Mumbai: Kondurkar Studio has issued a statement reiterating the originality and unique creation of its Cannes Lions award-winning film for Jindal Steel called ‘The Steel of India’. It noted that in recent weeks, it and its founder, Amrish Kondurkar, have been subjected to a wave of negative, unfounded and unsubstantiated media coverage regarding the ‘The Steel of India’ campaign. Kondurkar the agency said embarked on an independent journey with integrity and creativity, dedicating his talents to creating original and impactful work. Despite his commendable efforts, he and his studio are being unfairly targeted by a larger competitor in the industry, under the pretext of bizarre accusations of copyright infringement and lack of originality.
For the record ad agency Wieden+Kennedy (W+K) had taken Jindal Steel to court over an IP dispute over the ad film that came out in March 2024, Which was subsequently settled out of the court with mutual satisfaction of both parties.
Kondurkar Studio said that it developed this film based on the client’s brief, aiming to bring alive the Indian resilience to land on the brand line of ‘The Steel of India’. The film, which signs off with “The Sound of India,” is entirely original. “We had no prior knowledge of anything that the larger agency might have earlier shared with our client. It is worth noting that Mr. Amrish Kondurkar, our founder, left his previous role in January 2023, and our client reached out to them for a pitch in late July 2023, well after his departure, negating any overlap or claim of idea theft,” reads the statement.
This the agency goes on to explain is a montage film, a genre that involves creating a narrative from various shots and scenes. The brief it said was always to celebrate the power of steel and the resilience of India. Hence, any montage film on India and Steel will naturally portray these themes. “To claim copyright infringement on such a basis is not only baseless but also a stretch of the imagination. The allegations are supported by misrepresented screenshots that arrange shots from various sources to falsely suggest direct copying. However, a 2-minute film is much more substantial than a few misleading screenshots added to create a narrative post final film creation.”
The Delhi High Court it noted, after thorough adjudication, found no wrongdoing on the part of Kondurkar Studio. The resolution highlighted broader corporate concerns rather than individual actions, validating our position that the campaign was independently and originally created by Kondurkar Studio.
“In reality, our film is a unique creation. The film created by Kondurkar Studio, brought to life by the talented director Ayappa from Earlyman Film, involved no collaboration or communication with the larger agency during its development. It is therefore absurd for them to demand credit for a film they had no part in conceptualizing or producing. The entire process from briefing the director, to sharing treatment notes, to conducting PPM, shoots, and post-production, was carried out independently by Kondurkar Studio and Earlyman Film.
“After dedicating years to building a reputation for integrity and creativity, it is disheartening to face such baseless allegations. Mr. Kondurkar’s transition to an independent path was driven by a desire to pursue creative freedom and innovation. It is unfortunate and unjust for his reputation to be attacked by unfounded allegations from larger industry competitors.
“We urge all media houses to refrain from publishing reports without hearing our side of the story. It is expected that media houses maintain journalistic integrity and post unbiased stories. As responsible professionals, we ask that you verify facts before printing, and avoid blindly supporting larger agencies at the expense of independent creators. Kondurkar Studio remains dedicated to delivering innovative and original creative solutions while upholding the highest ethical standards.”
What exactly the Delhi High Court verdict says in Wieden + Kennedy India vs Jindal Steel case:
It is an established industry practice that copyright always gets transferred to the client once the fees are paid, However, the creative agency that created the original idea continues to be the creator of the idea. How true is Kondurkar Studio’s statement, does he have the power to overrule the Delhi High Court Verdict by claiming that they are the original ideators? MediaNews4U has gone through the verdict of the Delhi High Court and we are presenting some of the facts based on the verdict for our readers:
The Delhi High Court Judgement dated 24th April 2024 (Petitioner: Wieden + Kennedy India vs Respondent: Jindal Steel and Power Limited) stated as follows:
- if the Services Agreement had fully worked out, the petitioner would have received the monies and the respondent, the copyright. Therefore,ifit is found ultimately that there was infringement of copyright, not only may the petitioner get their declaration, but also suitable recompense.
- No irreversible prejudice is being caused at this stage to petitioner since the relief of damages would still be open for petitioner to seek from the arbitrator as also any interim measures / relief under Section 17 of the Act.
- To balance the equities, the respondent however needs to be put to terms seemingly having taken benefit of material which was supplied by petitioner as part of development of campaign and for which petitioner has not been paid anything under the contract.
Moreover, the court on page 31/32 has highlighted the fact that prima facie the campaign is substantially similar to what W+K had presented to Jindal Steel, be it the theme, imagery or the sound design and said, “The launch by the respondent of a new campaign prima facie seemed to be substantially based on a similar theme, expressed through a montage of sequential images and videos stitched together by a soundscape of steel. In this regard,the similarity of images, as has been fleshed out by petitioner, particularly respondent having used the same set of examples of images is reproduced below:
