Former creative director of Pocket Aces claims Google's new Mr. India ad mirrors his June '23 animated video

Successful campaigns consider creativity as the lifeblood in the world of advertising. However, this creativity can sometimes be a double-edged sword, as allegations of plagiarism and intellectual property infringement occasionally emerge. Such is the case with Google’s new Mr. India ad, starring Anil Kapoor, as a former creative director from Pocket Aces alleges striking similarities between the ad and an animated video he posted in June 2023.

The controversy revolves around the fourth installment of Google’s Mr. India ad series, where Anil Kapoor promotes the Pixel 8 smartphone. FCB Ulka, a renowned creative advertising agency, is responsible for the creation of these advertisements. The crux of the matter lies in the uncanny resemblances between this ad and an animated video created by Abhinav Krishna, the former creative director of Pocket Aces.

Here’s the Google Pixel ad in question:

According to AK, both narratives follow a similar script. A prospective tenant is shown a home with the promise of a breathtaking sea view, only to be disappointed by a cluttered cityscape visible from the balcony. The primary difference lies in the tools used to spot the elusive sea. Google’s Pixel 8 ad utilizes the zoom feature on the smartphone to zoom in on a distant object and reveal the sea. In contrast, AK’s animated video features a character using a pair of binoculars.

AK took to X (formerly Twitter) to express his concerns. He claimed that the similarities between the two videos extend beyond the mere use of a similar plot. According to his tweets, the shot composition, storyboard, and even the expressions of the characters as they attempt to find the sea view are strikingly identical. AK asserts, “It flows exactly the same way that my story flows. Even the final reveal, the last zoom-in to the sea, is executed in the same manner.”

One of the most significant points of contention raised by AK is the lack of credit for his creative work. He alleges that neither Google India nor FCB Ulka has contacted him regarding the video. AK feels unfairly deprived of recognition for his efforts, which causes him considerable distress.

The sequence of events leading to AK’s awareness of the similarities between his work and the Google ad is rather serendipitous. It was not until a friend reached out to him after watching the ad that AK became aware of the striking resemblance. Prompted by his friend’s observation, AK compared the two works. He then realized the extent to which someone allegedly replicated his original creative vision without his knowledge or consent.

As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen how Google India and FCB Ulka will respond to these claims. At this juncture, neither Google India nor FCB Ulka has issued any official statement addressing the matter.