Is copyright compatible with copying?

By 3 October 2016 38

Copyright law, as other intellectual property laws, creates a legal exclusivity on the use of an intangible asset. The copyright owner is granted the power to prohibit some acts of use regarding the protected work. In particular, the author can ‘say no’ to the copying of her work. (Copying falls under the reproduction right, but in Europe, the law also confers a right to communicate to the public whose limits are defined by the Court of Justice of the EU; see here). Copyright thus appears as an anti-copying tool. But is it fully correct?


Cartoon by Nina Paley who created the series Mimi and Eunice

This cartoon itself reuses the sentence usually attributed to Pablo Picasso (‘Les bons artistes copient, les grands artistes volent’). It also complements Picasso’s formula: does the right part of the cartoon mean that copyright is blocking everyone to copy – except artists, good or great?

Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better

T.S. Eliot (who wrote this before Picasso… but this quote has a longer history which is itself a good story about creativity)

The relation between copyright, copying and creativity is a complex one. Copyright is an obvious barrier for copying. But not always. Some have even supported the view that copyright supports copying to some extent. Theories of creativity also support the view that some form of copying is part of the creative process.

But not at school! At least during the tests or exams!

This photo from the University of Nebraska illustrates an article on the Apple v. Samsung litigation

This photo from the University of Nebraska illustrates an article on the Apple v. Samsung litigation

A recent web series called The Game is On!  is worth to be viewed – please watch the episode 1 here called The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair. Beware! It contains many leads that might help you to understand how copying and copyright have an uneasy, but strong relation with one another.

“The Game is On! is a series of short animated films that put copyright and creativity under the magnifying glass of Sherlock Holmes, providing a unique, research-led and open access resource for school-aged learners and other creative users of copyright. Drawing inspiration from well-known copyright and public domain work, as well as recent copyright litigation, these films provide a springboard for exploring key principles and ideas underpinning copyright law, creativity, and the limits of lawful appropriation and reuse.”

The accompanying working paper entitled Copying, Creativity and Copyright (Febr. 2016) authored by Ronan Deazley (Queen’s University Belfast) and Bartolomeo Meletti, as part of a CREATe project lead by Prof. Martin Kretschmer of the University of Glasgow, explains well how copying might be part of the creative process.

Please look in particular to the following illustrations discussed in the web series and/or the already mentioned working paper – we will further discuss them in class:

  • stop-copying-and-start-creatingDNA duplication: why does it appear in the video?
  • Je suis Charlie: what is its meaning in the present context?
  • Keep Calm and Carry On series: is it to the point?
  • why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain?
  • is the process for creating The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair illustrative?

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).

Good work! And… Stop Copying and Start Creating!



, , ,

Tags: , , ,

38 Responses to Is copyright compatible with copying?

  1. Manel Dhib 20 October 2016 at 01:36 #

    • DNA duplication: why does it appear in the video?
    The phenomenon of DNA duplication is illustrated in the video through the fact that “even if things look the same ( like the painting in the video with almost all the elements except one: the binder) , they are different”. Basically, even if we are made of two kinds of DNA, we are born and grow up as unique human beings. Even if we look exactly like one of our parents. There are no clones, our DNA is unique, and for example, in a situation where we have to enter a room protected by a DNA pass, only our DNA will allow us to enter this room.
    It’s important to talk about DNA duplication when we talk about copying because this is the best example that demonstrates that the phenomenon of copying is at the origin of the creation of the human being and more globally, of all living creatures. This is the first step in the process and it shows that, in the end, practically everything is made up of something already preexistant. So the fact that society considers today copying as bad is just a matter of perception. Copying is fundamentally needed in the process of creation.

    • Je suis Charlie: what is its meaning in the present context? Je suis Charlie is an example given by the authors to highlight the fact that copying can reunite people and allow them to express ideas commonly shared such as freedom of speech and freedom of press in this case. It’s a message that people used to manifest that they were united against the terrorists. Together to say that they weren’t afraid of them because freedom of speech will conquer. Also, anyone could have been victim of this attack. That’s why they were all together; as a sign of solidarity, not only for the people who died trying to express their thoughts but also for all people who fight for their freedom of speech. So using the exact same message here was a way to fight the same enemy, fight for their human rights.

    We see there that the act of copying can be viewed as positive in several aspects: in the biological one, it’s a necessity to copy. In the social one, it can be a strength.
    In the social field, we can nevertheless give an argument opposite to this one. Some have claimed that “surprisingly, in this context, not copying was seen as a lack of compassion or solidarity. This is the reason why copying cannot always be perceived negatively”. However, it’s important to indicate the fact that, in this context, copying can be seen as a lack of personality. It’s not because you don’t copy a message like this that, you don’t feel compassion. Therefore, in this case, copying the message of “Je suis Charlie” can be seen from two points of view. The first one is to say that there is a strong social aspect in this act. But the other one is to say that, yet, even with this social aspect, copying can still be seen as negative. Indeed, you don’t have to be a sheep to share common values. A lot of people shared this message without really knowing the stakes and the background of the attack. A lot of people just followed the crowd. So, the negative aspect of copying is not especially about the fact that we have to be creative. But that we have to think with our own mind. Make our own mind up about things. I react to this, because, personally, I didn’t share the message. Not because I’m heartless but because I refused to do it blindly.
    To conclude for this question, there was no copyright infringement in this case, yet the logo was shared all over the world. It is mostly because It hadn’t any commercial purpose. And copyright law is about protecting original forms of expression, not just the idea embedded in a short sentence such as Je suis Charlie. But in this case, it was all about sending a message that has nothing to do with the form, color or anything else of the logo.

    • Keep Calm and Carry On series: is it to the point?
    It is, actually. The original wartime poster from 1939 was, as the author said, rediscovered in 2000. So it has been re-used and transformed many times for any kind of purpose and mostly, has been parodied. The Keep Calm and Carry one Series was used by the author to expose the fact that copying is practically always inherent to the creation. The author, by giving this example, tries to show that in the end, copying is not always bad, since it’s a big part of the process of creation. In fact, people can come up with a lot of innovative and original ideas even when they are inspired by a lot of sources. That’s not the other sources that are important to the creativity. That’s the part you bring up to the solution. It is like making a Bolognese sauce. Everybody can make this sauce. It’s a classical. Yet, some people are talented cookers who bring something new to the original receipt. That’s what creativity is about. Make something look new again with your own tools. Because those tools reflect who you are.
    Finally, the author wanted to give this example to show that the barrier between copyright and copying is not that thick.
    Also, the author obviously took this poster as an example to show the irony of the situation.

