Freelance copywriting job for Sony several years back (2003 to be precise):
Ad in January 22, 2007 issue of FORTUNE magazine:
Coincidence?
Freelance copywriting job for Sony several years back (2003 to be precise):
Ad in January 22, 2007 issue of FORTUNE magazine:
Coincidence?
The ad content is not even close to similar – and anyone can pay Getty to use that image. In fact thats how photographers get paid – by people using their images.
In this modern world the art of Management has become a part and parcel of everyday life, be it at home, in the office or factory and in Government. In all organizations, where a group of human beings assemble for a common purpose irrespective of caste, creed, and religion, management principles come into play through the management of resources, finance and planning, priorities, policies and practice. Management is a systematic way of carrying out activities in any field of human effort. Management need to focus more on leadership skills, e.g., establishing vision and goals, communicating the vision and goals, and guiding others to accomplish them. It also assert that leadership must be more facilitative, participative and empowering in how visions and goals are established and carried out. Some people assert that this really isn’t a change in the management functions, rather it’s re-emphasizing certain aspects of management.
A buddy of mine sent me this. I couldn’t help but laugh. We all want to believe we started something or were the person who at least discovered something that everyone else followed. To think that ANYONE remembered your Sony ad from 2003 where you used a stock image is ridiculous. Coincidence? I think not. That same image appears on a book I saw in Barnes & Noble recently so maybe it is the collective unconscious at work. How about this thought; as stock images go it is a pretty great one. It is safe to say that many more people will use that image in the future. I am more surprised that Sony approved the ad it ran in any magazine. “Even the fish cannot smell something is fishy.” You’re kidding me right? Let’s assume the copy writer on that ad was fired in 2003. Sadly this incident doesn’t even fall into appropriation because as the designer all you did was plop in a monitor and lay some text in an odd spot. You should be happy you once did some work for Sony. Let’s keep the egos in check and we will all benefit from each other.
I think thats the problem with using stock images. If you’re not careful, it’s easy to execute the ad in similar fashion given the context of the image which in this instance was quite unique and easy to remember. Usually I’ll go for something more generic or if I need something truly specific, I’ll get the photographer to do a photoshoot.
I don’t think there was a suggestion of impropriety (the link to this post and the implied wrongdoing was not the fault of the author). The curious thing here is why didn’t the company do its due diligence before it uses an easily recognizable stock image in a reputable magazine. Won’t it worry about another company having used the same image? For print ads, it’s always better not to use stock image because once it’s in circulation, you’ll never know the chances of it meeting its double. Unlike banner ads and other electronic media, you’ll have limited leeway to rectify the situation.