Role reversal for Child Adoption / Une idée ré-adoptée?
 |
 |
| THE ORIGINAL? IAPA Child Adoption – 2007 « Adopt. You will receive more than you can ever give» Source : Cannes Lions BRONZE Agency : Ogilvy (India) |
LESS ORIGINAL Sirotstvy.net Child Adoption – 2025 « Adopting a child means receiving love for life » Source : Campaigns Of The World Click the image to enlarge Agency : Ogilvy Kiev (Ukraine) |
Eng “It looks like a remake but I've double checked every creative names involved in the making of these ads and they're totally different from one to another. No original creator is credited and correct me if I'm wrong, the two organisations are not connected. Copycat or coïncidence? Be the judge!”
Fr « Ça ressemble à un remake ou une adaptation, mais j'ai vérifié deux fois les noms de tous les créatifs impliqués dans la conception et la réalisation de ces 2 publicités et ils sont totalement différents les uns des autres. Comme on dit : quand on arrive pas à accoucher d'une idée, il n'est pas rare de l'adopter! Copie ou coïncidence ? À vous de juger ! »
Be the judge!
0125
Sumanto Chattopadhyay
02.11.2025 - 17:33
The original campaign is mine. I think Ogilvy Kiev just decided to be « inspired » by it. 🙂
Joe La Pompe
02.11.2025 - 18:11
@sumanto congrats for your campaign. Yeah they’ve probably done that but it’s mysterious because they should have credited you.
Strange Side
03.21.2025 - 12:43
This raises an interesting issue about intellectual property for advertising agencies. I’d say that all the intellectual work done during the tenure in the agency is property of the agency itself, so Ogilvy being a global organisation feels free to re-use « owned » ideas and executions. The client could protest if aware, but this doesn’t seem the case.
Credits are due but a « courtesy » let me say, since no authorship rights are regulated in advertising; even if the law says that the intellectual work is always owned by the author, contracts for advertising employees (but also publishing like Disney etc) state that the property of the work is of the employer.
Similar issues have been faced i the 60s and 70s famously by Jack Kirby vs Marvel Comics and they resulted in clarifications in contracts for for-hire artists or full-time employed artists where the ownership of the work (in comics being also relevant the original physical piece of art which is reproduced and can be also sold afterwards in auctions etc) is more clearly regulated.