BigShinyThing

Late last year we noted how similar some ads for a Chinese Italian restaurant chain were to the photography of Jill Greenbergh. At the time we noted that while Greenbergh’s work had caused controversy in the UK, similar images were being used to sell pasta in China. We never thought that the agency would be foolish enough to have not actually asked permission, or — if they hadn’t — that they thought that they could get away with such blatantly copycat work. Shanghaist now kindly alerts us to the fact Greenberg was neither involved nor was she asked permission.

According to Photo District News — which has reported on the story independently from us:

The O&M ad, credited to art director Ng Fan and photographer Connie Hong, according to the site AdsoftheWorld.com, shows a 2- or 3-year-old girl with angel wings, apparently distraught because a strip of hair has been shaved off her head. The ad’s tagline says, “Freshly made angel hair” (a reference to the pasta served by the restaurant). The photograph strongly resembles not only Greenberg’s “End Times” concept, but her shooting style. The images from Greenberg’s exhibit were widely published and reprinted both online and in print, and can be found on her web site.

Pursuing a copyright infringement claim in China can be expensive and difficult. Even if Greenberg pursued legal action, “she would probably have a difficult time making a case,” opines intellectual property attorney Nancy Wolff. Wolff explains that subject matter—in this case, crying children—is not protected by US copyright law, at least. And the ad may not be similar enough to any particular image by Greenberg to meet the threshold for infringement, even though it evokes Greenberg’s style. “Style is not something you can easily protect in terms of copyright,” Wolff says.

Greenberg declined to comment on this story.
Responding to an e-mail request for an interview, Michael Lee, managing director of O&M Advertising in Shanghai, said that the agency is “working with Jill for a solution.”

In our hyper-networked times, why do ad agencies think they can get away with this? There are even websites entirely dedicated to spotting when commercial interests rip off independent artists: check out You Thought We Wouldn’t Notice. Note to agencies: you will get found out.

Jill Greenberg’s hyper-realised photos of kids crying caused a mini-storm a whle back in the States and the UK. Critics accused the artist — who confessed to tactics such as taking sweets off the children to make them cry — of child abuse. The Guardian reported at the time:

When photographer Jill Greenberg decided to take a lollipop away from a small child, she had a broader purpose in mind.

“The first little boy I shot, Liam, suddenly became hysterically upset,” the Los Angeles-based photographer said. “It reminded me of helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation.”

As the 27 two- and three-year-olds featured in her exhibition, End Times, cried and screamed, demanding the return of the lollipop given to them just moments before, Greenberg snapped away.

The results have provoked a storm of criticism from bloggers. “Jill Greenberg is a sick woman who should be arrested and charged with child abuse,” wrote Andrew Peterson on the Thomas Hawk blog.”

Funny then that the same idea (and maybe the same artist — unattributed or not) should turn up in ads for an Italian restaurant in Shanghai.

Ogilvy & Mather Shanghai ad for Italian restaurant chain Gondola Veneziana:

Jill Greenberg’s End Times series:

…

We’re not entirely surprised to see that four of the music majors — Universal, Sony BMG and Warner — have each quietly negotiated to take small stakes in YouTube as part of the video-and-music-licensing deals they struck shortly before the site’s sale to Google. According to reports in the New York Times, the music companies collectively stand to receive as much as $50 million from the arrangements. These deals should also help shield Google from the dreaded and much mooted copyright-infringement lawsuits — something that rival Yahoo! has admitted prevented them from swooping on YouTube first.

As the article points out, this pre-emptive and cunning action by the record companies to befriend the ‘enemy’ contrasts with their behaviour a few years’ back:

The decision to take a stake in YouTube is a sharp departure from the tack that the record companies took regarding Napster, the pioneering file-swapping service that transformed the industry in 1999. Back then, after the major companies filed suits against Napster, the two sides discussed various settlements that involved the music companies receiving a big equity stake.

The Napter talks, which were led on the industry side by Edgar Bronfman Jr., then the chief of Universal’s then-parent Seagram — eventually broke down [although Bronfman now helms Warner -- the first record company to join forces with YouTube -- so he eventually gained his chops].

The record companies went on to win a series of legal victories that ultimately forced Napster to shut its site, but the labels have been fighting an uphill battle against free peer-to-peer services ever since.”

As this battle as proved not only extremely expensive but rather ineffectual, the companies have finally decided on a ‘if you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em’ approach. Not only have they found a way to actually make money from YouTube, they’ve also finally cottoned on to the marketing potential in file sharing. Techdirt notes with no little schadenfreude an article in the Wall Street Journal (of all places) titled Record Labels turn Piracy into a Marketing Opportunity. Because file-sharers are first and foremost fans of the music they distribute.Hence Jay-Z has allowed distribution of an eight minute clip of his recent live concert — full of promotional clips for Coke. According to Jay-Z’s attorney:

The concept here is making the peer-to-peer network work for us. While peer-to-peer users are stealing the intellectual property, they are also the active music audience… and this technology allows us to market back to them.

We like to call it crowd surfing — using the P2P network as both media and audience. It’s probably the future of music marketing — or at least one future. Watch and learn.