Related Posts
Additional Posts in Advertising
Ted Royer helping JL win VW. Rumor or true?
Chief
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
That was just a preview…
Sign Up to see all discussions
Sign Up to see all discussions
- Discover what it’s like to work at companies from real professionals
- Get candid advice from people in your field in a safe space
- Chat and network with other professionals in your field
Sign up in seconds to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
"" is an unusual email domain. If correct, please proceed to the next step
Messaging rates may apply
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Share
Embed this post
Copy and paste embed code on your site
Preview
Download the
Fishbowl app
Scan your QR code to download
Fishbowl app on your mobile
Sign up for free to view this conversation on Fishbowl
Sign up for free to continue using Fishbowl
Messaging rates may apply
Sounds like a fun place to work. 🫣
Yes. Not sued for the presentation but sued after it went live and the presentation was used as evidence. The celeb said they purposefully used someone that looked like them instead of paying them. I can’t remember who. Taylor or Kim maybe? Maybe a Billy on the street example too. This was years ago. Either way they seldom make it through court, and your agency will settle. It’s a risk but not a huge one, could be an expensive one.
I concur with SVP1. Similarly it can happen with music. Better to reference the genre vs a song for original compositions. Musicology will protect there too. Having had this convo with legal, it protects the agency if the IP isn’t mentioned by name. It’s a legit CYA measure.
You won’t get sued for having something in an internal deck. If you’re putting it in the actual commercial then that obviously could be an issue. Do they understand the difference?
Do some basic reading on parody vs satire and copyright infringement, esp around commercial use. Have a solid pov so you can push back.
👆🏼👆🏼👆🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
You know why Apple’s 1984 only ran once? They did not license the IP and got sued by George Orwell’s estate.
In a creative presentation?? Like an internal deck? We use to cut sizzle videos with movie footage.
I was sued by doing a parody of a Weird Al song.
The irony is amazing
Not overreacting. I was at Grey and we were sued by ZZ Top (and had to pay $6m) for a piece of scored music in a TV spot that resembled La Grange. They won because discovery found our rough cut mixed with, you guessed it, La Grange.
internal pitch decks it’s permissible to use content from other sources as a reference, especially when trying to illustrate a concept or look & feel you’re going for. That same imagery cannot be commercially used to sell or advertise your business. And if something similar is created it has to have 3 key differentiators from the source content, even as a parody or satire, to be safer from lawsuits.
Yeah. It’s a delicate balance between risk and reward. I always am cautious and sensitive to IP. The reality is anyone can sue anyone for anything these days so I stick to licensed imagery or go direct to the source for permission.
parody is protected speech
Like ACD1 said. Not when it’s commercial usage. And all ads are commercial. Some brand will take a bigger risk. But parody is not protected for your brand work
Parody is generally protected.
Parody doesn’t cover brands. I spoke to our agency legal dept.
Wieden got sued for Honda Cog
Seems the artist wrote a letter to Honda but never actually filed a lawsuit. Either way, this was an ad that ran, OP is asking about referencing work in an internal deck.
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20160205-when-ads-go-too-far