This is how big companies make themselves bigger...This kind of ripping really makes you wonder if there even is such a thing as copyright protection, real artists or real art...after all, you would think that Sony is either desperate enough not to have the intelligence or creativity to produce an ad on its own, or that "real" artists are not so different from Devart submitters...there's no silver line here, is it? And forget about copyright...after all, who is the media gonna believe: one man with great ideas or a multimillion dollar company?
SONY has lost all of my respect...

--
Life is a sexually transmitted disease. And it's death percentage is 100%.

It's so sad! Gryyy

--
I'm the Bad Seed

How horrible...

--
Yes... still here.

¿Es mi español correcto?

but Sony would never do that...

--
_{My Site | Deviant 1,660,340 | Test your skill | Play Games}

oh my, that's incredibly awful!

Unfortunately, this is why it's important as an artist to be prepared and ALWAYS ask for a written contract in exchange for any work, regardless of how well-known the company is or what project they're working on. Ripping is one of the most terrible things anyone can do to an artist, but the fact is, this time they got away with it, and somewhat legally too (because the samples were willingly handed over)...

--
\\\"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.\\\" Thomas Paine

i just came across the article this morning..gawd. they are such liars and i feel bad for kozyndan.

--
<sub>FLICKR | TUMBLR

ready when you are</sub>

Unfortunately, though well deserved, your rage is misplaced. Sony didn't steal it. Sony payed through the ass for it, I expect. They bought it from the animation studio. Wrong people, yes, but most likely thats what happened. And if you pay through the ass like they did. Trust me in saying that there is a contract saying that Sony will back them up legally, should somebody claim the art as their own. I'm sure Sony knowns damn well they stole it. That doesn't mean they can say anything about it without major legal ramifications.

By technicality, Sony is not, and should not be held liable.

The kicker here is that the original artist made a mistake. A big mistake. Never, EVER send out your art to any ware unless you have a lawyer checked iron-clad contract saying that you work for them and they are to pay for your work. If they use it or not. Without that, they can just say; "Well, yeah sure the guy sent it. But we thought he was giving us the art to use.". Or, like in this case, deny using it at all and claim any and all resemblance is a major ka-winki-dink.

Don't let them fool you. Currency is law. And there is no way in hell that a single, small voiced person is going to sue a major mega-corporation and win. Be cause, sure, you may have the law on your side and a damn good lawyer. They have lawyers that make yours look like you picked him up off the streets. And they will use more than one at a time. They'll bring them in via helicopter convoy. Why? Because they have money. And money is power. And power equals immunity. The only thing that can break that immunity is another company, with equal amounts of money, and as you may have guessed, a contract. Without a contract, no matter how much money you have. Your screwed.

Sadly thats fact.

But if you want people to blame. Blame the small people who did sue mega-corps over stupid crap, and made it harder for regular people to sue over a genuine problem.

Of which do I speak? Ever buy McD's coffee? Ever read one with thes words of shear pain written on it to explain how hot it is? That never used to be there. Some b**** spilt coffee on herself by way of her own stupidity, and sued McD's for not making it clear that, gee, the coffee was hot. I guess the steam rolling off it was no clue! Or, how about the fact that, gee, you cant buy effing COLD coffee unless its a iced MOCHA. Not the same thing.

So blame her. And blame every other sue-happy asshole who sued a mega corp over stupid, common sense bullshit. Because it is they who made laws so strict. It is, in fact, they who made it hard for us - the generally intelligent people - to sue over legitimate things. Laws were instated to protect companies from stupidity. Unfortunately, us people of intelligence suffer because they haven't instated a law saying that you have to pass a certain IQ or be put to death.

I hope this explains my views, and thank you all for reading.

--
I'm really not this crazy in person.

I'm worse.

What again? Another rip?

Money, end of. This is all that drives this kind of thing. Sony pay them big money, they run away having used someone else's idea. Easy money!

But I don't understand the mentality. It absolutely does not make any sense. How can they possibly think they will get away with it? We all have computers. Haven't they heard of U-Tube and something called the internet?

I was talking to Jean, the originator of this news item, about protecting his work a few weeks ago, and was on the verge of launching in to a diatribe about moral standards, but I spared him the ordeal. It seems, on this occasion, that I cannot avoid it. As I said, how can they think they can get away with this? I talk from a moral stand-point when I say this, assuming, mistakenly, that these people must think about the moral implications of what they are doing, that such activity must prick their conscience, cause them to sleep uneasily or bother them that their reputation will in some profound way be tarnished. In short, it must bother them that what they are doing is just plain wrong. But it doesn't because what do we see? A major corporation denying everything and piling mountains of dollar bills behind their door, in the form of lawyers, to stop anyone getting to them. This is the example that is set. In essence, to make enough money to do exactly as you please. This idea presents the prospect of a terrifying world where there is no need to have a conscience because you are never wrong, you never make a mistake, you never have to apologise, and you don't have to curb or regulate your behaviour. All problems become minor and insignificant, even people. Just pay someone to make whatever it is go away.

