Comments for Is copyright compatible with copying?

It seems normal that copying should be prohibited when the original idea comes from a person who does not want his work, fruit of his imagination to be copied. If the copies were not protected then the “exclusivity” of the work would not be the same. It is not the same price for a unique work as that of a work reproduced in 1000 copies.
Like every intellectual property right, there are several theories and justifications (whether deontological or economic) that explain their existence.
However, there can be a fine line between copying and inspiration : copying leads to an infrigement, but substantial similarity doesn’t always (and it depends if you’re in a civil law country or a common law one).
It’s also interesting to see that copyright law doesn’t prohibit any kind of inspiration (on the contrary) : for example, we can see that we can seek for protections for derivative work (see the Mona Lisa of Duchamp). On the first episode of the Game is On, we see a mister seeking for help : some people took his work (a little toy) and derived it in the form of a drawing, graffiti representing death – can this kind of work be considered as derivative work as the Mona Lisa of Duchamp? We don’t think so, regarding the right of integrity that the copyright provides. As Arturo Di Modica, the character of Joseph wants to avoid the prejudice to his reputation/honor that might scare the producers that want to make a film (which will be a derivative work) out of his little toy.
Also, it is likely that two people can have a similar idea : it can sometimes be complicated to figure out who owns what.

According to us, copyright is not a prohibition of copying someone’s work. Actually, we think that it’s a limit that has to be set to avoid plagiarism.
Copying can be understood in two ways :
1) Plagiarizing someone’s work by using the same phrases, images and ideas that they have used is clearly forbidden and exceeds the limits of copyright because somebody produces a work that is exactly the same as someone else had done before, someone takes someone else’s idea and says it’s their own.
2) Taking inspiration from someone else’s work, that is very different from the latter because someone produces its own work with its own ideas but is just inspired from somebody else’s work that gives him new ideas. That doesn’t cause any problem regarding copyrights as someone creates its own work.

Consequently, we believe that copying is compatible with copyrights up to the limit of plagiarism. Actually, history has shown that many artists have been inspired by other artists or people to create their own work and these artists are recognized for their own production beyond their source of inspiration.
First, a lot of musicians and DJ today take old songs from the 80’s, 90’s and use it as an inspiration for remixes. It’s not considered as plagiarism because they have their idea, their conception of the music they want to produce.
Second, the famous painting « Le Radeau de la Méduse » by Théodore Géricault has been reimagined by many other artists. For example, in the Asterix & Obélix comic book (“Asterix Légionnaire”), there is a shipwreck scene where the characters find themselves on a raft and this scene is directly inspired from the Gericault’s painting. Moreover, a character says “Je suis médusé”, it’s a striking reference to the famous painting.
Third, Yves Saint Laurent took inspiration from the famous artist Piet Mondrian in order to create his new “Mondrian” collection that was a huge success. He designed dresses inspired by the colors and graphics of Mondrian’s paintings.

To conclude, copyright is compatible with copying as long as someone else’s work is only used as a source of inspiration and not as an idea to be copied.

Everyday we say, reproduce things that can find its source elsewhere/ in our surroundings. All artworks may come from one or several idea(s). Therefore, we, as a group, deeply believe that creativity is always, to some extent, about inspiration. There is no question of novelty, it is all about originality.

We can speak about the series offered by Netflix. There are several stories which look the same. For example, the love story of a girl seen as a “nerd” and the cutest guy of the college paying attention to her is not a new situation. It is what people face in real life. However, what makes the success of these different movies, even though they look the same, is this creativity, the originality that each director will add to make it different from the other ones.

By contrast,11 years ago, Shakira released her famous song Waka Waka on all platforms. The latter was inspired by the eponymous song “Zangaléwa”, a military song of the Cameroonian which aims to galvanize the popular class to fight. Cameroonians complained about this cultural appropriation. This was not the first time that Shakira was sued for copyright issues. However, in this case, Shakira offered to compensate them for copyright after they sued her.
However, one might wonder if copying a work, with permission, is as bad as it is claimed to be. Indeed, there is an advantageous aspect of this story. Shakira has made it possible to offer more visibility to Cameroonian culture. Somehow, copyright issues can lead to a spotlight on native projects that have not been very successful.

What can we conclude from these examples? Is copyright and copying compatible? What is the limit between copying and being inspired?