    • Why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain? This artist created something in the beginning that didn’t get much attention. He rediscovered his own work later and then, this rediscovered work became famous. We see here that sometimes our first ideas are not the best. Sometimes we have to “let things rest” in order to see our own thoughts under another angle that, maybe would be the best one. So we reproduct other people’s ideas to create something personal. But we also use our own old ideas to create better things. In a way then, copying ourselves can be seen as a process of maturation. It is a path between a first impulsive thought and a more considered one. There is, in the process of copying ourselves, a kind of evolution. It’s about coming up with a better version of what we are able to do.
    So, there is nothing wrong with rediscovering our own ideas.

    • Is the process for creating The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair illustrative? Yes it is, because, as the author says, they used a lot of inspirations to create this video. They created a unique and original video with characters, a scenario, a message etc.. by gathering an amount of pre-existing sources. Even facts and informations, which are obviously not protected by copyright law. This work is a proof that we can “play with copyright” without necessarily infringing it. In fact, the authors did it by the rules here. “Even if, every 3 secs approximately, somebody else’s idea was used.” In the end, “the whole result differs completely”. It proves us not only that it’s hard to know what copyright law specifically prohibits (“because not every acts of copying are prohibited) but also that, “the line between inspiration, copying, and brand new ideas is quite tiny” because, the authors also used inspiration from existing works without literally copying those.
    Finally, it’s important to underline the fact that, “referring to somebody else’s work can be interpreted as a sign of respect or recognition for the other person’s work”.

    The question is to know if there are situations where it is okay to copy, even if we have copyright law. Yes there are. Indeed, copyright law « only prohibits the copying of certain works, in certain ways, and under certain circumstances ». The scope is limited because, like other students said, if every copies were sanctioned there would be no more creations. Practically every work is inspired by at least one single thing. So the purpose of the limitation is to let the “creation process” occur.

    Furthermore, our whole life is inspiration and duplication. It is unavoidable. We build up ourselves by looking around us. If we try to grow up in our bubble, one day or another, it’s going to break us. For example, the emperor Frederik II carried out, a long time ago, an awful experiment on some babies, named “deprivation language experiment”. The idea was to never speak to the babies, depriving them of human interaction in order to discover if they have a secret language proper to them or if they develop one during their maturation. The experiment showed that they had no language specific to them and more than that, they died. So this indicates us that we need to appropriate other people’s language, culture, traditions, habits in order to build up ourselves, in order to become the person we are now. Also, taking inspiration of what people around us do avoids us, in a way, to get hurt in all kind of ways. If we see someone get burned by the fire, and scream his pain, we won’t try to do the same.

    We have seen through many proofs that copying is a natural phenomenon. Yet, society persists in having a dichotomous perception of this act. The society sees it as wrong while copyright is a good thing. But if we try to understand the stakes of the copyright law, we notice that, in fact, what society really sees as negative is the act of copying something in its entirety. Because in this process, we don’t really use our brain, we don’t innovate, we just settle for duplicating something without looking fore more. The copyright law, thus, represents an incentive for people to create something new, to innovate even if they start from something already existing before. The true ratio legis of copyright law is not to condemn those who create something based on other’s work. But rather to condemn those who just take the work of others without bringing anything to it. Or put differently, stealing someone else’s work, and taking all the credits for it. So copyright law protects people’s ideas but also reward them for it by encouraging them to do more.

    Hence, copying will always be part of the process since “the creation process does not occur in a void, it feeds on existing elements in the creator’s sphere of interest, including other people’s work”. But as long as some boundaries such as the principles of fairness and fair use are respected, there is no infringement.

    Also, like students rightly said, “copying is sometimes harder than it seems and is a process of creation in itself. As even if you are borrowing something from someone you are in fact creating something new as you adapt it and it can lead to something entirely new and innovative”. We can notice that the barrier between copying and creativity is also thin here and even more, that both are practically complementing each other.
    And you can actually be creative in a way that respects copyright law as your borrowing is entirely lawful, as the authors of the video did it. They did it to show how copyright is not entirely a « copying free zone » but is actually full of copies as artists need to find inspiration in their peers but they need to respect certain rules to protect the work of their creators”.

    To conclude, as long as the copying does involve something new, original, proper to ourselves, it can and should be compatible with copyright. It’s normal that people who create something want to be the only ones to take credits for their hard work, because “it is somehow an extension of their personality and thoughts”. But it’s also logical to duplicate in order to create something new.
    Indeed, we have a lot of examples all around us.
    1) The first one and more obvious one is the technology. That’s what technology is about. Technology is about starting from something old and already existing to make it more practical, more useful and more easy to use. For example, trains, phones, televisions, cars,… All those things already existed before. Yet, since the creation of those things, there are thousands of versions of them, between the first one and the current one. We had the NOKIA 3310, now we have touch-sensitive phones. All the “inventors” started from pre-existing things, even if they ended up creating something authentical and original, and most importantly, that we’ve never seen before. My point here is to underline the fact that no one was sued to have copied the first train or phone. People are rather sued because they stole the original idea added in the process of transforming the old thing (ex: Touch ID of the Iphone).
    2) The second one, is the phenomenon under which when an event, situation or scandal breaks out, pretty all the journalists report the same information. Sometimes, even without really changing the article. Yet, no one is suited for it because it’s facts, informations and that doesn’t fall under the scope of copyright law.
    In the social field (in comparison with “Je suis Charlie”): we see that when people go protest on the streets, they all do the same gestures such as waving big panels. We have good illustrations of it during the Arab Spring. In Tunisia, it was written on a lot of panels “Dégage Ben Ali !”. So yelling for justice and walking into the streets can be considered as copying since people gather and act the same way in order to get ideas commonly shared heard.
    3) A third example that proves us that copying is normal, is a biological one. We have seen that the DNA duplication is inherent to our lives. Well, so are our dreams. If we pay attention, we can actually see that our dreams are made of things which our mind already saw before. Therefore, our mind re-utilizes, or duplicates images of the reality, decomposes it, mixes it up to show us original, strange, destabilising situations. Or sometimes, on the contrary, the dream seems so real, that we actually think this is reality. So it looks like reality but it isn’t. Like we said before, it’s not because it look the same that it really is.
    Finally, someone said one day that “the things we fear have already happened to us”. So maybe, that’s what dreams are about. Our biggets hopes or our worst fears.


  2. Paulien Baudoux, Arnaud Picqué, Anaïs Mathieu, Victor Leblanc, Kevin Xhebexhia 13 October 2016 at 20:24 #

    Once again, we apologize for the “late answers”.
    • DNA duplication: why does it appear in the video?
    DNA replication is taken as an example to prove that copying can be a good thing. DNA replication, which is the biological process of producing two identical replicas of DNA from one original DNA molecule, occurs in all living organisms. Genetic traits are copied through DNA replication and then mixed with other DNA during the fertilisation process. Thanks to that, every kid inherits traits from both parents and is an unique individual.
    So here we can see that copying and remixing is a biological imperative, it is essential. You need to copy before having the opportunity to create.
    • Je suis Charlie: what is its meaning in the present context?
    The “Je Suis Charlie” phrase was first used as a hashtag on Twitter to commemorate the 12 journalists massacred at the offices of the Charlie Hebdo magazine on 7 January 2015. It became one of the most popular hashtag in the history of Twitter as people around the world showed their solidarity for the victims of the attack. This slogan has been copied millions of times. It has been copied in t-shirts, drawings, … It became an instant hit among supporters of freedom of expression and free speech to unite and fight against extremist ideas.
    Here, copying was used as a political speech, as an expression of human liberties. The slogan became a symbol of freedom of speech. It helped people to get together and promote values that are universal. This 3 words sentence and the fact that it was heavily relayed and copied had a great impact on people all over the world.
    • Keep Calm and Carry On series: is it to the point?
    It is indeed relevant. Here in the paper made by Mr Deazley and Mr Meletti, they showed a poster on which was written “Stop copying and start creating”. It means that copying is bad and has nothing to do with creativity. But as the authors say, the poster itself involves copying. It is a parody of the motivational poster “Keep calm and carry on” made by the British Government in 1939 in preparation for WWII. Millions of copies were printed. But it sank into oblivion. It was rediscovered in 2000 and now it is very popular. The poster in the paper work is inspired by this 1939 slogan and is used by a website that let people create and buy t-shirts, mugs, …
    So we can see that copying and creativity have a strong relationship together, they are linked. Thanks to copying, we can create, innovate and even invent new things.
    • why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain?
    Marcel Duchamp was a French painter and sculptor. One of his most famous work is “Fountain”. He took an ordinary mass produced object (a urinal) and presented it as a work of art. He tried to present it at the first exhibition of the Society for Independent artist but it was rejected. “Fountain” was then lost. But Duchamp subsequently commissioned numerous replicas of this art piece and some of which can now be found in galleries/museums. Artists sometimes also copy their own work.
    • is the process for creating The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair illustrative?
    Joseph, who is an inventor, created a new toy which was very successful. But while some people wanted to make a movie with the toy as main character, some images appeared all over the city. These were violent, bloody tags with the toy being killed by a monster, being hanged, … Joseph is not happy with that and want to see them removed. So he asked two detectives. But is there a copyright infringement (copying someone’s work without its permission)? That’s the question!

    Copying ? But copying as a source of inspiration !
    Even in the fundamental biological aspects of our lives, copying is already considered as a necessity. In fact, the imperative replication of our cells is indispensable to the biological development of our constitution. Our parents are considered as models and we usually learn by imitating them reproducing the same behavior. Our humanity is based on copying. When you take for instance children that have grown up in wild environment of life they behave as animals (See “L’Enfant sauvage” made by François Truffaut). Learning by experiences seems to be really dangerous for babies and imitation is an interesting way to avoid this empirical approach of life. So the traditional dichotomy between copying and creativity has to be nuanced. In fact, copying cannot be seen as completely bad and it’s obviously a source of inspiration that, to a certain extent contribute to the development of art. As the child is becoming unique by combining his parents characteristics, a masterpiece can combine different sources of inspiration without losing its originality (see Andy Warhol example above). Of course, copying also has bad sides. There is an essential need of protecting the work of inventors, creators. It seems normal to everyone that artists have a right to live decently of their creations. Otherwise, there would be no incentive to create if everyone could steal everyone’s work. When you create something which is original, you have a right to reap the fair rewards of it.
    We can finally say that copying and creativity have a strong relationship together, they are linked. Thanks to copying, we can create, innovate and even invent new things but sometimes there are limits which are needful to protect the work of creators. So the question is not “is copying compatible with copyright” but it should be “Was the copy made in a way which is original and innovative?”. We will now develop three examples linked with this question:

    Our first example is Tiandu Cheng, a Chinese city that has been recently created. This city has the particularity to be based on the French city of Paris. They built a 100-meter replica of the Eiffel tower, “haussmannian style” buildings, they created a garden which looks like the “Jardin des Tuileries”. They clearly copied Paris but they did it in a more modern way, they tried to improve the constructions. They reinterpreted a haussmannian district that we could find in Paris and now it is built and people live there. So it is not only a “bad” counterfeit.
    Our second example comes from the business world. There are many companies which are created by copying an idea, a concept that someone had before. They are called copycats but as Dali said: “Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing”. For example, the French company “laboxdumois” is a copycat from the American company “birchbox” created in 2010. Birchbox is an American company which delivers “gifts” boxes to particular individuals in exchange of a subscription and a monthly fee. The French company “laboxdumois” took this idea and do it now in the French market. They immediately had a great success. But we cannot say that the French company only imitate the American one. The French company had to import the concept, to adapt it to the French market, to convince people to subscribe, … It is of course lawful because the company only took the idea, the concept, then they created their own website, their own adverts, …
    Our third example is about art. Andy Warhol used a well known picture (made by Gene Korman for the film « Niagara ») of Marilyn Monroe to make an innovative and creative masterpiece. He gave a pop art effect on that picture, by using different colours. This masterpiece is unique, even if the artist got inspired by the picture made by Gene Korman. Stephen King said that ” Sooner or later, everything old is new again”. In this case, we can notice he is right.

    made by Pauline Baudoux, Arnaud Picqué , Anaïs Mathieu, Victor Leblanc et Kevin Xhebexhia

    • Alain Strowel 13 October 2016 at 23:09 #

      Well-received, and I trust you posted it on time.

  3. Bozkurt 12 October 2016 at 19:28 #

    1) DNA duplication : why does it appear in the video ?

