Discussions

WWF 9/11 Tsunami Print Ad Outrage - Opinions Needed

Posted by Sylvia • 9/02/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Advertising, blogging issues, opinions

Hi everyone, those of you who know me, know that the advertising industry is my passion.
There is much outrage recently regarding a print ad that was created for the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF). I have been covering this on my site and it is getting a huge amount of attention.

All my postings on the story are here:
www.great-ads.blogspot.com/search/label/wwf

I need your thoughts friends, not on the ad itself but rather the fact that I was asked to remove the image from my site.

Please don't make this about the events of 9/11 or the Tsunami, this is more about whether or not to remove the image. My site was created for people in the industry and I think it should be seen and learned from, the ad also won an award recently which has created even more outrage.

Morally I feel that I should, but at the same time I think it is something that students, and people in advertising can learn from.

What do you guys think?

User Comments

9/02/09

iratedog

I think the advert makes a good point. Of course, there could have been other ways of putting it to be slightly less offensive to 9/11 victims, but still. The ad as an ad clearly worked, look at all the attention it's getting!

I'm going to get shouted at aren't I...*braces*

[reply]
1. 9/02/09
  
  Sylvia
  
  Very good point iratedog.
  I think the issue is more how sensitive we still are to it.
  I can take that to mean I should leave the ad up on the site?
2. 9/02/09
  
  iratedog
  
  definitely! without a doubt.
3. 9/02/09
  
  iratedog
  
  I've always been curious as to why Americans take 9/11 so much more seriously than us Brits take our own terrorist attack...
  We joke about it all the time - e.g. one comedian said:
  "People in London after hearing about the attacks on the Circle Line would think only one thing: 'Well, to get home, I could take the Jubilee Line..."
  It's hilarious! I think the Brits can take humour for what it is, not an insult.
9/02/09

jafabrit

who asked you to remove the image?

[reply]
1. 9/02/09
  
  Sylvia
  
  I'd rather not say, just yet anyway.
2. 9/02/09
  
  jafabrit
  
  My feeling is that it is a tasteless ad, however I don't support censorship. no doubt a painful reminder of an ugly event, however asking others to censor something because they are offended by it places limits on those who despite discomfort are willing to confront, challenge, explore and discuss said image.
3. 9/02/09
  
  PetLvr
  
  I presume it is more than a censorship issue - the WWF logo is on Sylvia's blog on the image - they want it removed .. (I will presume it's them that secretly asking you to take it down) - and they have the right.
9/02/09

PetLvr

Unfortunately .. that's the rules of copyright violations .. I would remove the ad with a blockquote describing what you removed, and that it was removed by request - and, leave the article up.

[reply]
1. 9/02/09
  
  jafabrit
  
  Well if it was used without permission and the owners of said image asked it to be removed that is a different kettle of fish. I would agree about it being removed under those circumstances.
2. 9/02/09
  
  Sylvia
  
  This is what I was hoping for......
  
  A little background, WWF hired the ad agency DDB Brazil to create the ad so to that point there is NO COPYRIGHT violation. Ad agencies typically create several "spec" projects for their clients and they are presented to them, in this case WWF to approve or reject.
  Obviously WWF rejected this one to be seen in USA, the spec work remains the property of DDB.
  
  Legally no copyright laws have been broken here, since WWF hired DDB to create the spec work.
3. 9/02/09
  
  SweetViolet
  
  I disagree.
  
  If WWF hired the agency to create the ad, all of the work done on the ad belongs to the WWF as it is a work-for-hire.
  
  If the agency did it on spec (meaning they were not hired or commissioned by the client prior to creating the work), that would be a different story, although WWF would still retain the right to its logo and other branding insignias and how they are used.
  
  I'm not a lawyer, but I worked in corporate legal departments...while freelancing as a graphic designer at my (late) husband's printing business. This was the way the IP guy explained it to me.
4. 9/02/09
  
  Sylvia
  
  SweetViolet,
  
  Spec means they are hired and work/ideas/print/media/radio is created for the client prior to an official release for approval.
  
  This is exactly where the issue is right now, the fact that it is spec work and because spec work is the property of the ad agency, the law now depends on the contract WWF and DDB would have between them.
  
  Edit: This is also not an issue with Amercian law, the work was done in Brazil for marketing in that region.
5. 9/02/09
  
  SweetViolet
  
  Sylvia, do you mean "spec" as "speculation" or as "specification"?
  
  If the work is "on spec" as in "on speculation," then it is done without/prior to a contract and the client purchases the images it wants and the rest belong to the designer/agency (except for client logos/branding). If the work is "on spec" as in "specification" then who owns what depends on the contract. I have worked with clients who wanted ownership of every pen stroke generated on the project from the moment the contract was signed and I have had clients who cared only for the final, approved product.
  
  My take is, unless your organization has the money...and is willing to spend it...to fight these guys in court, the prudent thing to do is to take it down. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.
6. 9/02/09
  
  Sylvia
  
  I'm sure that an ad agency as big as DDB is not in the business of creating speculative ads.
  
  I have decided to keep it up.