Legally speaking, a distinction must be made between an idea and an artwork. An idea is simply a conception of the mind, an abstract representation while an actual artwork is the materialization of that idea.
The article 9.2 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) underlines this difference by reminding us what is protected by copyright. This international legal agreement does only protect material expressions.
This differentiation stems from the idea that expression is personal while ideas need to remain free. They belong to the general interest. It is impossible to protect what everyone has in mind, but it is possible to protect the way people materialize ideas.

Hence, copying an idea is not incompatible with the notion of copyright. However, being inspired is and moreover, it can bring light to other work. For example, on the platform TikTok, we have a lot of people who use songs to remix it. It gives more light to the original song. That is also the case for music. When you create a new gender, such as Afro Trap by MHD, you can be seen as a precursor of the new gender’s essence.

On the other hand, copying the materialization of an idea could be a violation of the notion of copyright. Therefore, this is incompatible with the notion of copyright. Indeed, it can be seen as an infringement of copyright according to the legislation and the Shakira’s case that we’ve seen before.

“ The virtual world brings the property to another level than the physical world”.

From our point of view, copyright and copying are compatible. Indeed, copying someone else’s idea doesn’t always mean that we steal it, it is even necessary of the realisation of a new project. When we copy someone’s behavior, idea or way of living, it is mostly because there is some kind of inspiration.

Stealing an idea, and then not respecting copyright, is when you take an idea, a sentence, a quote, a drawing, etc. and you don’t say who is the real author. You kind of claim that you are the author. However, people can copy others’ work without stealing it because they don’t claim to be the author. By doing that, they give credit to the real author and its work.
When copying a piece of art, the law gives certain conditions in order to do it without violating copyrights, a perfect example is a tote bag or a pin with a painting on it.

Only expressions are protected and not ideas, indeed we want ideas to remain free, and not privatized. It is possible to copy an idea. For example, Harry Potter was inspired by a novel in which a boy goes to a school for witchcraft.

We can also illustrate this with the case Christo and Jeanne Claude delivered by the tribunal de grande instance de Paris in 1987, about the trees wrapped in the manner of Christo. The tribunal held in favour of Jeanne Claude saying that copyright does not protect a style or a gender of art.

Copyright is not strictly an “anti-copy” right, but rather a limit on plagiarism. Indeed, it is explained that it is normal and even sometimes encouraged to use elements present in certain works to lead to the creation of new things. Copyright is an important right in order to encourage artistic creations. Indeed, it allows artists to earn money from their work. In addition, these incomes generate profits which is a major component of our economy. In the UK, the art industry generates almost 80 billion pounds per year for instance. We thus see copyright as a very positive right in our societies. While we have this positive vision of copyright, we see copying as something very negative, and as a very immoral thing to do. Sometimes copying is compared to serious crimes such as terrorism. It is an idea that needs to be nuanced. In order to create, you sometimes inspire yourself by works of art. The copying mechanism is rooted in the mankind, that is how we learn how to socialize, to walk, to eat, etc. It is normal that our environment has an impact on us. If you are inspired by a work of art, it doesn’t mean you didn’t create something new. You can affirm your beliefs, show you sympathy for a cause by copying. In short, you can create by copying as long as it is not just a copy.

Among the examples that can illustrate the words used in this publication, we think of Vasco Garlado, a Portuguese artist, who revisited Picasso’s “Guernica” in one of his new paintings. It takes up elements such as civil war, chaos and especially the message to pass through the famous work of Picasso to convey his own message about the Civil War in Syria. He uses the popularity of “Guernica” and its great characteristics to try to create something new.

There are also a lot of remixes of songs from the 70s, 80s, 90s on TikTok such as the remix of Boney M – Rasputin. It is used for trendy choreographies by people that are on the app, and they can re-do them at home, with their friends. It became a trend to do remixes or mashups from different songs. The person who mixes uses the sample from the previous songs and applies it to another song (a newer song in general).

Another example that could illustrate those words is the work of Leonardo Da Vinci. Indeed, he was the first to think about inventions such as the parachute, airplanes or even the robot. Even though, they were merely concepts, it inspired the Wright’s brothers in their work to achieve the first flying airplane. Each of these inventions were, at first, Da Vinci’s concepts, but then, they were copied by these inventors in order to finalize his concepts.

We could conclude that copying is an intimate part of everyone’s creative process and that it is not completely incompatible with copyright as long as there is no question of plagiarism in the strict sense. Creation necessarily passes through unconscious processes and what emanates from us in a creative process is somehow necessarily inspired by our experience, our relationship to the world and the pre-existing creations and works that we have encountered throughout our lives.