    DNA duplication appears in this video to explain why it is a problem with the colour of the graffitis. There isn’t binder whose used to maintain the color on the wall. The girl with the light blue hair used an unknown process to make her graffitis and to understand that Sherlok Holmes makes a theory with the DNA duplication.

    2) Je suis Charlie : what is its meaning in the present context ?

    Je Suis Charlie illustrates the good way to use copying. In this case, those 3 words have been duplicate in many ways (e.g : hashtag, posters) to commemorate and protest for people killed the 7th January 2015. Copying can be useful in our society for example in order to reunite people. Je Suis Charlie is the perfect example of that positive aspect of the copying process. With this copying process from Je Suis Charlie a new movement was created to protest for freedom of expression all over the world.

    3) Keep Calm and Carry On series : is it to the point ?

    Keep Calm and Carry on is a wartime poster which has been created by the British government in 1939. It was rediscovered in 2000 and many companies have used it (through copies, adaptations or parodies) to sell goods. Stop Copying and Start Creating is a perfect example of this situation because it is a poster that we can find on a website (Keep Calm-o-Matic) which offers various products based on the original poster of 1939. So we notice a contradiction : Stop Copying and Start Creating is a parody of Keep Calm and Carry On… It involves itself copying ! But the most important thing to remember is that we must not imagine copying and creativity as two entirely opposite things. This is not because we copy that we are not creative… Creativity may well involve copying !

    4) Why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain ?

    Marcel Duchamp turned an urinal into a piece of art by turning it on its side and putting a signature on it. This « Foutain » was rejected at the exhibition of the American Society of Independent Artists of 1917 and then disappeared. But several decades later, some replicas were made, based on a photograph (and not on the original artwork), and were exposed in art galleries all over the world. Duchamp himself ordered some of the replicas, proving that those can be called « creations » even though they seem to be copies from a previous work, because creating may indeed involve copying. Every replica is viewed as a work of art in itself.

    5) Is the process for creating The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair illustrative ?

    Yes. Through this case, we can see that there is an appropriation of copyright material by a street artist. As we know, in United Kingdom, copyright is granted automatically without the need for registration. This short story highlights the outline of the copyright law. More specifically, the protection of copyright as artistic works. The street artist made a copyright infringment, which leads to different consequencies such as trying to resolve the problem with a commercial arrangment or a legal action might be taken by the owner of the copyright. Indeed, the street artist reproduced exactly the same toy than Joseph in his creation, so there is an attempt to his substantial work. Moreover, copyright law protects the expression of an idea, not the idea in itself. So the condition for the law to be effective is fullfilled. But given that copying doesn’t necessarily mean a copyright infringment, the street artist could escape to the copyright law if she had made some differences in her graffiti.

    We are all inspired by the work and creations of other people around us and/or people who existed before us. Creating something almost always involves some sort of copy of things that were already done. However, there are legal limits that have to be respected. And as long as creations are lawful or lay within the exceptions to the copyright authorized by the Law, copying is okay and fair.

    There are three examples that illustrates this situation :

    – Before launching the new Iphone, Apple filed a suit of four design patents in order to protect the design of its product. The company submitted to the court a huge comparison between Iphone and Galaxy (Samsung) to show the similarities in the design. The US Supreme Court is still fighting with Apple-Samsung copyright case… So we have to wait to know the outcome of the problem : copyright infringment or not ?

    – As university students, we often carry out work in the context of our different courses. To do this, we are authorized to consult and be inspired by various existing doctrines. So it happens that we copy such a small excerpt from a book by an author without committing a copyright infringement provided of course to respect the general rules to avoid plagiarism. Therefore, our final work will be a mix of our own creativity and some copies from the work of another.

    – When a dancer creates a new choreography, he based some moves from other famous step that people already know. Imitation and reproduction are the base for creation of a new artistic work. In this case, a new move can be inspired from another move. Dance is always a repetition and copy from others dances with different rhythm and different speed. Choreographers can create a new dance by copying some moves with a different combination.

    Hascelik Yunus
    Bozkurt Aybike
    Kabeya Yombo Jonathan
    Wastiau Valentine
    Bambi Lessa José

  4. AZAOUM Reda, GORGAN Jana, LUEL Nathan, NGOMA Tania, SIDIBE Assetou 12 October 2016 at 19:22 #

    (1) DNA duplication : why does it appears in the video ?

    Dna duplication appears in the video to explain the way the “Girl with the Light Blue Hair” inspired herself with another material to produce the same effect with a cheaper product who covered the same fluorescent effects of the “natural lapis lazuli”. Dna duplication can be related to copyright because the “synthetic ultra marine” she used wears the same DNA of the “natural lapis lazuli” but is cheaper. So this synthetic product is sort of a copy of the natural one because their DNA is the same even if they still are different products.
    Indeed the “synthetic ultra marine” used by the girl doesn’t have all the components of the “ natural lapis lazuli”, binder is missing.


(2) Je suis Charlie: what is its meaning in the present context?

    The meaning of “Je suis Charlie” is very important today. It represents the struggle for freedom of expression. Even if he symbolizes the fight against the awful terrorist act of the 7th of January 2015, it created the unit. All over the world people supported freedom of expression but that right limits itself a fundamental right : the copyright. Indeed, the logo has been copied thousands of times in all its forms, on t-shirts, on posters, everywhere. Today « Je suis Charlie » is especially important because it means “freedom”. Freedom of expression certainly, but also the freedom to create and the freedom to fight for our ideas.
    The logo has probably been copied, a lot, but since, creativity has never stopped growing up. Many new satirical magazines were created. A lot of artists born to honor Charlie. Through songs, poems, shows, etc.

    The episode Charlie has shown that the ideas will always beat the dictatorship.

    “I don’t agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it » 

    (3) If we need to know about the ques:on : Keep Calm and Carry On series: is it to the point ?

