The heated legal clash over Jindal Steel's ‘Steel of India’ campaign has reached a decisive conclusion, marking the end of a contentious dispute that captivated the Indian advertising industry. At the center of this storm stood Jindal Steel - the client, Wieden + Kennedy (W+K) - the initial creative agency, and Early Man Film - the production house behind the campaign.
In April 2023, a Services Agreement was executed between petitioner (Wieden + Kennedy) and respondent (Jindal Steel) to develop a brand campaign to bring out the role of steel in shaping the nation, particularly in the 76th year of Indian independence and collaterally, make respondent synonymous with steel.
Relevant provisions of the Services Agreement essentially provided that all advertising materials prepared and presented by the agency and accepted by the respondent will be transferred to the respondent, subject to the release of all the payments; those rejected by the respondent would remain the exclusive property of the petitioner.
The agency had moved to the court after Jindal Steel released a campaign in March 2024 alleging copyright infringement and dishonouring the service agreement.
The agency had submitted evidence before the court to show how the brand used the same set of examples through a series of images.
/socialsamosa/media/media_files/jinijin.png)
/socialsamosa/media/media_files/jin.png)
In April 2024, the Delhi High Court ruled that the ‘Jindal Steel-the Steel of India’ campaign is prima facie an act of stealing the idea presented by its creative agency, Wieden + Kennedy.
Negotiations ensued, and behind closed doors, Jindal Steel and W+K reached an amicable resolution, leading the Delhi High Court to confirm on May 8 that the parties had settled their disputes amicably.
Later, seeing a new spark in the heated debate, the campaign was entered into the Kyoorius Creative Awards by Amrish Kondurkar studio, a creative boutique started by Wieden + Kennedy's former employee Amrish Kondurkar, and Early Man Film. Meanwhile, the Kyoorius Creative Awards jury grappled with their own conundrum. Should they judge the campaign solely on its craft, ignoring the legal wrangling? The jury unanimously refused to judge the campaign as the matter was subjudice.
On May 24, moments before the Kyoorius Creative Awards, Early Man Film withdrew all their entries and announced on its social media with a post that said, ‘Early Man has withdrawn all entries in film craft (including the ones that were shortlisted) from Kyoorius Creative Awards 2024. We were forced to take this drastic step. Our request to have our entries judged on the merit of the craft alone and not matters outside our purview was roundly ignored... This was a difficult decision, but we choose to be defined by our work and refuse to be dictated by vested interests.’
The above post has been deleted by the production house.
Following this, on June 10, Early Man Film and ASAP India shared a post that said, ‘Kyoorius and Early Man Film have mutually resolved the matter at hand along with the Association of Advertising Producers (ASAP), and will continue collaborations in the coming years.’
While such disputes often ignite industry discussions and are typically resolved behind closed doors, the conversation persists. Here’s what industry leaders are saying:
Emmanuel Upputuru, Founder & Creative Chairman, EFGH Brand Innovations, said, “Multiple layers are involved in it. The subject of ownership of an idea is complex because sometimes agencies claim, 'This is my idea, and the client has bought it.' But if you delve a little deeper, suppose the creative people who worked on the campaign have left the agency, and the agency continues to use the idea, and then those creative people use it at another agency; that also becomes complex. We've seen stories like that in different agencies. So, the issue of ownership is very complicated, and many people try to protect it with IP etc. But it's not possible in a realistic sense. You can file lawsuits and legal cases, and perhaps in one-off cases, the decision can go one way or the other.”
KV Sridhar, Global chief Creative Officer Nihilent Limited, said, "This is a complex issue. For the last 48 years that I’ve been in advertising, ideas have often been treated as freely given. When working with a client, the ideas generated for them tend to remain with the client. There is usually no written contract specifying ownership, only an agreement that the agency will generate ideas and collaborate with the client.
This lack of clarity has made the concept of idea ownership nebulous from the beginning. Unlike in other industries where copyrights and royalties are established, like music or film, advertising ideas have no such protections. For example, a music director gets paid royalties for the use of their compositions, and filmmakers have legal agreements specifying usage rights. However, in advertising, ideas are often provided without any formal protections or respect for their value.
Historically, advertising agencies and their creative staff haven't valued their own ideas adequately. They often operate under the assumption that whatever ideas their employees generate belong to the agency, especially if they are being compensated well. As a result, the ideas have been given away very freely.
The respect for creativity is diminishing because everything has become transactional and it is fragmented. It is no more based on the idea but on the opportunity to see (OTS), the number of impressions where what the impression is doesn’t matter but the numbers do. Creativity is taking a back seat.
One needs to understand copyright and then articulate, protect, nurture, and benefit from their idea. Additionally, it’s important to be careful about how much credit is given to others. Often, anyone who was present during the process will claim they contributed to the ad. However, the idea typically originates from one person, and then perhaps two people refine it with considerable effort. Despite this, everyone tends to take credit. Proper idea management should precede idea evaluation.
To address these issues, the advertising industry needs to revamp its approach to intellectual property. This might involve implementing mechanisms similar to those in the music or film industries, where ideas and creative contributions are formally registered and protected. Until such changes are made, the industry's handling of creative ideas will remain fragmented and undervalued, often leading to conflicts and unresolved disputes over ownership."
Neville Shah, CCO, FCB Kinnect, said, “When discussing intellectual property (IP), it's important to remember that an idea wouldn't exist without the initial brief. Whether I or an agency came up with the idea, it wouldn't exist without the desire for it, so it's a chicken-and-egg situation. In advertising, this leads to conflicts over who truly owns the idea.
Consider the scenario where ideas are being bought and sold. If someone were to buy the Mona Lisa tomorrow, does that make the buyer the owner, or is Da Vinci still the owner because the transaction took place?”
Ram Madhvani, Filmmaker, Producer, Founder - Equinox Films, Ram Madhvani Films & Equinox Virtual, said, “This gets into a legal conversation, and legally, I’m not an expert on the specifics. Then it becomes a moral and ethical discussion. Ethics and morals are personal—they're not legally binding. For example, when I interact with an agency or a client about an idea, I always encourage them to use it, even if I’m not going to be a filmmaker. I believe in the democracy of ideas and don't support the tyranny of the idea, which is the notion that the idea must strictly belong to its originator. This is my personal moral stance: if you came to me, we discussed it, and now it’s out there, it’s fine. If it works out, great. If somebody else develops it, I’m interested to see how it turns out. Whether others share this view is open for debate.
But should a production house get the contest for a campaign in an award show when the client is blamed for idea theft brings us to the importance of verifying the chain of events. In OTT and movies, we have a scriptwriters' association where ideas are registered. If someone steals the idea, you have proof of ownership. In advertising, there should be a similar method to establish ownership. Perhaps the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI) needs to address this. If there's a dispute, it should go back to who actually created it.”