Fresh Creation Inspiration for Creative Minds

Comments

Microsoft style, better better stole good than Invented bad....

Posted by: Lexx on 06 Mar 2007 | 01:13 pm

Yeah that rubs me the wrong way. Especially the Jack Johnson rip off.

Posted by: Mateo on 06 Mar 2007 | 01:50 pm

They should sue them :)

Posted by: Lexx on 06 Mar 2007 | 08:18 pm

It´s just nice! Sweet music, Sweet images... ...But where´s the concept of that?

Posted by: Gustavo on 06 Mar 2007 | 09:56 pm

But my question is if the original inventors of the idea should get paid if companies start using their ideas for commercials? I think the answer is 'yes'. The companies should first ask the inventors if they are allowed to use the idea for commercial purposes....

Posted by: Fresh Creation on 07 Mar 2007 | 10:57 am

I see what you mean, but how is an "idea" to be assigned ownership? Its easy when you can copyright a particular work product like a bit of code or a text. But should someone own the idea of giving away hugs for free and filming it?

Posted by: Nathan on 07 Mar 2007 | 04:28 pm

@Nathan: If it is very clear that an idea has been copied (like the Free Hugs video) then I think the advertising agency should contact the guy that made/came up with the original and ask for his approval and (maybe) pay money to be allowed to use it. Sounds fair to me....

Posted by: Fresh Creation on 07 Mar 2007 | 04:35 pm

After watching both of these videos a few friends and I remembered the video for the Dave Matthews Band song "Everyday" (done way back in 2001). The main premise being a guy who goes around hugging people (sans the "free hugs" sign though). [url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=aMBgSfQI49E]http://youtube.com/watch?v=aMBgSfQI49E[/url] It's also quite interesting how the hugging begins with an older woman in all three videos.

Posted by: Gordon on 07 Mar 2007 | 10:19 pm

Gordon, I think your point illustrates the difficulty of copyrighting abstract ideas. What would the original author have owned? The act of giving free hugs? It seems pretty clear that the commercial is based on the original video, I think that it's pretty snaky to commercialize the message. But allowing abstract ideas to be owned to the extent the original thinker must give permission for the idea to be used again? Could this exist in such a way as not to put terrible restrictions on creativity?

Posted by: Nathan on 07 Mar 2007 | 10:27 pm

I don't think it would be easy or worthwhile to chase after these guys with lawsuits. What they did is pretty much legal. That doesn't however mean that it is right. The best response is to make it widely known that they are not as cool as they pretend they are. We are already part of the bad publicity. Fresh Creation has done its part. Will it really make a difference though? Probably not. We're not bitching about it in Spanish (the commercial's target market).

Posted by: Mateo on 07 Mar 2007 | 10:41 pm

@Gordon: Thanks for the link to the "Everyday" clip... If it was made in 2001 (I read this somewhere) then the question arises: who was first? :-) @Nathan: I want creativity to flow freely, but creativity and using ideas of others are two things. True creativity should be rewarded. I haven't figured out the perfect model for that yet though... :-) Suggestions?

Posted by: Fresh Creation on 07 Mar 2007 | 10:47 pm

@Mateo: The only thing I want is for true creativity to be rewarded. Creating bad publicity about the Ono commercial is not my goal. I just want to start the discussion about what's happening and look for solutions. I heard of an advertising model in which YouTube pays money to people that make videos that get a lot of viewers. This could be step 1.....

Posted by: Fresh Creation on 07 Mar 2007 | 10:54 pm

Laziness. Hey, here's an original idea, why not come up with their own "original idea"? Something their client can actually own instead of being the subject of a plagiarized idea. That way someone else can rip them off in a few months... :-) Ultimately, what it all comes down to is this. Unless you have a great deal of talent, coming up with something original and fresh can be hard work. Very hard work. Some people would rather not be a part of all that hard work, so they copy, or borrow, ideas they have seen in the past. In most creative circles copying is not being "creative", it's called being a "hack".

Posted by: Gordon on 07 Mar 2007 | 11:12 pm

Ok, if you're concerned with rewards then here's another way to look at it. I just went to the Free Hugs website [url=http://www.freehugscampaign.org/]http://www.freehugscampaign.org/[/url] and it appears that their modus operandi is to spread the idea that everyone deserves a hug. In this case you could argue that the commercial is spreading this lovely idea. Alternately, if the film-maker was hoping to show off his film-making skills or his great ideas then he could use it in his portfolio and show how he was copied. Imitation is after all the sincerest form of flattery. The question is then this: What does the creator wish to receive?

Posted by: Mateo on 07 Mar 2007 | 11:46 pm

It was a question of time that the video was copied; the free-hugs video is brilliant. I love it. Sweet and authentic, and that it is where it goes wrong in the commercial; it's fake and it shows. If you're copying something you'd better do it better than the original or else don't bother. So, naturally, often the copies aren't better than the original and maybe that is the reward for the original; quality and real creativity will survive all fakes.

Posted by: niek on 08 Mar 2007 | 12:12 am

And: imitation is the best compliment you can get, they say.

Posted by: Jos on 08 Mar 2007 | 06:38 pm

To add more examples to this discussion: I just added a clip to the [url=http://www.freshcreation.nl/comments.php?id=939_0_1_0_C]Pulp Fiction post[/url]... Do you see the resemblance?

Posted by: Fresh Creation on 08 Mar 2007 | 09:22 pm

LEAVE A COMMENT