Copyright protects different types of works, and for each work, the protection is different. Our focus will lay on the artistic world while also comparing it with other fields in which copyright infringement may take place.
When it comes to art, be it literature or visual arts, the right which is directly protected by intellectual property law is the right of reproduction. In fact, intellectual property law has a double objective: first, the protection of the artist’s work in order to give them power over who gets to reproduce and copy their artwork and, second, the possibility for them to make a living of their art because it is only when you have legal rights over your work that you can turn it into a business. A third objective is to encourage the creation of new intellectual goods; artists are more inclined to create and share their work when they know that the law is there to protect it and that they can eventually profit from it.
When it comes to copying an artwork, not everything is prohibited. In fact, the law allows copying if it meets the correct referential conditions. By comparison, about literary work, no harm is done if it is used for a scientific paper if there is a reference to the original work.
A work can also be copied into another, or reproduced, if there’s a written consent from the original author. In this case, it’s a derivative work. It’s essential to know that what the law wants to protect, is not inspiration from a work, but rather the original authors’ legitimate interests. As long as the derivative work is not an illegal reproduction of the original work, or as long as it doesn’t affect the artist’s reputation or business, there’s no issue. The purpose of copyright is to not only protect the intellectual rights of the artist but also their economical rights (for example you can reproduce a painting of a famous painter if you don’t sell it).
Lastly, inspiration is also allowed to a certain extent, meaning that if you only extract ideas from a work and then create a new one, you are not committing copyright infringement. The similarity needs to be substantial for it to be condemned.
By way of conclusion, here are some examples of copyright infringements:
In 2016 Melania Trump plagiarized part of Michelle Obama’s speech at her husband’s presidential inauguration. The plagiarized paragraphs recounted the values on which Melania Trump’s life was founded: work, respect for one’s word, respect for others. Melania Trump had explained that she was trying to pass them on to her son. Michelle Obama spoke in extremely similar terms to the 2008 Democratic convention.
In a statement, Meredith McIver admitted having borrowed a few paragraphs from a former speech by Michelle Obama. “While working with Melania Trump on her recent speech, we discussed the many people who inspired her and the messages she wanted to share with the American people,” the author explained. “Michelle Obama is someone she has always loved. Over the phone, she read some excerpts from Michelle Obama’s speeches to me as examples. I wrote them down and then included the phrasing in the draft which became the final speech. I didn’t check Michelle Obama’s speeches, ”she added.

Second example : An American artist accuses Italian plastic artist Salvatore Garau of having stolen the concept of invisible sculpture from him and threatens to sue if he is not credited.
The work is neither visible nor palpable and yet it is the subject of an accusation of plagiarism. Created by the Italian painter Salvatore Garau, the invisible sculpture is the fruit of another person’s reflection. Thus, Max Miller, an American artist from Florida, threatens to sue Salvatore Garau for having stolen the concept of a non-existent work.
According to GQ, the American artist plans to prosecute Salvatore Garau, believing that the latter would have stolen the concept of a non-existent work from him. “When I saw this, I thought ‘this is exactly my idea’, ideas are important in the world and recognition of these ideas is important. I just wanted this attribution to be made, ”he told WCJB television station. According to him, he would have shared his concept in 2016 during the exhibition of one of his intangible sculptures entitled Nothing (nothing) and justifies that a simple Google search is enough to prove his point. Max Miller also explained that he tried to contact Salvatore Garau in order to be credited, but “he judged that it did not deserve it, so I hired an Italian lawyer”. His lawyer, however, specified that he had sent a letter to the Italian artist, with the desire to settle this dispute amicably.
And finally, the third example, the French photographer, JR, known for his creations that mix photography and street art, was indignant at Cartier’s advertising campaign, seen in an airport. “Cartier, total plagiarism,” angered the artist as he shared a preview of the campaign. “I hope it’s not visible everywhere,” he added.
The artist criticizes Cartier for imitating one of his series of portraits: “In 2014, I started a series called“ Portrait de papier ”- I printed portraits in large format, and the subjects had to interact with them. ” The result was black and white shots, more or less torn by the models that appeared in colour in the tear.
“There are some striking similarities to this ad campaign that I discovered at an airport this morning,” said JR.
And if he admits not having “invented black and white photos and the idea of tearing paper” – in response to certain comments – he points out that his works have been exhibited widely, including in the magazine of the New York Times. It is therefore difficult to play the card of ignorance of his work, which seems to imply JR, putting his photos and Cartier’s advertising side by side to illustrate his point.
“Since I’m very attentive to ‘collaborations between brands and artists’, I’m also very responsive when I see brands that imitate artists. I am quite tolerant when individuals use my images for personal ends (…) but I think that artists must be heard and defend themselves when their creations are copied by large companies to sell their products ”, concludes the photographer.

