Guest Columnists
About this blog...Industry figures share their views on the latest issues. If you have an idea for a guest column, email opinion@thedrum.com
How could it happen? Leo Burnett and the charity plagiarism row
Jason StoneJason Stone brings us the inside track on the Leo Burnett row, after the ad agency was accused of copying a charity film.
Asylum Films's decision to go public in a dispute with Leo Burnett about a film made for McDonald's charity foundation has created quite a stir.
In an open letter to Leo Burnett's Head of TV, Ben Falk alleged that Asylum's "work and creative content has been copied and reused, without any consultation or recognition".
Falk only became aware that his film had been remade by the agency when Leo Burnett launched their new version with a fanfare of publicity earlier this week.
Asylum had delivered their film for less than £5,000. There was no chance of making money on the job but small companies frequently provide work for advertising agencies on this basis in the hope they'll be considered for work with proper budgets that will make them money. Falk was baffled when he discovered that Leo Burnett had remade the film and he was "wounded and hurt" they'd done so without consulting him.
After attempts to tackle Leo Burnett privately came to nothing, Falk decided that his best option was to make his grievances public.
The response was extraordinary. Falk describes himself as "humbled" by expressions of support from across the industry and says he's been inundated by messages from other production companies revealing how they've been stung in similar fashion.
More pertinently, within twenty minutes of publishing his open letter Falk received a phone call from Paul Lawson - Leo Burnett's Chief Executive Officer – whom he described as friendly, helpful and constructive. Falk has been told that a meeting early next week will determine the agency's next move but it's already clear to him that Leo Burnett are "trying to do the right thing."
Having spoken to someone at Blac Ionica - who made the second film - Falk is aware that no-one at Leo Burnett showed them his film. However Blac Ionica came across it themselves online and drew it to the attention of the agency. A contrite member of Leo Burnett's TV department who worked on the second film, later told Falk that "we forgot to call you."
Falk has also been contacted by a number of lawyers keen to help him litigate. He has rebuffed their approaches because he doesn't "want to be the aggressor".
Precedent suggests that litigation would not be a fruitful move. When Mehdi Norowzian took on the might of Guinness in the mid-1990s, he learned to his cost that it's immensely difficult to demonstrate that copyright has been breached when your dispute hinges on the look and feel of a film... and his case was a good deal stronger than any Asylum could hope to bring before the courts.
But perhaps the really interesting dimension of this dispute is the pace at which it is being dealt with. Falk's decision to go public has unquestionably galvanised Leo Burnett into action and even if they've primarily acted to protect their reputation, their willingness to engage and seek an equitable solution is much more likely to provide a good outcome for Asylum than if the production company had kept their grievances quiet. Such is the power of social media.
Falk says that there's "not a chance" that he would have been contacted by senior executives at Leo Burnett if he hadn't opted to go public and he's hoping that his "kick at the hornet's nest" will remind advertising agencies to behave more responsibly in future.
Ben Falk has "no regrets" and when asked whether he'd recommend the same course for other companies faced by a similar predicament, he said: "I think so, yes. But only because we've had such a positive response".
New to The Drum
You will be sent a verification email. Click on the link in the email to post your comment.
Existing Users Sign In
Have your say
Opinion, blogs and columnists - call them what you like - this is the section where people have something to say. You might agree or you might not - whatever opinion you have make your views known in comments. Views of writers are not necessarily those of The Drum. If you would like to contribute a comment piece, email your idea to opinion@thedrum.com.
Most Popular
Try The Drum free
Your free trial gets you:
- Two copies of The Drum magazine
- One month unlimited access to online subscriber content
- Access to reports, research and case studies
Comments
comments
LB's friendly, helpful and constructive CEO here. Not sure I fully buy this interpretation of events. Everybody is now aware that the original idea, script and both versions of the film were ours i.e. we re-made our own film! Unfortunately, the Twittersphere chose to swallow the untrue story that we had somehow nicked somebody else's idea and re-made it as our own. Ben was more than free to call or e-mail me instead of issuing an open letter. That way, Ben could have talked to me even quicker than waiting for a response to his letter... There is no 'meeting next week to determine our next move'. We've told him we are sorry that he didn't get the chance to re-make the film with a bigger budget. And he has apologised for suggesting that our original creative idea (rather than his execution of our idea) was Asylum's rather than LB's. Finally, here's a slightly more balanced discussion thread around the issue. https://www.facebook.com/whatleydude/posts/311482075616883
comments
Paul L'B FRIENDLY AND CONSTRUCTIVE CEO????y ou have never suggested that the work of Asylum was under par or not to your standards. The reason you had to re shoot the project,at great cost, was the fact that you had not acquired the legal rights to the design of the Box. And after requiring the above you wore abliged to re make the film at a greater cost to McD, a charitable organisation that could have put the money towards much better use. Your giving time to Asylum films should be a correct and moral obligation, given that you have abused cheap talent( in the far Eas called child labour, a criminal act!) dumped them (expendable ) for your own gains. The crime has been done sorry will not heal the wounds left behind. Follow your advertising slogan. Leo Burnett " agency for Manking" Don't make this a David fighting Goliath fight Do the gentlemanly humaine and correct thing.as a friendly and constructive CEO. This whole issue was totally your mistake,the lighting and many of shot ideas were Bens and those were completely plagiarise, the agency and the clients came back with rave reviews. What happened?? This will not go away like yesterday's chip paper. Too many people are suffering at the hands of friendly Companies!!!
comments
Paul I'm sure I speak for the majority of people whose comments we have noted, To say how delighted we were to hear that you had in fact agreed to meet with Asylum films next week. It seemed that the "Big Bad ad Agencies " do in fact have a heart It is understood that Asylum were presented with your agencies script but you fail to mention any of the creative input Ben Falk made and presented to your agency in order to be awarded the film in the first place and during the shoot.His direction of the film is not taken into account in fact all the creative elements that a film director I puts into making a film you have conveniently overlooked The fact that the new film is exactly a copy frame for frame choices of location ,lighting,the whole mood et all of Ben Falk's version is a testament to his skills as a director He had to bend over backwards to produce this project for your agency by calling upon colleges to work for a fraction of their normal rates to produce this for you It's not a legal issue it's a moral one I'm sure if you did decide met with Ben to have a sensible conversation you would win the hearts and minds of many people in the industry Go on Paul force yourself ,be nice be "friendly be helpful be constructive" Put back our faith lets see LBs heart Do the meeting,do the right thing.
comments
Paul and other Synics of the AF protest. Please observe the ownership and the creative input of Leo B.... And it's team. The following has been aired for many months. Does it remind you of " the original cocept by LB?? Check out this video on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVvYmf_s8T8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Sent from my iPad
comments
Social Media driven advertising tabloid gossip column…nice…*Get Involved.
Or *Get Swiftcovered in the case of Jaleh.
*Apologies to Grey, MWOS & Iggy Pop.
Chill mate, I'm sure they'll work it out amongst themselves.
comments
Hi Paul,
I agree that isn't helpful that some of the reaction to Ben's letter has centred on a false idea - ie: that Leo Burnett nicked someone else's idea - and I was careful not to reproduce that error.
So what is the issue here? A lot of online comment has reflected a sense that small production companies who are trying to establish themselves have a tendency to take on projects at a budget that's uneconomic in the hope that it will increase their standing with companies like yours. While a mature reflection of this phenomenon has to acknowledge that these companies enter into these kind of arrangements on a voluntary basis, I think it's also fair to say that there can be a certain amount of pressure put on them backed by promises of 'jam tomorrow' if they can deliver something for less than it costs.
Do you think this is a fair characterisation and do you think that the bigger companies in the industry have any need to ensure that they're not taking advantage of the smaller players... unwittingly or not?
Jason
comments
One of the issues here is with the readership of the Drum. As a Marketing Director for a well known agency, I have had to dodge the snide comments from junior ranking failed creatives' from regional (Northern) agencies or assistant studio managers whose careers have totally stalled except for the delight of posting rubbish here on these forums.
The Drum excels in bringing this rubbish out from the woodwork.
The Leo Burnett / Asylum tirade here is a prime example. Goes to prove why this publication is operating within a time lag.
comments
Hi Jason
Absolutely agree with you that it's easy for (any sized) production company to 'invest' in jam tomorrow. It's the way of the world. But, at no point, as far as I understand it, were Asylum made any promises. As ever, they are simply trying to get on an ad agency's radar to ensure they might get considered for other projects. Asylum has done that, and it will be in the mix when it comes to considering other projects that we think might be appropriate for their particular talent set and experience.
The other thing to remember is that it's not the ad agency's money. It's our client's. So, it's not like we make any money by getting stuff done on the cheap. Believe me, most of our battles with clients are centred on getting them to find enough budget to do a project properly. We have no interest (moral or financial) in ripping off production companies.
As such, I think Asylum and the like need to go into such projects with their eyes wide-open. They didn't do the RMHC job on the basis that they would get the bigger, budget re-make (nobody knew there was going to be a re-make at the time). They did it to stay on Burnett's radar. This they have done. It's just a shame that they spun what was a case of sour grapes into a false plagiarism story. It's a shame that they chose to demonise an agency individual by personally naming him in an open letter in various social media forums. And, it's a shame that they didn't simply pick-up the phone to any one of the agency's senior management before publishing a letter while simultaneously sending it to our Head of TV. This was disingenuous and feels very much like their eye was PR and petty vengeance!!
Paul
comments
Hi Jason
Absolutely agree with you that it's easy for (any sized) production company to 'invest' in jam tomorrow. It's the way of the world. But, at no point, as far as I understand it, were Asylum made any promises. As ever, they are simply trying to get on an ad agency's radar to ensure they might get considered for other projects. Asylum has done that, and it will be in the mix when it comes to considering other projects that we think might be appropriate for their particular talent set and experience.
The other thing to remember is that it's not the ad agency's money. It's our client's. So, it's not like we make any money by getting stuff done on the cheap. Believe me, most of our battles with clients are centred on getting them to find enough budget to do a project properly. We have no interest (moral or financial) in ripping off production companies.
As such, I think Asylum and the like need to go into such projects with their eyes wide-open. They didn't do the RMHC job on the basis that they would get the bigger, budget re-make (nobody knew there was going to be a re-make at the time). They did it to stay on Burnett's radar. This they have done. It's just a shame that they spun what was a case of sour grapes into a false plagiarism story. It's a shame that they chose to demonise an agency individual by personally naming him in an open letter in various social media forums. And, it's a shame that they didn't simply pick-up the phone to any one of the agency's senior management before publishing a letter while simultaneously sending it to our Head of TV. This was disingenuous and feels very much like their eye was on PR and petty vengeance!!
Paul
comments
I am led to believe the “little box” character was licensed for the Asylum Films version of the video, so no copyright issues there. Although, how ‘original' the ‘idea' was from Leo's creatives was in the first place is a different matter… They are paid to come up with ideas and had to use someone else's but hey, there is a fine line between inspiration and plagiarism, I guess.
From my understanding, the problem for Asylum was never about the copying of an ‘idea' – anyone in advertising will know that the creatives within the agency come up with the basics of that, plus a script of some sort. The production company then develops the script through artistry, storyboards, animatics etc. to give a look and feel for the film. Asylum, by the sounds of it felt this ‘treatment' (inc. colours/ mood/ tone/ shot selection etc) and later their filming/ execution of Leo's idea was regurgitated and therefore, this caused them offence. Rightly so. The films are undeniably similar and in some places, identical.
The second issue is about respect. Asylum worked hard, for very little money (definitely not making anything on this job) and were given a pat on the back by the agency for doing so… Regardless of what may or may not have been promised by the agency, Asylum would have *hoped* to be considered for future projects, let alone their own project being awarded a bigger budget for TV because it impressed the client so much. Would Leo have won a TV campaign had it not been for Asylum's effort? In short, Leo stabbed Asylum in the back when they had bigger fish to fry. Bad form. This is not a good look for them PR wise and by no means are they the only agency doing this. They are simply the only agency that has been called out for doing so. (So far). Bravo Asylum!
Most small production companies keep their mouth shut ‘for their own good', so this problem does not get noticed or cared about by the wider public. Asylum standing up for themselves is what has struck a chord within the creative community and also, quite frankly, what has pissed Leo off. It's unprecedented. Agencies aren't used to it. Agencies don't like it. It was a bold and risky move on the production company's part and that should be applauded.