    Unfortunatly, many examples prove that’s not going well because many autors do copying to be crative. The concept of this brand is so interesting to promote creativity, but in fact just topromote it. Because her scope is very strait to include others things like copyrights about cinema, literature and so on.
    Many examples are proving this. Like J.M. Coet- zee, winner of the Nobel Prize in
    Literature . In his novel Foe (1986) Coetzee retells the story of Robinson Crusoe from the
    perspective of a female character who is entirely absent from Daniel Defoe’s original novel.
    For example, the same case is for Peter Carey, twice winner of the Booker Prize, performs a similar imaginative feat in Jack Maggs (1997), Carey’s take on the work of Charles Dickens. In this reworking of Great Expectations, Carey not only borrows freely from the original story but also takes inspiration from Dickens himself in creating the character of Tobias Oates, an ambitious, sometimes disagreeable, up and coming novelist.
    But if we want to answer to this question, about the substantive issue, « The brand » Keep Calm-o-Matic, concern, in fact, only people who want to personalize their mugs or their shirts, based on the original 1939 poster to buy it. About the literature field, the case is not so simple because, because autors use a radically platform to express their ideas. It is the case for the publication for a novel or a book.
    In 1917, Marcel Duchamp created The Fountain which was an pièce of porcelain urinal. He took the name of R. Mutt to hide his real identity . He Wanted to expose his creation in the first annual exibition but its has been refused. Indeed, his creation wasn’t considered like art. Actually, we know that the real fountain has desaperar. However, there are sereval version of this fontain made under directrion of Marcel Duchamp himself. As telling Mr Strowel « The relation between copyright, copying and creativity is a complex one. Copyright is an obvious barrier for copying. But not always. Some have even supported the view that copyright supports copying to some extent. ». So copying can be allowed.

    (4) Why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain?

    In 1917, Marcel Duchamp created The Fountain which was a piece of porcelain urinal. He took the name of R. Mutt to hide his real identity . He Wanted to expose his creation in the first annual exibition but it has been refused. Indeed, his creation wasn’t considered like art. Actually, we know that the real fountain has desaperar. However, there are sereval version of this fontain made under directrion of Marcel Duchamp himself. As telling Mr Strowel « The relation between copyright, copying and creativity is a complex one. Copyright is an obvious barrier for copying. But not always. Some have even supported the view that copyright supports copying to some extent. ». So copying can be allowed.

    (5) Is the process for creating The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair illustrative?

    Yes, it is. Because the creators of this web series « embraced appropriation and copying as a creative technique » So they « copied from lots of different sources, and not just once or twice ». But, not all of their « borrowing drew upon other people’s creative work. Often, they say, « we simply made use of facts and information which, of course, are not protected by copyright ». So they played with the copyright itself but always within the permitted limit. Sometimes, they just « simply drew inspiration from an existing work, without any actual copying (whether literal or otherwise) ».
    « The creative process thrives upon practices of adaptation, imitation and borrowing, and copyright should and does accommodate those creative practices ». They « also wanted to borrow from works that were obviously based on, or borrowed from, other works ». Of course, they copied « in a manner that did not infringe anyone’s copyright », and that’s the whole illustrative part. « The film itself – not just its con- tent, text or subtext – speaks to the extent to which copyright and copying can and do complement each other ».

AZAOUM Reda, GORGAN Jana, LUEL Nathan, NGOMA Tania, SIDIBE Assetou

  5. Lucie de Crane, Soline van den Hecke, Mathilde de Foestraets, Rose van de Werve 12 October 2016 at 19:03 #

    Copying, creativity and copyright

    As it might seem logical, copying and copyright are two different things. And indeed, whilst copyright is generally viewed as something positive so as to protect creative work, copying tends to have a negative connotation (i.e. we’ve been told since primary school that copying was forbidden since it was really “bad”).
    However, even if we are often not aware of it, the concept of copying is much more present in our daily life than what we could imagine and appears above all to be very useful in various areas. One may think about the replication of DNA that, once remixed, ends up by forming who we are. Equally, our personal development and the way we behave are based on what we’ve seen in the society, whether it is made on purpose or unconsciously. Even some revolutionary inventions were actually inspired and influenced by how the nature works (e.g. in the maritime and aerospace industries).

    In fact, the debate about copying is particularly touchy when it comes to art, music, literature and all those activities involving creativity. Not surprisingly, a common belief holds that when we copy we simply not create but the reality is more complex. Actually, “copying can be creative, and creativity often involves copying and appropriation”. Many examples can come to mind to illustrate this such as, Shakespeare who often borrowed plots and dialogue, Van Gogh who copied works from others… even Disney cartoons rely on stories that were already influenced by earlier tales.

    3 other examples illustrating that copyright is compatible with copying:

    1. The metal structure of the Eiffel Tower shows similarities to that of the thighbone; Architects inspire themselves from skeletons and natural structures.

    2. We attempt to create outsourced hydrogen and / or electricity production, initiating the photosynthesis process.

    3. Certain types of eco-habitation lend material models from termite mounds, architecture and / or passive climate cooling systems, which could also benefit from the principles of construction through additive fabrication (‘print architecture’).

    To conclude, this text shows us that copying is not necessary a bad thing as we have been told. We live in a society that makes a point of protecting scientists, artists, musicians and many other professions with the help of tools such as copyright, patents. However, we managed to illustrate above that it is important to Keep in mind that the art of copying exists in many areas. Therefore, think before criticize when it appears that copying has been used.

  6. Nina Lacour, Laura Hidalgo, Anna Golouchko 12 October 2016 at 18:23 #

    DNA duplication: why does it appear in the video?
    Dna duplication is a perfect example to illustrate that copying is something that is specific to all living things. It shows that the process by which cells replicate themselves can create a completely new individual. So talking about copying as a negative thing can be considered quite wrong as it can be a tool to create absolutely new and original items as does the DNA duplication that creates a totally new human being (children never totally resemble their parents) out of purely “copying the mother’s and father’s cells.

    Je suis Charlie: what is its meaning in the present context? Je suis Charlie is a hashtag that has been used millions of times and is the most popular of the History of Twitter. It demonstrate that copying is a social phenomenon that we need in the society. We have the example of children who imitate.

    Keep Calm and Carry On series: is it to the point?
    The Keep Calm and Carry On series are up to the point in certain cases, like the original one created in wartime in 1939 by the British Government. Since then, it has been copied, parodied, adapted millions of times for merchandising purposes. Nevertheless, the “Stop Copying and start creating” poster simplifies reality. The relationship between copying and creativity is more complex. As the text says, “without doubt copying can be creative, and creativity often involves copying and appropriation”.

    Why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain?
    This text refers to Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain because great artists and writers also copy (Picasso, Van Gogh) He buy a porcelain urinal who was an ordinary mass produced object but signed « R. Mutt » It’s a ready made (a object all done) and not a sculpture made by him.