Is copyright compatible with copying ?

• DNA duplication: why does it appear in the video?
The video conveys a message in which copyright and copying can be compared to a duplication of DNA. When it comes to copying, there is some evidence that could not be denied: DNA can’t exist without copying, as humans we simply imitate mutually each other, we follow trends, we think alike, or act alike, we share customs, moral value, or thoughts.
• Je suis Charlie: what is its meaning in the present context?
“Je suis Charlie” is a famous hashtag, created by Joachim Roncin; in the context of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. This hashtag has been taken up by millions of people to support Charlie Hebdo and freedom of expression. These “copies” have had a positive impact on society as they show support and solidarity towards this institution and our fundamental right. In this case the copy does not represent something negative but rather something positive in this particular context.
• Keep Calm and Carry On series: is it to the point?
The original slogan is “Keep calm and Carry On”. This slogan is a poster produced by the British government in 1939, intended to raise morale and the possible defeats of the British during the Second World War. A strong message, therefore, from the government during a tragic time. The poster was used by a number of private companies to advertise various products. This trivialises and undermines the intrinsic meaning of the message conveyed at the time. In this case, we consider the copy to be negative, in that it devalues the original message.

• why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain?
Marcel Duchamps’ famous urinal, known as the “fountain”, is one of the key works in the transition from modern to contemporary art. The original has disappeared and only replicas exist, made between 1950 and 1960. These were made with the agreement of Marcel Duchamps. In this case, the copy is seen positively, because without these replicas we would have lost track of them and they are still a sensation today.

• Is the process for creating The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair illustrative?
We think this is illustrative as there are several references to copyright and copying and what this can entail. Indeed, this intellectual right can have major consequences. In the video, we see that this is the subject of investigations, accusations, large sums of money, convictions, etc. This illustrates this intellectual right in our society today.

• After having viewed the video and read the working paper, could you explain the message in your own words (without copying!) and illustrate it by three examples (other than those mentioned by the authors of those documents).

Copying and copyright are two different things related to different functions. These two terms have each one a special connotation. In one hand, copyright is frequently portrayed as something positive since it can advantage and encourage people to create while generating some income. This also contributes to the economic growth and prosperity of a country.
In the other hand, copying is often portrayed as something negative, it has a bad connotation. Copying is related to different concepts such as plagiarism, theft, piracy, and immorality.

Today it’s easy to separate what is bad and what is good, we all do this! We could simply admit that copyright is something positive and copying something bad, but if we think wisely, we can demonstrate that there are some subtilities.

Firstly, when it comes to copying, there is some evidence that could not be denied: DNA can’t exist without copying, as humans we simply imitate mutually each other, we follow trends, we think alike, or act alike, we share customs, moral value, or thoughts. Sometimes, copying occurs unconsciously!

Example 1:

– When a famous challenge is created by someone on the internet (mannequin challenge, ice bucket challenge etc) or when someone creates a hashtag on twitter to address a subject/issue (#BlackLivesMatter, #metoo…) “we” all follow the trend, so, technically we copy the idea of someone, but it doesn’t seem bad when we do it. So, copying can also have a good impact, when we tweet for example using the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter to denounce the violence incurred by the Afro-American community we participate to the debate, we show our empathy and consciousness

Secondly, copying it doesn’t necessarily mean a threat to creativity! We often see this as something bad when it comes the creative process, but this phenomenon is more complex than we think. Copying can be creative too, we often see this in parodies, adaptations of work.

Example 2:

– We can mention the famous Campbell Soup of Andy Warhol (artist) and the several adaptations made by other artists (Hassan Hajjaj, @Babbuthepainter (Instagram artist) …). From this artwork, we wade parodies/adaptations replacing the soup cans by noodles, chili paste etc.

– We can also mention a new and famous Tiktok user called Khabane Lame who imitate some life hacks videos while parodying them. He has been portrayed as creative by just imitating life hacks videos in a humoristic and minimalistic way.

Thirdly, copyright law does not censure and prohibit all forms of copying! Copyright law will only prohibit the copying of certain works, under specific circumstances, not all creators want to protect their work from copying and we must consider that copyright is not an obligation for creators and artists but only a kind of protection.

Example 3:

– We can mention the public domain books that have no copyright nor license (or books that had copyrights, but they expired)

– Open access images offered by applications such as Canva.

What is copyright? Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. Exclusive right to authorize or prohibit direct or indirect, temporary or permanent reproduction by any means and in any form in the whole or in part ( Art 2.1 of the copyright directive). It is important to make a difference between the work and copies of the work. A work is an intangible intellectual creation. Copies of the work are the fixations of the work in physical form. It is the intangible work that is subject to copyright
Reproduction right is the core of the exclusive economic rights conferred by copyright. Monopolies are protected against copying. In fact, competition isn’t possible without copying ideas to a certain degree so there are tensions between free competition and temporary monopolies for exploiting ideas. If someone copied the work of someone else, there is a necessity to establish an act of copying and there is a fair compensation. So there is no protection against independent creation (><patent)
But the relation between the two concepts (copying and copyright) is complicated. Some have even supported the view that copyright supports copying to some extent (some theories of creativity, as explained by Martin Kretschmer, also say that copying is part of the creative process) although copyright is often seen as an anti-copying tool.

There is a very fine line between what we call « copying » and the inspiration which is essential for making a new creation. In our world almost everything is just a new association or a new way of seeing or using an existing object. For instance, Steeve Jobs took cue from the idea of the Xerox mouse and that’s became now the first attribute of the computers. If we consider that copying if one of the biggest crimes, it would say that all the objects around us would disappear.
Another good metaphor to illustrate this is how the culinary masterpieces are created : these are only new ways to associate the products that already exist in the nature. Moreover, the medecine take inspiration from the nature to create the remedies for the most serious diseases. Furthermore, the humankind civilization is just a copy from the nature.
Also, copying creates inevitably the cultural identity, forges a link between people. A lot of stories (even Harry Potter) were created by taking inspiration, copying the folklore and already existing stories and legends.
Prohibiting the copying would lead to the complete destruction of the energy of creation. Even if you would like to draw a peinture, you should use already eisting forms, colours, lines, objects, otherwise the human eye would never understand what was painted. The biggest painters started to develop their art by copying the things they saw around them. The biggest writers often tell the story of themselves or they’ve heard from their lives.

At the same time, it is very important to valorize and protect the unique creation of the artist who invest his time, his energy and his emotions. Indeed, if the masterpiece belongs to everyone and the genius of the creator is not recognized, there’ll be no more motivation for a lot of artists to create. The human being needs to feel himself recognized, useful. In this way the human society exists. Furthermore, it was historically proven that the economy system which devalues the individual creation quickly stagnates and the advancement decrease.

We think that copyright can’t prevent copying. For example, historically, there have always been singers copying old famous songs, and it’s still a common practice in the music industry. But this action of copying is not necessarily bad. For example, if a singer in 2021 takes an old famous song and modifies it a bit in its own way, I view this rather as paying homage to the initial singer, and as a way of keeping the success of the initial music in the long term. Ex: song of Shakira “La quiero a morir”, taken from the initial song of Francis cabrel “Je l’aime à mourir”.

It’s also important to recall that copyright only protects the EXPRESSION of an idea (art 9.2TRIPS), and not the idea itself. In this way, you could in theory copy an idea without infringing the copyright of someone else. For example; the idea of a program like Word is not protected, so you could create other programs that have the same functions as Word without committing a copyright infringement. It’s a good thing that copyright does not protect ideas, because otherwise, it would be impossible to create a work inspired by other works without infringing the copyright of the person who had the initial idea. In other words, copyright is compatible with the copying of ideas, but not with the copying of an expression. If ideas were to be protected, a lot of works would have never emerged. Therefore, copyright is compatible with inspiration. Realistically, it would be incorrect to think that artists don’t get inspired from works of other artists. In reality, we always get inspired by what we see and what we listen to, without even noticing it. Almost every famous artist has one or several idols, people they admire, and it’s obvious that every artist gets inspiration from their idols.