The bottom line is, without one creative body standing up for something, change can not exist. This has flagged up that something much greater than one company's upset at their creativity and dedication being mistreated, it has highlighted a problem within the industry, quite simply – ethics. More specifically, arrogance and bad morals from agencies. It's not on. Social media has given us the power not to be silenced over such issue. What Leo Burnett did to Asylum borders on plagiarism and does nothing in sending a positive message to the greater creative spirit.
Anyone that says ‘but that's just the way the ad world works' is surely making excuses… and it certainly doesn't make it right.
I agree that Asylum should not have made this a personal attack - I can only assume from my investigations that was an oversight on their part. One that if they should apologise for, if they haven't already. But I don't think they realised how much of an affect their letter would have on the industry.
I do bet that Asylum have received nothing from Leo, except perhaps a ‘sorry'. A bigger gesture could surely have been mustered, even if just to save face.
Thanks for taking the time to read this. I only hope that some sort of change in perspective occurs as a result of this debate.
Leo have enough weight to make something positive if they hold their hands up and make this right...
comments
I am led to believe the “little box” character was licensed for the Asylum Films version of the video, so no copyright issues there. Although, how ‘original' the ‘idea' was from Leo's creatives was in the first place is a different matter. They are paid to come up with ideas and had to use someone else's box character but hey, there is a fine line between inspiration and plagiarism, I guess.
From my understanding, the problem for Asylum was never about the copying of an ‘idea' – anyone in advertising will know that the creatives within the agency come up with the basics of that, plus a script of some sort. The production company then develops the script through artistry, storyboards, animatics etc. to give a look and feel for the film. Asylum, by the sounds of it felt this ‘treatment' (inc. colours/ mood/ tone/ shot selection etc) and later their filming/ execution of Leo's idea was regurgitated and therefore, this caused them offence. Rightly so. The films are undeniably similar and in some places, identical.
The second issue is about respect. Asylum worked hard, for very little money (definitely not making anything on this job) and were given a pat on the back by the agency for doing so… Regardless of what may or may not have been promised by the agency, Asylum would have *hoped* to be considered for future projects, let alone their own project being awarded a bigger budget for TV because it impressed the client so much. Would Leo have won a TV campaign had it not been for Asylum's effort? In short, Leo stabbed Asylum in the back when they had bigger fish to fry. Bad form. This is not a good look for them PR wise and by no means are they the only agency doing this. They are simply the only agency that has been called out for doing so. (So far). Bravo Asylum!
Most small production companies keep their mouth shut ‘for their own good', so this problem does not get noticed or cared about by the wider public. Asylum standing up for themselves is what has struck a chord within the creative community and also, quite frankly, what has pissed Leo off. It's unprecedented. Agencies aren't used to it. Agencies don't like it. It was a bold and risky move on the production company's part and that should be applauded.
The bottom line is, without one creative body standing up for something, change can not exist. This has flagged up that something much greater than one company's upset at their creativity and dedication being mistreated, it has highlighted a problem within the industry, quite simply – ethics. More specifically, arrogance and bad morals from agencies. It's not on. Social media has given us the power not to be silenced over such issue. What Leo Burnett did to Asylum borders on plagiarism and does nothing in sending a positive message to the greater creative spirit.
Anyone that says ‘but that's just the way the ad world works' is surely making excuses… and it certainly doesn't make it right.
I agree that Asylum should not have made this a personal attack - I can only assume from my investigations that was an oversight on their part. One that if they should apologise for, if they haven't already. But I don't think they realised how much of an affect their letter would have on the industry.
I do bet that Asylum have received nothing from Leo, except perhaps a ‘sorry'. A bigger gesture could surely have been mustered, even if just to save face.
Thanks for taking the time to read this. I only hope that some sort of change in perspective occurs as a result of this debate.
comments
Here Here Laura, you have summed up the issue beautifully.
Contrary to what Paul Lawson suggests, I do not believe Asylum demonised anyone- in fact, I think he needs to re-read the original letter! At no point was the recipient blamed, in fact, the final paragraph of the letter appeals precisely to his presumed righteousness: "I feel that no one would wish to run an organisation that knowingly exploits young and emerging creativity, as such I am bringing this matter to your personal attention."
Write Your Comment