3 ms·

Leo Burnett response here http://blog.leoburnett.co.uk/our-views/rmhc-gate/ http://blog.leoburnett.co.uk/our-views/rmhc-gate/ TL;DR - Original concept and scri

Leo Burnett response here http://blog.leoburnett.co.uk/our-views/rmhc-gate/ http://blog.leoburnett.co.uk/our-views/rmhc-gate/ TL;DR - Original concept and script were supposedly Leo Burnett's.

modoc 14y ago
However the Asylum Films complaint isn't around the concept or script being copied/stolen. They complain that the company that re-shot the higher budget version essentially copied/stole much of their creative work: lighting, shots, etc...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- davedx 14y ago
  But surely when you do work for a client, they own the IP, not you? If I was a logo designer and designed a logo for BigCorp, then they wanted to revise it a year later to something similar but different, would I be justified in complaining they 'stole and copied my creative work'?
  - nicholassmith 14y ago
    They own the finished product, but honestly it's really frowned upon to a do a bigger budget version and lift lighting and shooting setups (or at least in photography, I'd imagine videography runs on the same rails).
  - evoxed 14y ago
    It's all supposed to be in the contract. If it's not, then the most likely court scenario is that the IP is owned by the client, creator would have rights to display it, but their work would be considered a service.
  - regularfry 14y ago
    That depends entirely on the specific contract and the jurisdiction. There's no automatic assumption of copyright transfer in the UK, what you have is an implied license to use (normally). It's quite possible you would be justified, although I'd take issue with the word "stole".
barrkel 14y ago
That may be the case, but I'd put "concept + script" in the same bucket as "high-level spec" - in other words, not really believable when the end results look like direct clones. If Leo Burnett had said they did storyboards, set design etc., it would be more convincing.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

Leo Burnett response here http://blog.leoburnett.co.uk/our-views/rmhc-gate/ http://blog.leoburnett.co.uk/our-views/rmhc-gate/ TL;DR - Original concept and script were supposedly Leo Burnett's.

modoc 14y ago

However the Asylum Films complaint isn't around the concept or script being copied/stolen. They complain that the company that re-shot the higher budget version essentially copied/stole much of their creative work: lighting, shots, etc...

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
davedx 14y ago
But surely when you do work for a client, they own the IP, not you? If I was a logo designer and designed a logo for BigCorp, then they wanted to revise it a year later to something similar but different, would I be justified in complaining they 'stole and copied my creative work'?
- nicholassmith 14y ago
  They own the finished product, but honestly it's really frowned upon to a do a bigger budget version and lift lighting and shooting setups (or at least in photography, I'd imagine videography runs on the same rails).
- evoxed 14y ago
  It's all supposed to be in the contract. If it's not, then the most likely court scenario is that the IP is owned by the client, creator would have rights to display it, but their work would be considered a service.
- regularfry 14y ago
  That depends entirely on the specific contract and the jurisdiction. There's no automatic assumption of copyright transfer in the UK, what you have is an implied license to use (normally). It's quite possible you would be justified, although I'd take issue with the word "stole".

barrkel 14y ago

That may be the case, but I'd put "concept + script" in the same bucket as "high-level spec" - in other words, not really believable when the end results look like direct clones. If Leo Burnett had said they did storyboards, set design etc., it would be more convincing.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]