A storm blew up yesterday after it was revealed that the ad for Transport for London is almost identical to a video produced by the University of Illinois in 1999.
The clip was removed from YouTube following a complaint over copyright, but a spokesman for WCRS today defended the spot.
He said: "We are facing criticism relating to copyright on the cycling safety TV ad.
"We have been assured that this execution does not infringe copyright. We feel it is a powerful message and is one that will have an impact on this very serious issue".
It is understood that the academic who produced the video, professor Daniel J Simons, is unhappy about not being contacted by TfL or the agency before their ad was released.
However, he is not contemplating legal action over the clip.
Comments
Holly - 12/03/2008
So they've commented on the copyright issue... but what about the theft?
I'd love to hear their excuse for blatantly stealing Simons' idea.
It's a shame that a brilliantly executed ad is now going to have the gloss taken off it because the idea is a blatant rip off!
I find it laughable that these copyright issues were over looked in the early planning stages of a multi-millions pound campaign.
The original version is pretty Mickey mouse admittedly but I would love to know what the events were in the creation of the WCRS ad, ie- someone taking the plaudits for a 'brilliant and original idea' and now getting found out maybe?
So if he's not taking legal action, why are the clips being removed from YouTube for copyright violation?
Hi
H Kimber, the answer is simple, removal stops continuance of the Copyright Infringement, thus there is no need to take legal action. However, now that the copyright owner has declared infringement, if it is then continued, there are grounds for an action seeking compensation. Although, as the copyright owner is Non-Commercial quite what that compensation would be is anyones guess.
If the copyright owner was a Commercial Organisation, then compesation would relate to a whole host of things, not least sales loss's, in which case the Infringing Party would have to pay to the copyright owner, all sales gained during the the period over which the infringement took place, and in addition if the infringing party wished to continue from that point on, they would have to pay a License Fee to the copyright owner.
Mark Doherty
Considering that the video is based upon an academic finding it seems odd that there is even complaint - most academics would kill to have their research findings presented to the world. No reason that WCRS couldn't put a disclaimer of orignial idea at the end of the ad or something, honouring Simons findings.
I've seen a similar test in a few places, one of which was the Sky One show Brainiac. So presumably Brainiac asked Simons for permission, off that assumption he'd seem a reasonable man who would allow the advert, so long as nobody was trying to claim his findings by their name
chri s - 13/03/2008
"most academics would kill to have their research findings presented to the worl"
yeeeeah. right. only that their message gets totally lost in favour of someone else's logo here.
Comments
Holly - 12/03/2008
So they've commented on the copyright issue... but what about the theft? I'd love to hear their excuse for blatantly stealing Simons' idea.
Jonathan Keane - 12/03/2008
It's a shame that a brilliantly executed ad is now going to have the gloss taken off it because the idea is a blatant rip off! I find it laughable that these copyright issues were over looked in the early planning stages of a multi-millions pound campaign. The original version is pretty Mickey mouse admittedly but I would love to know what the events were in the creation of the WCRS ad, ie- someone taking the plaudits for a 'brilliant and original idea' and now getting found out maybe?
H Kimber - 12/03/2008
So if he's not taking legal action, why are the clips being removed from YouTube for copyright violation?
Mark Doherty - 13/03/2008
Hi H Kimber, the answer is simple, removal stops continuance of the Copyright Infringement, thus there is no need to take legal action. However, now that the copyright owner has declared infringement, if it is then continued, there are grounds for an action seeking compensation. Although, as the copyright owner is Non-Commercial quite what that compensation would be is anyones guess. If the copyright owner was a Commercial Organisation, then compesation would relate to a whole host of things, not least sales loss's, in which case the Infringing Party would have to pay to the copyright owner, all sales gained during the the period over which the infringement took place, and in addition if the infringing party wished to continue from that point on, they would have to pay a License Fee to the copyright owner. Mark Doherty
Sean Adams - 13/03/2008
Considering that the video is based upon an academic finding it seems odd that there is even complaint - most academics would kill to have their research findings presented to the world. No reason that WCRS couldn't put a disclaimer of orignial idea at the end of the ad or something, honouring Simons findings. I've seen a similar test in a few places, one of which was the Sky One show Brainiac. So presumably Brainiac asked Simons for permission, off that assumption he'd seem a reasonable man who would allow the advert, so long as nobody was trying to claim his findings by their name
chri s - 13/03/2008
"most academics would kill to have their research findings presented to the worl" yeeeeah. right. only that their message gets totally lost in favour of someone else's logo here.