    Is the process for creating The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair illustrative?
    It is illustrative of how copyright, copying and creating have a very complex relationship. “The Adventure” was created using references to famous works, that are protected by copyright so in essence, copying them would be illegal. But the authors “copied” those previous creations to make something totally new like some sort of collage or mosaic of references as the authors described it. It shows how copyright only protects against certain ways and manners of copying. In this sense using someone else’s work can in fact create a totally new and original work of art. The fact that the authors expose and highlight the process behind the making of “The Adventure” clearly shows how copying has to be understood in a specific way in relation to copyright. It can be used to create. And copyright law is not as clear as it is usually portrayed because it doesn’t at all prohibit creative copying.

  7. Caroline Joubert, Katharina De Acetis, Samantha Nembetwa Loola, Chaimae El Merabety, Jack Dawinto Lokombe 12 October 2016 at 17:50 #

    Is copying compatible with copyright?

    In a very general way, we have some sort of Manichean conception when thinking about copyright and copying. Indeed, as stated in the working paper “Copying, Creativity and Copyright” by Ronan Deazly and Bartolomeo Meletti, we tend to connote copyright in a very positive way while copying is often portrayed in negative terms. Simply think about: “If you are copying, you are not creative; whereas, if you are being creative you are producing something new and original.” Let’s start from the very definition of those two terms at stake.
    Copyright is always seen as a good thing for many reasons. First of all, it protects the creative work of the artists, musicians or writers by prohibiting people to use it without any approval. Plus, it is a flourishing business. Indeed, it allows authors to earn money from their work and to live of their passion. But also, it generates economic growth for the countries, considering the strong protections that copyright provides.

    Whereas copying has a bad reputation because it is usually seen as a ‘steal’ of ideas. In effect, people tend to see copying as an attack to the authors of an art work and to confuse it with ‘forgery’ or ‘counterfeit’. Nevertheless, copying doesn’t have only negatives sides. It can also be a positive thing and, Deazley and Meletti gave as an example the fact that even our DNA is a replication or, in other words, a copy!

    So, considering the fact that copying is the foundation of our existence, should we change our opinion? This is precisely on what this work is based, we are going to clarify how copying can be compatible with copyright even if it is about two different things.

    On the one hand, we know that copyright is the exclusive right of the author of an original literary or artistic work to authorize or prohibit certain acts relating to the work, such as reproduction – copying -, distribution and communication to the public. The rationale of such right seems perfectly justifiable, inasmuch as it specifically lies in its usefulness i.e. copyright is useful and necessary within a society, since it helps reward those who created a work, whether it is literary or artistic. It is also normal and even natural that the authors only can avail themselves of a right on their work, as it is somehow a extension of their personality and thought.
    The rights conferred by copyright consist of economic – exclusivity and remuneration – and moral rights. The right of reproduction falls within the scope of the economic rights. Art. 2 of the Copyright Directive provides for such right as being the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit direct or indirect, temporary or permanent reproduction by any means and in any form, in whole or in part.” This means that any type of copying by hand and via a technological device is covered by the reproduction right and thus prohibited. But does the prohibition applies no matter the context ?

    On the other hand, copying is understood as copyright infringement. It is attacking authors, artists, musicians and performers trying to make a living from their work. In the academic context, copying equals cheating and is thus seen as extremely negative but in some other areas such as in the artistic industry, one shall copy in order to prosper and remain competitive. Also, ask Balenciaga, Gucci or any famous brand what they think of all the forgeries and counterfeits of their luxury products. There is a fashion designer whose hard work has been diverted without their consent, which is pure theft. Here, copyright is definitely not compatible with copying. Because not only is it morally questionable to use someone’s work, in order to make it affordable for a wide range of people and therefore make money on it, but also it leads to a direct loss of gain for those firms because their product’s value is also based on their scarcity. If there is suddenly a lot of supply of some products from other firms, at a much cheaper price, then demand for the same luxury product will go down causing a direct loss from the original designer and its brand.

    But it’s not as simple as that… As a matter of fact, the topic is very disputable and the relation between copyright and copying appears far more complex as some share the idea that copyright implies copying – to a certain extent –, as it represents a major part of the creative process.
    Indeed, we live in a era where one must acknowledge that copying can also impact a creative process in a positive manner, bearing in mind that it has to aim for originality. As paradoxical as it may seem, creativity simply cannot happen without some form of copying. Because we’re copying since forever. Either it is our gestures or the way we talk, everything we do is inspired from other. There couldn’t ever have been a painting if no one had the idea to mix pigment together to create paint. So it is a very fertile ground and positive to everyone. Actually, going even further, if there wasn’t ever any kind of copying, it would be counterproductive and many masterpieces would never have been made. There would never have been a “Joconde” if Leonardo da Vinci didn’t use the “sfomato” tecnic of painting, wich he invented, but which is combined with the “clarobscuro” technic – which he is not the author of. So it is fundamental to recognize, against all prejudice, that copying is not only negative, and that its creative part actually exceeds the inconvenient it may cause.

    To word it differently, the process is deeply rooted in our mentality and in our natural functioning: it is how we evolve. Let’s consider music, copying combines with evolving as, for instance, an instrumental that has already been used can be reused in a way that the changes are such that the song sounds like a brand new one: it can help upgrade a work.
    The question is: are there as many people that succeed to achieve this creativity and originality in earnest, after they took someone else’s work as a ground basis? Despite the fact that the line between “create”, “copy” and “plagiarize” is really thin and quite easy to cross. A strong idea to defend would be that so-called copies are never exactly like the original as in principle, a substantial change is to be brought. In fact, isn’t a copy, by being one, individual and unique by definition, not like the original form ?

    In the same fashion, copying material to help send a strong message shouldn’t be diabolized as it helps people to familiarize themselves with specific situations. The fact that we use known images, quotes, movie’s characters is not always evil. By using them, we know the impact on people will be more consequent. This is why, for instance, the producers of the South Park Tv show or the Simpsons use cartoons to actually react and send their own message against something or someone. By means of sarcasm and selfderision at any sauce, from the release of the new Iphone to the American presidential election, anything goes ! Even if we copy certain things, these TV shows still use creative different manners to create their storylines.

    To conclude, we can now ask ourselves where does this hate of copying comes from, why is it so deeply implemented in our societies, what is the history of copying and how could we try to change this vision of it, and therefore enhance creativity. Or else, is the copyright infringement as it is now really profitable to artists or does it tend to block other’s creativity?

    • Alain Strowel 12 October 2016 at 23:44 #

      One of the best written comments on this post, good, but… you did not respond to the questions!

