Ctrl C + Ctrl V. Et Viola.
Between drawing inspiration and direct copying lays a thin line, there's literally no grey area. Unfortunately, distinguishing between the two is also a subjective matter. When has a piece of work been altered enough to no longer be considered a copy? Is it considered original work if no one knows the work that has been copied?
I got this very topic from watching a YouTube video...
There's Nothing New Under the Moon
Is copying bad? I wouldn't say so. I think there are many ways something can be copied that are bad & negative and just as many ways in which copying can be inspiring and innovative.
In this article, I'm considering copying primarily in the creative sense, but consider these examples of copying.
- Copying in a school test
- An art student copying an image as best they can, whilst learning to draw
- Copying the behaviours and habits of those more successful than yourself
I can imagine you'd agree that there can be a lot of reasons and intentions behind copying, some being more acceptable than others, depending whom you ask.
"there is nothing new under the sun." & "what has been done will be done again", quotes from Ecclesiastes of the Bible. This ties in closely with the sayings of filmmaker and writer, Kirby Ferguson. He declares & coined the term "Everything is a Remix". He believes that all creatives have a derivative nature & that the best and most successful don't worry about whether they are doing something "original", because like him, they know that originality does not really exist.
Side Note - The Source of Everything.
Many agree that the Bible is the most influential book of all time. It was actually the first officially put together and printed book, before this, it was scrolls and writings. The Bible itself is actually a library of books!!
Jordan Peterson says that all books made after it emerged from it, the underlying book (The Bible). It is one of the fundamental texts, along with the writings of Shakespeare, Milton and Dante. The more ideas that are dependent on a given idea, the more fundamental that idea is. There then is a hierarchy of fundamental texts with the Bible at its base.
Is creating really creating then? And will creativity run out?
No, of course not, Ferguson says that admitting this fact to ourselves is liberating. We are all influenced by the environment and those around us. This diminishes the pressure on creatives, and incentivises simply starting work! Reworking what already exists in their own unique ways. Ideas and concepts can be perpetually developed and remixed. There is no end to creativity.
Good Cop(y), Bad Cop(y)
The deviation between inspiration and theft.
Copy & Paste
This is the naughty form of copying and is essentially larceny in the creative world. You often see creators hurt and disappointed that their work has been stolen with no credit given to them. It's all over social media with Tik-tokers and their trendy dances.
Do you ever hear a song and recognise the sample only to find out the sample also sampled another song...or sample.
Whilst someone copying your work may be a compliment, in the sense that it is good enough work to be copied, it can also be harmful to the originator's livelihood and may come with legal ramifications. It does not always have such severe consequences though and it often just comes down to ethics and being morally sound.
A perfect analogy of why this kind of copying is bad is the photocopier example:
Let's take a fresh, new drawing by a skilled artist. Imagine the masterpiece is passed through a photocopier once, any changes may not be strikingly noticeable, but if you did this 5/6/7 more times, the drop in quality would begin to become perceivable. If we extrapolate this, to hundreds and maybe thousands of times, the final product would not look anything like the original work.
How many times do you see the same recycled tweet over and over again on twitter? It loses the humour or novelty it once had. This highlights the destructive nature of direct copying.
So, here's an idea, if you see something you like, don't just steal/copy it - repost and give credit to the creator - add a comment that builds on it. This a far more progressive course of action.
This segways nicely into the good sect of copying. Be cautious though, this is esoteric information - clearly and evidently no one uses these principles (lool).
Copy & Adapt
Copy and improve, build upon. The eclectic approach. As we saw with Kirby Ferguson, everything is a remix and so we must draw inspiration from those things that are around us and have come before us and remix them into a new form never seen before.
The word eclectic means to derive ideas, styles, or tastes from a broad and diverse range of sources. It's really a big mash up. Imagine taking ideas, knowledge and principles from architecture and some how combining them in music or fashion. Or taking a line from a book and turning it into an drawing/art piece (reminds me of DALL-E the OpenAI software). The combination of ideas is where creativity spurs. The more wacky and abstract the sources the more unique the work is.
Another creative that supported this idea of copying was Picasso. He was quoted for saying "Good artists borrow, great artists steal".
Although it seems at first to be contradictory, it actually aligns well with Ferguson's gospel. The term "steal" here doesn't mean to plagiarize, the difference between borrowing and stealing here is that one is likened to imitation, the other is inspiration. There is a difference in intent between the two.
Borrowing does not accept and recognise influences, whereas stealing, snatches and claims the inspiration boldly and turns it into something new with unique, compelling ideas. Much like Ferguson suggests.
Good sources of inspiration can be found all over and in a multitude of industries. These include: Fashion, Writing, Film, Art, Architecture, Nature, Historical Events and Music to name a few.
I'd say half jokingly that creativity is the ability to hide/disguise one's source(s).
The Original Source: Find the 20 Bible references.
