On 5 August 2016 SPARK, a “Brand Identity, Experience Design, Integrated Advertising, Social Media and Content Studios” company based in Tampa Florida accused the Johnson/Weld campaign of “seemingly swiping” their spec campaign.
The video is posted on their “HELLO GARY JOHNSON! website and states in part: “When you swiped our campaign, we were happy to see that you agreed with us. We’re stoked and flattered.”
Additionally they wrote on their website: “After discovering the lackluster brand for presidential Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, we created a spec campaign that’s seemingly now been swiped by his team – read the whole story at http://hellogaryjohnson.com. Originally revamping his creative as we’d imagine it for SPARK’s Quarterly publication () in June, we now just want the concept to be executed as we intended. So much so, we’ve responded with an open letter with all the tools to brand himself right this election year. To see more of our branding or learn about SPARK, visit us on our website: http://spark.us or check out our social channels.”
Joe Hunter, communications director for the Johnson campaign, in an article titled: “Trump’s Libertarian Rival Just Admitted To Stealing Designers’ Work” published by Fastcompany.com is quoted as saying: “We were completely unaware . . . that our website contractor had seen and clearly used the concept and design ideas posted on the web by Spark. We immediately contacted Spark and have since had a very constructive conversation with them.”
Other media coverage included:
Advertising Age – “Agency Says Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson Stole Its Brand Concept:
Agency Spark Just Wants Its Swiped Ideas to Be Used Right”
Ad Week – “Agency to Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson: Thanks for Ripping Us Off”
Creativity-online.com – “Agency Says Gary Johnson’s Presidential Campaign Stole Concept, Offers Tips on How to Do It Right: Spark Just Wants Its Swiped Ideas to Be Used Properly”
Media Post – “Agency Claims Gary Johnson Campaign Stole Their Idea”
IPR Readers are left to discern whether this is a (not so) clever social media ploy to gain attention for their company, a legitimate complaint for an intellectual property violation, or both; as well as what the associated Libertarian (or not) consequences should be for such a violation should be (if any).
The Johnson Campaign’s website was redesigned six or so days after the http://hellogaryjohnson.com website was published. (See: http://web.archive.org/web/*/johnsonweld.com).
At press time it was unclear as to whether the Cub Scouts of America were planning to offer any objection . . .
In the primary campaign I remember some dude taking someone else’s youtube video and putting his name on top of it and everyone here was talking about how cool it was and what a great idea…
The Johnson campaign ought to hire SPARK.
The bi-color page is so common in politics that it is now boring, not fresh. If that is the best this so-called design company can do for branding then they should find another line of work.
How many people have “borrowed” the idea of Obama’s “Hope” poster? SPARK is just trying to capitalize on Gary Johnson’s publicity and popularity.
“It was never our intent to use anyone’s creative work, spec or otherwise, without giving appropriate credit, and we regret that our contractor apparently failed to communicate our desire to use Spark’s work. It won’t happen again.” — Joe Hunter, Communications Director, Johnson/Weld2016.
Talk about a mountain out of a molehill. This whole thing is so stupid, I’m tempted to think Johnson and SPARK simply manufactured this “controversy” as a cheap publicity stunt.
They didn’t change the website design. They merely restyled the money bomb widget. That being said, the original money bomb widget design was not a direct rip of the ad agency’s spec design guidelines. The rgb colors were not the same. The typography/typesetting was not the same. The logo is not even close to being the same.
The ad agency did not not come up with the idea of campaign taking “the best from the left and the right.” That idea has been floating around libertarian circles for at least two decades. The ad agency merely mocked a spec of the idea. And put it into the public domain. Even if the Jonson/Weld had solicited SPARK for the spec work and then pulled out but still used the original money bomb widget design, SPARK would find seeking relief via 3rd party adjudication a tough go. Doing unsolicited spec work and then bitching about something being used makes the claim a complete joke. This is merely a case of “any publicity is good publicity.”
What a stupid thing to complain about – colors and rectangles. No one owns them and neither should any consulting company.
I didn’t know that you could own colors or rectangles.
Since ALL of the Johnson campaign millions are going to their consultants, you’d think they could come up with their own design.