  8. Astrid Debroeyer, Leila Dumont, Sandra Siemieniuk, Kevin Soladio 12 October 2016 at 17:41 #


    DNA duplication: why does it appear in the video?
    The DNA show us that copying is a big part of our lives. It’s how we are created : our DNA have 2 strands : one from our mother, the other from our father. This process allow the reproduction of human being using the same molecules but creating a new life. That’s why we look like our parents but we are not physicaly identical to them. We are sharing the same genetics, the same molecules and this is the reason why we have their characteristics and traits.

    Je suis Charlie: what is its meaning in the present context?
    « Je suis Charlie » is a symbol of freedom of speach. In the case of the famous slogan « Je suis Charlie », people use this sentence to express their support to the journal, which was hit by terrorist attacks, and the people who died for the freedom of speech. Here, copying was a bit spontaneous and people all over the world spread their emotions and their sadness by using those three words. In that way, all the reproductions aren’t illegal and aren’t consider as copyright infrigement.

    Keep Calm and Carry On series: is it to the point?
    Initially « Keep Calm and Carry On » is a trademark created by the British gouvernment in 1939. People rediscovered it later (2000) and used it their own way for different purposes. It’s not consider as copying because after 50 years, it goes in the public domain. A special website has been created named « Stop Copying and Start Creating on Keep Calm-o-Matic » which throught which you can use this slogan on any product.

    Why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain?
    Marcel Duchamp is a french artist who is known for his « Fountain ». He created it by using a urinal which he turned upside down and made a new work of art. That kind of art is called « ready made ». He didn’t created anything new, he just took something that was already invented and gived it a new meaning.

    Is the process for creating The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair illustrative?
    The video shows that we can copy without being an infringement. Copyright is only used in certain situations, stricly written in statutory law. They show a lot of example in the production like the holographic projection which has been first made in Star Wars.


    The first important subject in the article is the difference between copying and copyright. When we think about copying, we think about a negative thing, since we are young, we are thought to be original and creative and not do the same thing as others. Even in university or at work, using somoene’s else work without mentioning the source is punished very harshly.

    Besides that, copying is a big part of ourselfs, of our work and of our evolution. We learn things by reproduction, duplication and looking at others. For exemple in a family, when there’s two children, we often notice that the youngest follows the « big brother » or the « big sister », wheter it’s about the clothes or the behavior. It isn’t something that we do consciously, sometimes we don’t even realise that we are copying others around us.

    On the other hand, copyright is a way to protect our imagination and our work in every area of arts (for exemple music, paintings, books,…). The protection of copyright is a big concept in our society and it provides a big part of their wealth to the creators. Without it, their work would not be as valuable.

    Copyright isn’t a complete prohibition. Copying and adding something from yourself and telling something on another tone is a way to create something new. There is a law for example in the UK that allow people to recreate/copy a work in a non lucrative way, without seeing it as an infrigment. In the entertainment world, we have parodies which are made to laugh and criticize. They start with the same idea as the original production but add a lot of sarcasm and irony. So this work is consider as a brand new concept.

    We often don’t realise that a lot of masterpieces made by authors were influence by works of other artists, like Picasso or Van Gogh. It’s not a real duplication but we find a lot of similarities and we see that other works were a source of inspiration.


    1) A very known case of copyright is the case of Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams who were convicted of copyright infringement. One of their most listened song in 2013 named « Blurred lines » was turned out to be a duplication of « Got to give it up » made by Marvin Gaye. They didn’t reused the lyrics but the problem was about the melody of their song.

    The whole case went to a court of Los Angeles and they were sentenced to pay 4 milions dollars of damages to which is added 3,4 milions dollars coming from profits gathered in their song. It’s a good example of the lack of creativity in the world of music and other areas of art nowadays.

    2) Itchy and Scratchy are characters from the serie « The Simpson’s », created in 1989 by Matt Groening It’s the story of a mouse and a cat who killed each other all the time. They are clearly inspired by the famous cartoon « Tom and Jerry » created in 1940 by William Hanna and Joseph Barbera. They are a lot of similiraties such as the physical traits, the game between them,…

    3) In the Nickelodeon serie ICarly, the actors of the show often use computers. On the back of the screen , we clearly see that the logo is inspired by Apple. In fact, it appears to be a pear instead of the well known apple. In both cases, the fruits are bitten and they both are enlightened. We can easily say that the producers wanted to make a connection to Apple products in a funny way.

    Astrid Debroeyer, Leila Dumont, Sandra Siemieniuk, Kevin Soladio

  9. Arthur André, Antoine Walravens, Laurent Festraets, Pauline Colpaert and Louise Vandenput 12 October 2016 at 17:40 #

    According to the working paper and the video, we can’t understand copyright without copying. The video teaching us about copyright being itself well inspired by the Sherlock Holmes stories.

    But copying is not as bad as we have been taught; we, humans, are the result of a chain of replication of the DNA with some differences from time to time making us unique. And actually, each artist copies another artist when he « creates » a piece of art. Even the well known Pablo Picasso copied others artists. It’s part of the creation process. Copyright is about limiting the possibility to be copied by an other artist.

    When we create, we are, consciously or not, inspired by someone else’s work. The copyright protection is a way for artists to earn some money for their original work. But it’s not a full protection against copying. It’s only a prohibition of copying in a way expressed by the author.

    We can take the exemple of the Simpson’s. It’s an original creation but there is another series which is inspired by the Simpson’s. It’s called « Family Guy » and the main idea is the same : family and their everyday life. We can find the same structure and inspiration by the creator of the Family Guy.

    Another exemple : On the internet, a lot of people are remixing original songs. They take for exemple a song of David Guetta and add other effects and sounds to it. Afterward it becomes an original work. It’s a complexe work but they make it happen.

    A last exemple: the controllers of Sony’s PS4. Sony created controllers for their PlayStation. Another company named Big Ben wanted to create cheapest controllers compatible with the PlayStation. They just changed a little bit the design and sold it for half the price of a Sony controller. We can see the inspiration in the design and in the way of using the controller.

    Copying is everywhere and copyright does not entirely prohibit it because we have to be inspired by others in order to go further but copyright is the way to give some credit to someone who has “created” something so he can continue his work.

    Discussed and written by: Arthur André, Antoine Walravens, Laurent Festraets, Pauline Colpaert and Louise Vandenput

  10. Mélanie Herrenbrandt and Florence Hambenne 12 October 2016 at 17:28 #

    Copyright is a right given to inventors in order to protect the originality of their work so that people won’t be able to steal their project. Copying, associated by some people to theft and inauthenticity, is often seen in a negative way. But it’s not always the case. We are going to illustrate the positive aspect of copying by three examples, which will explain the relationship between copyright, copying and creativity.

