Mega Ice cream - Nancy Ajram, Nizar Qabbani, or how Egypt is going bonkers over copyright

Remember the De22ou el Chamasi saga (here)? Now watch the Mega ice cream film here. To be honest the film is well done, very hip and stylish and cool. The issue? Well, apparently Nancy Ajram interprets the song that goes along with the film. Now, the association of artists in Egypt is suing Mega Ice Cream or the company that did the ad (it is not clear from the words of the legal counselor of the association Hussam Loutfi) to the tune of the 10 million Egyptian pounds. 

Here's the background: The song used in the ad was a hit for the late Farid El Atrach, except they changed the words to fit the product. Now, the original song was written by the late Syrian poet Nizar Qabbani. Logically, the estate of the late El Atrach is the only one concerned legally. But nope - the daughter of Qabbani said her father's name should not be put on a product - well, for all his prouesse, mind you the whole song was rewritten so that Qabbani has no legal claim whatsoever. Here is the El Atrach song (here).

Honestly, how all this became a legal saga is beyond me. Because legally, if the rights were bought from the El Atrach family, then everyone is in the clean... But seriously, copyright laws are just so insane in the Middle East as I said prior.

De22ou el Chamasi - and the convoluted copyright laws in the Middle East

Heard about the De22ou el Chamasi issue? 

First look at the ad - here. It is for Al Ahli Malak - and I thought it was cute as a button (lovely, lively, well-styled, bubble gum colored, and youngish....). 

OK, I am also sure you know the original song by Abdel Halim Hafez from the movie "Abi Fawka Al Chajara" (my father above the tree). Here is a reminder.

Ever since the ad started airing, the estate of Abdel Halim filed a motion to stop it (A kind of "cease and desist"). The issue? Well, it was written by Moursi Jamil Aziz and the music is by Mounir Mrad. Meaning that Abdel Halim Hazef (for all his greatness) and his estate have nothing to do with the song - at all. And yet, they prevailed. The ad stopped airing but as with everything, the saying goes "كل ممنوع مرغوب" - everything that is banned is desired, so this did not stop people from watching it over and over on the net.

Years ago, Jay-Z and Timbaland were sued for sampling Baligh Hamdi's "Khosara Khosara" (ironically the song was a hit for Abdel Halim Hafez as well) in Jay-Z's hit "Big Pimpin', the issue - filed by Baligh Hamdi's nephew - was that the music was sampled in a song promoting promiscuous behavior. Interestingly, whereas the two artists cleared the track with BMI Arabia for 100,000 USD, apparently the estate of Hamdi thought they could sue on "moral grounds". Timbaland (born Tomothy Mosley) eventually asked in the court - "So, who did I pay 100 grand to?"

Well apparently Egyptian law allows suing for infringement of "moral rights" of the author of a work. A concept which does not translate in the United States law. But all of this is very murky. Who owns the song (or the piece of art)? Who is allowed to sue? Under what grounds? 

So when Lebanese singer Elissa (truth be told, she has a limited vocal range even if she knows what works for her voice) sang "Awal Mara T7eb" by Abdel Halim Hafez - the latter's nephew Mohamad Chabana issued a statement saying that his family was not contacted by Elissa and that they had no right to object since songs can be sung by other people publicly since this is not enforced under Egyptian law, yet this is enforced for lyricists and composers.

And yet this does not apply to De22ou el Chamasi.

Go figure!  

Advertising: Just because the image is for free, should we use it?

Yesterday was one of those bizarre days in the advertising scene in Lebanon.

Suddenly three brands (that I know of, maybe there was more) decided to capitalize on the James Webb telescope images by NASA to make their point (or rather not). Just to be clear, the images are copyright free because they were produced by an "American government agency", and since work by such agencies cannot be copyrighted, NASA material is free for use.

But hey, the British Library among thousands upon thousands of institutions is putting things free online in high resolution. So the internet contains of wealth of such materials already. So where's my issue? Just because it is for free, should we use it?

The photos above are one of the original James Webb telescope images, and three local interpretations of it. At best the ads are weird, at worst downright idiotic. Someone told me they were "funny", I fail to catch their humor.

You want strange humor? Watch Scandinavian advertising. Either you get it or you don't. I do and I find it hilarious. Most ads just don't make sense but they're strange, and as I said - incredibly fun. The ads above tick no such boxes.

I can see the "logic" in the brands' thinking - it's new, it's hot, it's for free, it's everyone-else-is-doing-it-so-why-can't-we, so let's strike while the iron is hot. Lately it's getting on my nerves how little strategy there is in advertising these days. Everything is short-sighted and tactical. Nothing for the long run, just focus on the here and now.

Pity, even if legally covered by using non-copyrighted images, brands should take a breather and think about it before they plunge. But that's asking too much out of rookie marketing managers, uneducated designers, and juvenile company owners.