To create a new object requires a lot of resources to develop (a lot of investments) so need to be protected so investors would invest have the incentive to invest in the future. Copying has a negative impact because the person who copies did not make any investment nor effort. BUT it could also be a good thing because it leads to evolution, as the copying of DNA molecules. Example : Christo and Jeanne Claude cover the arc the triumph with a blanket. The fact that other people want to cover another monument as a bridge they could because it is not the same expression/monument as they did.

Furthermore, to be protected by copyright, there are no formalities required (art 5(2) Bern. Conv), the only thing that is requested is the need to be “fixed in some material form” (art 2(2) Bern Conv). People who want to make a film based on books/invention, should have the approval of the author = derivative works (art 2.3 Bern Conv). Even that it is a copyright infringement if it still protected (70y). In the video, the maker of the film do not ask the authorization AND caused him a prejudice

To conclude: We believe copying is compatible with copyright for several reasons. First one is that on most cases copying is involuntary, we see all sort of things through out the day that we use as inspiration later on. Second reason is that in some cases, people will partially copy the work of someone else and add a personal touch and create something that is different without infringement of the copyright. As a conclusion, Copying is compatible with copyright, however the line between fully copying and partially copying to create something else can be very blur (Marvin gaye blurred lines song; ) and keeping a clear delimitation the two is really important. On one side we want to protect authors of their work and on the other we don’t want to restrict creativity.
For all these reasons, it is important to continue to search the perfect balance between protecting the creation (copyright) by fixing some rules and at the same time not prohibit the power of inspiration

1) In the web series “the game is one” episode 1, the main ideas are the following:
– The owner of an IP right (here copyright), wants his idea to be protected because, as the initial idea becomes more and more famous, anyone could appropriate this idea, and modify it in its own way, giving a totally different meaning to it, different from the initial idea. And the owner of the copyright might not want his/her initial idea to be assimilated with other things, and modified in such a way that the meaning of it completely changes. In other words, the “inventor” of the idea might want to keep control over what is done with it.
– Someone else in the video comes to moderate the strict view of copying someone else’s idea, by saying that it’s not necessarily a bad thing that should be prohibited.

2) Je suis Charlie: in the article, the author takes the example of the hashtag “je suis Charlie” which was replicated and copied on pictures, t shirts, cartoons and several other things. In this case, copying is not something seen as “bad”, but rather as something good, something that stems from a feeling of support and solidarity. Therefore in this case, maybe if the hashtag “je suis Charlie” would have been protected by a copyright, it would have prevented such “movements” and actions of support for victims. This act of copying enabled people to come together as a community.

3) DNA duplication: the article explains that when there is a DNA duplication, two identical molecules are created from one “parent DNA molecule”. This process allows genetic information to be passed, from the parents to their children. But the interesting part in this example is to say that children never look exactly like one of their parents. This example clearly illustrates the fact that, even if you “copied” someone’s work, or just get inspiration from it, it will never be or look the same as the original piece of work. This is in part because each individual is unique, and therefore will appropriate the idea and modify it in their own way, according to their tastes, preferences and way of doing things. Furthermore, this example of DNA duplication insists on the fact that, in this case, copying is a biological imperative – again this is linked to the fact that as humans, and more specifically as children, we always copy other people. There is often, if not always, a kind of admiration coming from children when they see people older than them, and it’s also frequent to see children trying to copy or imitate “older” people. Again, it’s not a bad thing, but rather an imperative, something that is natural, in a sense that, for these kids to be able to grow and learn, they need to look at adults doing things, and copy them. This again shows that copying is a natural act as human beings, we copy others since our infancy, because in this case, copying enables us to learn. Even as adults, we copy others to create and strengthen relationships with them (ex: smiling back at people that smile at us).

4) Keep calm series: this example is linked to the relationship between copying and creativity. When you are creative, you are creating something that stems from your creation, thus something original that is new. In appearance, creativity is thus the contrary of copying. But this needs to be nuanced: the core idea of “keep calm and carry on” posters is the act of copying, since a sentence that has been copied on mugs, tshirts, posters and other products. But in our opinion, there is a part of creativity there is a part of creativity when it comes to taking the logo “keep calm and carry on” and modifying it in your own way, with your own ideas. We therefore think that even though copying and being creative seem to be opposed, they can in fact be intertwined, and related.