This attitude is corrosive. It erodes, what I regard as a supreme human quality. A sense of fairness. Smaller companies, or rather, the individuals that make them, start to believe that fairness doesn't matter, and that it's all about the money - just get paid, by any means! It seems absurd, but this is exactly what seems to have happened here. It looks to me like someone took a gamble, or did a deal, that Sony would stand by their dishonesty. The gamble paid off or Sony is keeping its side of the contract. "It's just business", as the saying goes, a phrase that is more and more coming to represent a senseless, unemotional, unfeeling machine that eats human flesh to live. This has to be ultimately unsustainable because it is humans that do business, not machines, or, indeed, is that changing? There lies another discussion.

It is the sheer size of companies that perpetuates this kind of attitude, as well. I mentioned the individuals in companies because that is what they are - people. No people, no company. Yet, there comes a point where the personal aspect stops existing. The individuals within the organisation work for the organisation not for some collective, common goal that the organisation represents or is there to initiate and maintain. The role of the individual becomes to support and maintain the organisation at all costs, and the activities and conduct of that company become detached from them as, "nothing to do with me, I just work here" and, "I'm only doing my job". Consequently, we get glib, callous, unedifying statements like this from these huge monolithic entities. The statement has nothing to do with the individual that produced it, they're just doing their job, this is "Sony, not me. I just work here", is what they'll be thinking! But it does have everything to do with them. From the Board of Directors to the tea lady and cleaners, each individual is Sony. It's like the sea. Mother Teresa was once asked if she thought what she did was worth doing, because it only amounted to a drop in the ocean. She replied that the ocean is made up of many drops. The idea is demonstrative, a metaphor, we are humans not water. We can think for ourselves. We don't have to move as a body of water. But we do in organisations like this, passing the problem from department to department, person to person and then to the lawyers when it hits the rocks. No sense of responsibility, no accountability, no sense of fairness. "Nothing to do with me." Surely, if individuals in an organisation cared more about how their company's activity reflected on them personally, then as a collection of individuals, companies would act with a greater sense of morality. Unfortunately, I am pessimistic about this. It seems we have a climate of employment that promotes fear about job loss, and a society and economy that puts huge emphasis on purchasing power. These values and facts are much more important than whether "some artist, or whatever" has been ripped off.

Where is the fairness in this, for that is what is really at stake here, isn't it? I have to admit, my first thoughts and reactions surrounding this were about the money, that the real artist should have been paid for this, that the real artist will have lost money, revenue, business. Of course, that is unfair, but to re-emphasise the moral point here, it is his work, his idea and what really matters is the recognition - where and who this idea came from. It's such a simple thing.

I read the report that claims the ad team had knowledge, even possession, of KozynDan works. Even so, it does not matter. Let us examine the statement which takes the liberty of using a word that I really hate. "creatives"! I am all for the evolution of language but there is some way to go, I think, before this adjective becomes a noun. It is colloquial in a formal statement and further underlines the casual nature with with this has been dealt.

So! They pay what is probably an inordinately large sum of money to a bunch of "experienced and talented creatives" who no doubt will have been to college and will know all about copyright and research, and will, obviously, be in touch with what's going on, what's current, who's hot and what's new.

"... is not based on any pre-existing artwork."

These are "experienced and talented creatives" who should have known that it would at least look like it was based on such work.

"...the wave, whale and bunnies were arrived at without reference to these artists."

These are "experienced and talented creatives" who should have knowledge of the existence and nature of the work of KozynDan.

There are no excuses. That is what they are paid for. The huge fees they command from colossal corporations like Sony should pay for the type of research that's needed these days to stay informed and professional in these things.

I can hear them now...

"Really? Dur, we had no idea...! What? Is that wrong, or something? Oh yeah! That'll be close on a million dollars for that ad... Er! Could you make it in cash..."

... or whatever it cost!

--
Hmmm...

whats better to have ppl talking about someone...? huh, adverising is good, even negative advertising like this one, does cost sony maybe a million or two, ppl are talking about is worth 10 millions...huh!

often companies use artworks of artists for free, and if no artist is claiming their right, they go for it as often as possible - thats a proof that even large companies didn´t know something about copyright.

--
...follow me into the rabbithole: twitter.com/fantasiox