Universal Music, the largest record company in the world, figures it is OK to sue user-generated Internet sites like MySpace and Grouper for encouraging users to share music videos of Universal artists without permission. But what if an ad agency, acting on behalf of a global giant like Coca Cola, copies user-generated content without permission? Is it flattery, fraud or plagiarism?

This issue came to my attention when someone passed on this link to Rob Manuel’s video post. Rob is convinced that Coca Cola’s ad agency in Argentina has ripped off a song and video produced by Joel Veitch at Rathergood.com a year earlier.

Rob is not sure if this is actually copyright infringement, but states, “I do know that it is absolutely without permission and really scummy.” Most of the people who commented on the post seem to agree with Rob, but some other common themes emerge as follows:

• This is not an unusual occurrence – in the agency world or elsewhere (see You Thought We Wouldn’t Notice for examples).
• The agency is using Joel’s idea, not his actual work.
• Something should be done about it: sue Coca Cola, go after the agency, switch to Pepsi, and – the big gun – put it on MySpace.

Only a few commonsense voices stand out among the frenzied “get ‘ems.” While “anon” is alone in suggesting it may not be deliberate copying, another reader sides with those who think it is just another case of agencies doing what agencies do.

“I hate to rain on everyone’s parade,” writes FishNChimps, “but (speaking as someone working in the ad industry) ad agencies nicking other people’s ideas is as old as the ark. Sony’s bouncing balls ad was nicked off the David Letterman show, the Honda Cog ad was ‘borrowed’ from a speculative art film and if I could be bothered I could dig out dozens of other examples. The one thing they all have in common is that nobody was ever successfully sued on the grounds of ‘artistic’ copying. Even agencies do it to each other, and complain about it, but nothing ever happens to the offenders.”

I noticed a recent post at Adrants.com which seems to prove FishNChimps’ point. A short item describes a controversy over a new VW ad, created by DDB Berlin, featuring a fly carrying off a frog. Some think it may be a rip-off of a Wulffmorgenthaler comic strip.

All of which goes to prove that Web 2.0 is yet another example of new technology enabling an old trait of human nature. If you find good ideas hard to come by, you can always steal them. The fact that so much good content is made freely available online just makes the copycats task that much easier.

When social media started to take off, corporate marketers expressed concern over the fact that they would no longer control their brands or marketing communication. Now, in an amusing about-face, we have the likes of P&G CEO A.G. Lafley suggesting we must let go control of our brands, while Rob Manuel and friends cry foul because an ad agency copied their material. Although a few commentators on Rob’s blog did point out that even some material on b3ta.com, which Rob co-founded, shows signs of being “borrowed,” most expressed disgust at the idea that big business should rip off a “little guy’s” creative.

Whether you like it or not, I think these episodes just serve to confirm that in these days of Web 2.0, the basic operating principle is “If it’s public domain, don’t complain.” People have always imitated each other, with good or bad intent. Technology has just made it easier, and we all better get used to it.

If this is the case, you might ask, how come Universal believes it is worth suing MySpace and the like? In contrast to Joel Veitch’s Ninja video, Universal’s music videos are not being imitated—they are being copied and disseminated. And it could be argued that the dissemination of those videos will dilute potential revenues from music sales. Universal stopped its prior litigation with YouTube because that site agreed to pay a licensing fee for the content, and to share associated advertising revenues. Whether this was a token victory or a fair exchange, it was enough to get Universal to back off.

Please tell me what you think about this issue. Should Joel Veitch be mad or glad that Coca Cola’s agency thought his work worth copying? Would Coca Cola and agency be mad or glad if Joel decided to spoof one of their ads and it went viral? And should I submit the slogan “If it’s public domain, don’t complain” to threadless.com?

Š

This entry was posted on Monday, December 18th, 2006 at 6:27 pm and is filed under Creative, Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Print this Page