5) Reference to Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain : the author refers to Duchamp’s Fountain for two reasons. The first one is that he takes an ordinary object, that men used in their daily life, to make a work of art. He was rejected and his piece of art was lost. Secondly, he did not give up and did some replicas and now the art galleries show his art all over the world. What the author means by telling us that is 1) never stop to believe in yourselves and 2) even artist copy their own work. But could we say that is really copying, even it is your own work ? Some would said yes, because they have the idea that every single thing is original.

6) The adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair : the process for creating The adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair shows us that copying could also be a creative technique. In this short film because they made a patchwork of different works of different authors and also of cultural references (Pinocchio, names sherlock and Watson etc.), that we could consider as an original work. Also, this film teaches us that getting inspiration of something that exists (as a case) is not necessarily an act of copying. Some of the work they copied were in the public domain but some were still protected by the copyright. It is true that they copied some work as Disney, but Disney also copied, because their stories are based from tales. So they copied works that were also copies from other works’. It teaches us the creative process involves appropriation and transformation of the work that we copied. People should be attentive and critical when they watch work of art, need to keep in mind that a lot of people copied on each other and have been regulated but in some extend people could bypass this

When looking at this cartoon, our first observation was that intellectual property law is an equilibrium that allows people to copy other’s work without it being stealing. In fact, intellectual property rights provide a legal framework that protects one’s creations and inventions while allowing others to use those very creations and inventions in order to better them (an example being pharmaceutical products).

Copyrights more specifically grant property rights to artistic and literary works while permitting other artists to get inspired. There surely is a limit as the new work cannot be too similar but inspiration is still possible. This is essential.
In fact, nowadays, there is no such thing as a brand new idea. Inspiration is drawn from everywhere, sometimes even involuntarily and unconsciously. Therefore, if one artist could claim one painting style or one imaginary world as his very own, creativity would be limited.

Samples are also a clear example that proves that another person’s work can be used in one’s own music. An artist may incorporate lyrics or a beat from an older song in his own without it being an infringement to the original artists’ rights.

In addition to what we just wrote :
Copying plays a crucial rol at all stages of our development as human being and this helps us establish connections and relationships with friends and family. It also facilitates freedom of expression and helps us express our political engagement (for exemple Je suis Charlie) or we can use it as a tool for remembrance.

After watching the first episode of The Game is On! web series and reading Copying, Creativity and Copyright by Ronan Deazley and Bartolomeo Meletti, we realise that the Manichean vision of copying is biased.
Indeed, in one hand we tend to consider that original work is all mighty and should never be copied and, on the other hand, we consider copying has the least respectful and uncreative thing to do. However, looking at different examples as Je suis Charlie, the Keep Calm and Carry On series, Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain and even our own DNA, it becomes harder and harder to define a limit between copy and creation. Going through theses examples, we will see that the protection of original work is complex and brings up a lot of questioning over creation and creativity.
First, there is a huge interrogation about what can be considered original. Every work, technology, and every piece of art we come across are influenced by our environment. It is undeniable that even the most creative artists have their own inspirations. Following that logic, we can ask ourselves: is there is anything original because even the oldest creation has its own inspiration? Even our own DNA is a mixed copy of our parent’s DNA. So, looking for the answer to the question “what is an original work?” will eventually lead us to the origin of the world and, subsequently, to theories that are far away from the actual “original work” that we want to protect with copyrights.
Second, we might question the necessity of such protection. Of course, it is important to reward creators to ensure innovation. But it can be noticed that reproduction can create a form of union among people such as the Je suis Charlie sentence after the terrorist attack against Charlie Hebdo. Also, replication can lead to even more creation like the Keep Calm and Carry On series as people would transform the slogan to create other catchy phrases.
Yet, some creations are quite controversial like the Fontain by Marcel Duchamp. His fountain was a simple urinal turned upside down. With this example, we reach a point where we can question the difference between being creative and clever and being a fraud.
At the end of the day, we realise that almost everything we encounter is a mix of many different copies just like the first episode of the series we just watched. They honestly admit that there are many references to other films and that these cultural references were also inspired by other works. As a result, barely everything we have seen has been a copy of something else. However, it can somehow be considered as an original work because the creativity comes from the assemblage of all these references.
Overall, it becomes obvious that the limit between creation and copy is very blurry and, therefore, it interrogates us as a society. Indeed, we must ask ourselves on one hand: to what extend do we want to enhance creativity over rewarding innovation? On the other hand, we must be careful as the protection of innovations can imprison creativity.