

Open Letter to Leo Burnett UK - kristianc
http://asylumfilms.co.uk/open-letter/

======
dansingerman
Leo Burnett response here <http://blog.leoburnett.co.uk/our-views/rmhc-gate/>

TL;DR - Original concept and script were supposedly Leo Burnett's.

~~~
modoc
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...

~~~
davedx
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
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).

------
colmvp
Having read both sides of the story, I don't understand why Asylum is butthurt
about this.

They got paid by Leo Burnett to do a scene which both parties collaborated.
However, as part of the contract and as the client to Asylum, Leo Burnett
probably owns the creative so they are free to do whatever they want
afterwards. It's not unlike a startup asking a designer to visually revamp
their entire site: the designer may have come up with the creative but the
client technically owns it.

Afterwards, Leo Burnett's client (McDonalds) decided that they liked it so
much they wanted a reshoot with higher production quality, so LB opted to
reshoot it with a more expensive production company.

~~~
rjknight
I think it's because Asylum were told (or assumed) that the prestige of the
client would be available to them once the work has been released. Asylum
would be able to take credit for the work by featuring it in their portfolio.
Now they're just the guys who shot the "prototype" rather than the real thing.
In creative work it's common for the commissioner to invite the agency to
"think of the prestige!" when agreeing to do some heroic work for a limited
budget, but it's rarely something that can be included in a contract.

That said, while it's disappointing for them, I can't see the moral issue
here. If someone contracted me to write some software for them, and then they
decided that they liked my implementation in Python but wanted to use a Java
port in production, I don't think I'd have any grounds for complaint on moral
or ethical grounds. I'd still have the money, and I'd still be able to tell
people that I did work for that client, on that particular project (assuming
there's no contractual bar to this).

~~~
sbarre
The moral issue would come from you having been convinced to do the Python
version for cheap, based on some future promise of work/fame/recognition, and
then having those future promises reneged on..

You're right, there is nothing illegal about it (and welcome to the world of
contracting!), but it's still a bit shitty.

That's why I believe in _"work for free, or work for full price, but never
work for cheap."_

~~~
citricsquid
From the Leo Burnett response it seems they were never working for fame, they
were producing an internal film that was never intended to see the light of
day. The RMHC enjoyed the film so much they wanted to have the same idea
transferred to a full marketing campaign.

------
columbo
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
I'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).

------
ceworthington
As a product designer who occasionally does contract work for larger
companies, I fail to see what the big deal is. My work is often used by my
clients to inform a bigger, more expensive design that they build internally
or outsource elsewhere. They hired me, they own the work, therefore they can
do what they would like with it.

~~~
regularfry
> they own the work

Depending on the contract. If there's no explicit copyright transfer, chances
are that they don't.

------
grabeh
It sounds from Leo Randall's blog that they took an assignment of Asylum
Film's film and if this is the case, they were free to do whatever they wanted
with it, including making derivative works or works substantially reproducing
it.

Still, if I was Asylum, I would have definitely thought more about retaining
some right of first refusal or right to tender if LR were to subsequently
decide to reshoot.

Obviously hindsight is a beautiful thing though, and perhaps LR didn't want to
be constrained in this way.

~~~
objclxt
I'm pretty sure any request for right of first refusal would just be shot
straight down. Bear in mind ultimately LB doesn't own the work: their client
does. LB is one link in a big long outsourcing chain, which is basically how
most advertising for large corporations works. You have one big agency at the
top, which farms out work to smaller agencies, etc etc.

~~~
grabeh
I'm inclined to agree, but I'm always interested to think about potential
angles and negotiation ploys. Heck, maybe there wasn't even a written
agreement in place!

------
electic
AF was the contractor, they produced work, they got paid to deliver product to
LB. LB didn't like it and paid more to get the concept redone. Sounds fair to
me. Welcome to life.

------
ed209
For what it's worth, I find the Asylum version is much nicer, has more
character and emotion than the "high production quality" version.

------
dabeeeenster
It's just a case of what they had signed. If Asylum assigned over the rights
of the work to LB, they have nothing to complain about...

------
andyjohnson0
This seems wrong to me, and I hope it gets resolved. But why is this on HN and
near the top of the main page? Definitely off topic.

~~~
kristianc
_On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes
more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the
answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity._

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

~~~
andyjohnson0
I'm aware of that guideline. How does a minor dispute between two companies
gratify one's intellectual curiosity?

~~~
nicholassmith
Well we get a lot of posts about copyright, client work and so on so it does
seem to fit.

