My Stance on Copying

in #art6 years ago

The concept of intellectual property in any creative field is a tricky domain. Outside of blatant and explicit copying such as word-by-word plagiarism or copy-paste imagery, it is very difficult to draw the distinctive lines between a copy and adaptation/inspiration/conversion/advancement. The digital age only exacerbates that with a ever-intensifying fountain hose of memes and gifs and ctrl-c this, ctrl-p that. In recent years, we’ve seen the foundational practices of copyrighting absolutely crack under the pressure of modern communication and consumption.

And we see the war play out on many fronts. We have music artists going at each others’ throats. We have game developers claiming another studio jacked their stuff. As the world becomes more global and its impossible to fight the leeching of creative vision through borders and cultures, it’ll become more and more difficult to say who started what or created something first.

  • Part of the same journey. Source

As a creative professional myself, I’ve thought a great deal about this issue. For me, the greatest questions is this - How much can I attribute my work to my own personal production compared to the influence and motivation of precedent? And with any iteration or scenario, I can only arrive at the following conclusion -

Every bit of creative work is copied to a certain degree and outside of blatant copy-pasting and trying to frame someone else’s untampered work as your own, anything is fair game.

This basically means I believe that concepts, styles, subject matters, narrative arcs, similarities of all senses and qualities, and many more are and should be available for anyone to poach. I’ve always taken the stance that if someone can make something better or more successful, no matter how similar it may be to another piece of work, they should have the freedom to do so. If an author wrote a story of a ship captain named “Grayhab” who spends several hundred pages hunting down a giant octopus named “Toby Slick,” he/she should have the freedom to do so. It’ll be up to the public to receive it any way they like. Again, unless someone has taken something verbatim or the actual physical copy of a painting and tries to pass it off as their own, it’s fair game.

The Art of Copying


One of the primary reasons I take this position is because the act of imitation and sourcing produces several strains of creative production themselves. Ever listen to the parody singer Weird Al? Wouldn’t be possible without a lineup of songs to rip-off of. How about a mashup by Girl Talk? Same deal. The freedom to ‘copy’ nurtures a different side of creativity that would not be possible with strict creative property guidelines.

In the more modern era, we see more creative work (particularly on the entertainment side) build off of previous work as well. Reactionary videos on Youtube and splicing in contemporary video art all make up for new forms of production that again, create a richer ecosystem of creativity. Heck, memes are the 21st-century digital art form that relies almost completely on a game of telephone that sources one work for another.

He/She Wore it Better


Second, I believe that a piece of art or creative work is valued by much more than its intrinsic effort. Part of an artist’s job is to market him/herself in a certain way and present a compelling narrative that collectors and the public want to buy into. Picasso wasn’t the only artist of his time to delve into cubist styles and doubtlessly poached subject matter and stylistic techniques from other artists. But he was a hustler and made sure he was the most prominent within a whole network of makers.

This is pretty much how I approach the issue of ‘authenticity’. To me, it isn’t the first one to start or establish something, it’s the first one to make that thing impactful and noteworthy. An artistic genius that never shows their work to the world is a tree fallen with no-one around. And if someone comes along and snatches up said style or idea and makes it more impactful, all the power to them.


It’s funny how an initial news story of the PUBG vs. Fortnite controversy spun out into a bigger broader conundrum but it’s nevertheless interesting to put these things into perspective. Ultimately, a great deal of the intellectual property debate is a feud over profits so it’s of little interest to me. Still, I’m curious what you think. Is my stance too extreme? Does this leave us vulnerable? Let me know you comment below and Steem on!

Sort:  

I don’t think anyone has the inherit right to an idea we come up with millions of thoughts every day in various forms and only the persuit of the idea makes it valuable! Once the idea is made real it’s still open for interpretation and remaking that’s what drives us forward if you cannot innovate on your own idea collarborate with someone who can or compete with them to see who wins this is the nature of the free market and how we push innovation

This is a big subject; still, it's a shame that an artist can't create from their own heart rather than taking from some other. If my work inspires anything I would hope it is that someone comes from their own authenticity and perhaps gives a nod to the past in passing...

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.35
TRX 0.12
JST 0.040
BTC 70455.47
ETH 3561.82
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.71