Plagiarism

This is a double edged sword when the debate about the effectiveness of the internet comes into the arena. How does a creative person sell their wares, or even advertise their wares, without the fear of being copied, ripped off, or having work stolen and reuse. Well, it is an increasing trend in today's creative society to copy/paste concepts and ideas from the more talented and claim them as one's own. Look at the recent news of the Microsoft equivalent to the iPad, due in 2011. It is a simple reflection of the fact they replicated the iPod into a Zune, and replicated many feature from the OS X system interface into the Vista interface. This is just one example of high end reworking of the twists around copyright and patent laws. On a smaller level, and more creative level, how can one defend against someone stealing ideas.

An interesting site to look at is this one; plagiarism.org/. They state that the terms copying is a weakened description of the more serious aspect of the crime. According to the dictionary, plagiarism means:

plagiarism |ˈpleɪdʒərɪz(ə)m|nounthe practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's

And is actually derived from the Greek word for kidnapping. So, can words, ideas and artwork be stolen. According to many laws the answer is yes. Even in recent years the new law of 'Intellectual Property' has been devised to protect ideas before they materialise into real entities. This website tells you more on that issue; intellectual-property.gov.uk/. The big issue is not really if there are laws out there that protect you from the crime, but how one can deal with the issues of plagiarism. There are two angles to this; first the role of victim and the second, the perpetrator.

Avoiding plagiarism as a creative is very hard. Copyright laws are in effect, and simply being the creator of a piece of art entitles you to a modicum of protection under the existing laws. However, the extensive nature of the world wide web means that policing your work over the thousands of countries that could view any online gallery, is near impossible. Also, for certain creative forms, such as fashion, the world of copyright can be bent, as fashion is seen as a utility item and therefore cannot be protected. So, copying is not against the law, just a moral issue. However, the laws don't really help, just like a stamp to define ownership. Watermarking images can help, but again, that simply stops perpetrators actually using those artefacts, not taking the idea or concept. As you have to put work on the web to get known these days, the easiest safeguard is to originate a unique style. This way, copying the style will indicate the breaking of the law, as it would be near impossible for two people to have such similar styles the more unique it is.
Also, something that is promoted at lot at, at college is the use of sketch books. What this can do is to help show development of concepts. By doing so, this can show a time line by which an idea can be validated. Simply having a finished piece is not a good sign of ownership.

As far a being a perpetrator goes, you can protect yourself from this by validating any sources you have used in any written or visual work. "Inspired by the work of" can be enough to qualify the derivation. In written work, bibliographies and reference listing are a great way to avoid the "copy/paste wikipedia" spotlight in many a persons essays. However, looking deeper into the person's actual portfolio and seeming a blinding snap of styles from one piece to another can also indicate that the piece is not original. In text, knowing a person's writing style can also show a change in aspect. The end line however, is as much as Jim Jarmush stated; "nothing is original". It is hard to close one's eyes to what is around and not be influenced. It is also hard to lock everything away to avoid gazing eyes. Art is about observation in both directions. Technology is the perpetrator in the respect of giving license to people to 'believe' that the internet and all its artefacts are free. They are not.

In the end, the morality of each and every individual is the key to protection. As a creative, the notion that you simply copy other people's ideas and make them your own shouldn't really sit well in your conscience. Being original is the motivation to taking your imagination and translating it into art in the first place. If you can make a dollar for the effort, then this is a good thing. If a dollar gets stolen from you in the process, because of plagiarism then one's value of an artist and creative has been under-minded by the powers of capitalism and commerce. Will conclude with a favourite quote at present: