2 ms·
As I read it LB contracted a company to build him a device. Then LB took the device home, liked it and had another company copy that device. LB owns the device,
by columbo 14y ago
As I read it LB contracted a company to build him a device. Then LB took the device home, liked it and had another company copy that device. LB owns the device, the copyright, the IP, the idea, the script, the everything. LB can do _whatever_ he wanted with the device.
It doesn't matter of LB had the idea or not. It doesn't matter if he directed or gave them a script, advice or consultation. LB asked for complete ownership of a product and he received one.
All that is left is a moral argument. Should LB have recast the movie exactly as it was created by the other company?
Well shoot. I don't know. What about when a company changes its logo, should it be a ground up change to respect the previous creator or should it be a slight tweak to the existing creation?
I do believe that this is a great example of why you don't want to air your dirty laundry on the net. People are going to make decisions, choose sides, and you can't guarantee that it will land in your favor.
- objclxt 14y agoI'm a little surprised Asylum are moaning about this, because their site suggests they've been around for a few years working in the ad world, and this kind of thing happens all the time. That said, I refuse to believe LB when they say they didn't show the other production houses Asylum's original piece - it would be very unusual in advertising not to. Right or wrong, Asylum aren't doing themselves any favours...the ad world in London is very insular, more so than the start-up world. Everybody knows everybody, and reputation is really everything (I work on the outskirts of it, so I speak from some experience).