What! I think his post does no such thing. Spike Lee did nothing wrong and the post shows nothing but respect for him.

It's actually smart. You are more likely to get press traction and a response crucifying an individual than a faceless company. Also, everyone is responsible here, "having people who handle it" is all too often an easy way to free everyone from responsibility.

Just some more background - DDB is part of the Omnicom group, which is one of the world's largest advertising agency holding companies. SpikeDDB is a collaboration between spike lee and DDB (and therefore Omnicom by extension). All that being said, I don't personally know if the agency in question is SpikeDDB or not.

Take it as an engineer with a psycho manager reaching out to the manager's manager in an effort to right wrongs.

Spike contracted the agency, (or so it seems from a forwarded email) and he has the most control over the agency. I think by not publicly mentioning the agency's name, this gentlemen is demonstrating his desire to resolve this situation amicably and with integrity.

This is what I was thinking as well. Did he also send this letter privately, but posted publicly to get support as well? That seems the only logical way to do it, if he hopes to get a response.

I think it's prudent given that while the agency apparently lowballed him, it's not clear whether the agency or Spike Lee's production company (40 Acres And A Mule Filmworks, appearing on the posters in question on his Facebook page) are the party actually responsible for the theft/misappropriation.

"misappropriation".. I had this word in my mind the entire time while reading the open letter. I can't really think of a word to better describe just what seems to be going on here.

Presumably his contract prevents him from discussing internal issues with any outside party.

(Knowledge source: Got totally screwed by a business partner via legalese and had all my work stolen, ended up doing half a year of work uncompensated, can't legally talk about it or the partner, and loss < cost of litigation. Ah well, water under bridge.)

Well a big part of this whole problem is that he had no contract to begin with ("We never signed any contracts or work-for-hire agreements").

That aside, he works as a freelancer in an industry where naming and shaming specific agencies could very well hinder his ability to get future work, so I don't blame him for not doing it.

Probably more to do with him already taking content down to avoid their litigation - avoiding naming them looks like it follows on from that.

The article says no contract was signed.