to hire Kozyndan on a different project. He's creative, it's a win-win.

Trai_Dep

In regards to this advertisement. If it were just the wave image, I wouldn't necessarily say that it was a copyright infringement, but adding in the panoramic image, and the fact that the artist was asked to sumbit materials on the job, it's pretty darn damning.

Copyright law is very strict. For example, if I were a painter, and I used someone else's photograph as a reference for a painting (meaning I painted it myself, but used the photo to figure out 'how things look', I would be in violation of their copyright. Even if it were not the central image of the painting. In this digital age, when people constantly jump on Google and grab images, the common feeling is that it's all 'ok', but whether or not you THINK it's ok, the law is very clear that it's not.

In this particular instance, the stylization and colors of the bunnies, combined with the way they are in a realistic NYC setting has been directly taken from that panoramic painting. There is no discernable difference in style, layout or colors, or in theme. If the bunnies were realistic to begin with, looked different, or if the setting was different, I could more readily accept "homage" or "parallel development", but they are the exact same caricatured bunnies in the exact same location.

I hope the artist involved pursues this further, for I feel he has a legitimate complaint.

DaWezl

ara

Colored bunnies on a street. A stylized wave (not of bunnies as KozynDan's piece is (which - cough - is MUCH more directly "inspired" by Hokusai)). Similar, though common ideas, interpreted differently. There's a great deal going on in an ad besides isolated images which the ad agency delivered on.

It'd be like an artist that had a graphic of penguins a few years back suing the movie studios for the onslaught of penguin movies that erupted last year. Some commonalities but not enough to suggest theft. And the iconic, yet common elements were used in ways unimagined by the original artist.

No one "owns" penguins, bunnies or kittens.

That said, I think the agency should work with KozynDan. It's close enough to have a whiff of copying about it. It'd be a good way of meeting in the middle, benefitting both parties.

Trai_Dep

But of course, this has already been discussed. Ah well, so I responded to a troll.

mrface

dnzperson

So someone at Sony specifically requests work samples from kozyndan, then uses them as a basis for what was eventually produced by Sony. And likely the person/people who did this, happily claimed the idea as their own and received praise for their 'creativity.'

A perfect response would be to partner with another company (preferably a Sony rival) or launch something in a smaller collaboration. Diminish the 'original creativity' and 'unique imagery' of Sony's commercial in a way that Sony couldn't challenge at all. What are they going to do? Sue kozyndan for copying their idea? Won't that be an embarrassing case for Sony to pursue - and it would most likely end up with kozyndan get a double whammy in, rather than just directly launching a case against Sony directly.

noasalira

Z

Seriously. Don't blame Sony. I see the influence and I'm sure the ad folks more than likely developed the idea from the artist's work. Should the artist receive some compensation? Maybe. It's BUNNIES. Unless I'm completely wrong, Sony did the exact same thing with the bouncing-ball add and another artist. Unless that artist received payment....

zaky

that was ripped off of a group that does it every year in real life. advertisers are hardly original...

rewinditback

1-If you look at the Kozyndan panorama, it is obvious that the spot's idea was lifted from this. Ideas in a creative industry like high-end advertising are the most valuable commodity, and people in the business know it. They lifted the idea and did not bring Kozyndan onto the job. That's very bad juju.

2-The party responsible is the advertising agency, whomever it is. Sony pays an agency to do ONE thing, to come up with unique and creative ideas to forward their brand message. The agency does not actually make the commercial, they hire a production company (Passion Pictures) to actually do it and they supervise.

Here's the deal: They had ONE job to do, for which the agency was paid many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and they stole somebody else's homework.

direktor

Sockatume

I'd be inclined to cut Sony some slack on this--they did a quality original work with this theme. But given that they support the RIAA--the group that says I'm stealing if I just by make a backup copy of my CD for use in my car--I say sue the hell out of them!

maier_m

I guess I was just annoyed after the Gizmodo post ranted on like it was such an obvious ripoff, when to my eyes it's anything but. Sony have been going on a "lots of small brightly coloured things in a metropolitan area" binge for the past couple of years for the "Color Like No Other" campaign, so IMHO having claymation bunnies as the colourful objects is a fairly logical move.

@Phlegmbert: ZINGED!

Sockatume

DashTheHand

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.

hybrid8

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.

Saboth

someone said this about a month ago

jifjif

jifjif

[images.google.com]

KozyNDan inspired their work from The Great Wave of Kanagawa by Katsushika Hokusai

jifjif

[www.madprops.org]

jifjif

weatherman

shorty6049

There's no form of discourse. Unfortunately, you can't copyright an idea.

fiveeyedfilms

strangepork

GHETTO.CHiLD

Phlegmbert

Sockatume

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.

Sockatume

@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

ara

FAIL.

You get the point, it's not Sony who made this animation. In the promotional world, this isn't uncommon.

hezz05

brucifer

@El Guano: Yeah, it's bullshit.

@kadtech: Fucking right.

What's the deal here Giz? Please explain yourself.

dnzperson

So, don't worry. If the artist has a claim, they will get money from Sony itself.

fota

warkrismagic

El Guano

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.

dna

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.

saintchuck

Guy Esquire

Neil.Will

exakatalleee.

gary_slamson

Palestina

Palestina

QWERTYthon

Maybe call it copyright law?

Naw, that's just crazy talk.

saintchuck

kadtech

(commentor's note: Brian Lam is still my hero for owning the halo fanboys)

SnakePlissken

sansovino

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.

Bender

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.)

Bender

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.

Bokusatsu_Tenshi

dhaberer

dna

Replace "Sony Bastards"

With "Sony's Bastards"

BensAngel

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.

wlcrm

Yeah, don't blame Sony.

TheFaze

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...

DeadWriter

old debate for copyright law.

dysthymia

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.

philo_b

fupjack

BY 92BUICKLESABRE AT 10:26 AM

Truly love it. Sometimes seems like the best humor and performance art these
days is in the adverts.

Which has its pros and cons I guess.

Turns out this qualifies as one of the cons.

92BuickLeSabre