    Indeed, copying can be part of the creating process and is not always prohibited. For instance, some comedians such as Marc-Antoine Le Bret and Thomas Ngijol impersonate some very well known people to get laughs from the public during their show. Their job basically consists in copying the behavior and mimicking the voice of a celebrity. It is not an easy task because you have to select the right catchphrases, mimics and sounds that will make people recognize the person you are trying to act like. All those ideas put together by the comedians for their show are what make their work unique and creative. The better you are at sounding like them, the more people will applaud at the end of the show. Therefore, it proves that copying isn’t always such a bad thing and can be appreciated by mostly everyone.

    Secondly, music singers usually get inspiration from previous and famous songs. For instance, many artists use Beethoven’s 5th symphony to compose their tones. John Lennon from the Beatles admitted copying the symphony to create his famous song “Because”. Another example can be found in the new single of Matt Pokora. He covered the famous music’s from Claude François such as “Cette année là” or “Belinda”. This hip-hop cover is a way to modernize an old and popular hit that made history.

    Plays such as “the Wave” illustrate our third and final example. Besides being adapted by many theater companies over the years, this old play has also been made into a movie later on. It proves that you can keep the same idea but change it a little in order to modernize it and please the public you want to aim.

    Those examples obviously linked to each other, show all the same idea: copying is not always seen in a negative way. Since society evolves, authors and singers create a new way to apprehend old projects by modernizing them. Therefore copying, copyright and creativity are connected.

  11. DI RAIMONDO Sandra MATTELAER Charlotte OTETE Sophie SABITI Sarah SLIMI Hakima 12 October 2016 at 17:27 #

    1) DNA duplication

    We often regard „copying“ as a bad thing. However, it can be a good thing as well. For instance, copying as a „biological imperative“. In other words, we are referring to the DNA replication during the fertilisation process. This process involves copying of genetic traits of a DNA molecule, which is then mixed with another copying of genetic traits of a DNA molecule. As a consequence, our biological inheritance comes from both parents but at the same time this process allows us to be different. Thus, copying is a good thing because it allows the passing of biological information of parents to their offsprings, which is mixed, and subsequently produces something different and unique.

    2) Je suis Charlie

    As mentioned in the introduction of the article, copying is negatively perceived and the author of the article gave various examples. In the context of the Paris’attacks, this precise copying is seen positively. “Je suis Charlie” demonstrates solidarity not only towards victims but also towards the French population in its entirety. As a mark of solidarity, people felt the urge to copy in order to show compassion. Surprisingly, in this context, not copying was seen as a lack of compassion or solidarity. This is the reason why copying cannot always be perceived negatively. What, as we students in law, would call “copyright infringement” is seen for the quidam as mark of solidarity.

    3) Keep calm and carry on

    Yes it’s perfectly interesting. From an historical point of view the quote “KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON” was adopted by the British government in 1939. The government’s purpose was to cheer up and support the British citizens during the World War II in those difficult war times. However, in 2000, this quote became widely known. People started to copy the idea of this quote and they somehow got inspired by the catchy phrase and started using it massively, the catchy phrase being printed on posters and was even used as decoration in houses and adorning multiple everyday furniture and objects.
    the duration of a copyright spans the author’s life plus 50 to 100 years depending on the jurisdiction. lei’s say that the copyright on the “keep calm and carry on” quote has already expired, its becomes public domain. thus, in my opinion, the people who copied or even got inspired by this quote shouldn’t be prosecuted. and now let’s say that the copyright hasn’t expired yet, according to me, those people still shouldn’t be brought to court because they made something else of the original idea of the quote , they indeed got inspired by it and created new quotes and even decorative objects from it. They just made something new with it, using only the idea and concept; and ideas aren’t protected in anyway and should be public for the benefit of everyone, enhancing peoples creative spirit.

    4) Why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s work

    We refered to Marcel Duchamp’s work to illustrate the fact that artists even copy their own work. So even though Marcel Duchamp was creative in his work of art, he was still inspired by his previous work in order to create something better. Besides, he took a normal thing to make it a „piece of art“, a „ready made“.

    5) Is the process for creating ‘The Adventure of the Girl With Light Blue Hair’ illustrative?

    I think it is illustrative because it shows that we can use other people’s work without infringing the law. In fact, we cannot create without borrowing some ideas that had been already used in the past. In other words, we are always inspired by other people’s work consciously (like Sherlock stories, or the Pinocchio one, the projection of the message, some sentences of the text …) or not (like some sentences that they invented ‘alone’).
    When they borrowed the ideas to make this little film, they were copying and it’s legal because the copyright law doesn’t prohibit the copying of the ideas but rather the way which the author expresses his idea.
    For example, during the entire year, we have some programs like “Reines du Shopping”, “Cousu-main”, “Quatre mariages pour une lune de miel”, “Bienvenue chez Nous”. These programs show that copy is legal! In fact, the object of those is to have 4 or 5 ‘players’ and to begin a competition between them to finally have one who win the game! We can see that the idea is similar but it’s expressed, developed in different ways (the player who wins the is because he/she has the most beautiful wedding and in another game, it’s because he/she has created the most beautiful outfit, for example) and that’s why we have a lot of game shows.

  12. Moreau Grégory 12 October 2016 at 17:25 #

    – Copying is like the human system, when somebody takes the idea of another, he can always upgrade it to the next level by adding some new features or ideas coming from himself. It is like the human reproduction, we take half of father’s DNA and the same for the mother’s DNA. putting those two DAN together creates a new person wish is looking like nobody else.

    – it is a way wich is used by all the people around the world to share a filling and to represent the idea of freedom of speech without any transboundaries.

    – I don’t understand the question. sorry.

    – His first idea has been refused in 1917, but he came back in 1950-60 with the same idea and had a lot of fame with it.

    – Yes it is because we see a character that everybody knows (holmes), who inspired a lot of artworks. Holmes has been putted on a new situation, he is more modern. It shows how we can take an old idea, and create a brand new character that nobody knows.

    The text and the video show that even if you were inspired by something and you copy it after, it is not copying if you do it well by adding your own ideas to the product. Without copying there wouldn’t be innovation, because companies have to be inspired to create new products.
    By the way, the have to do it by respecting the original idea.
    For exemple, if you create a toy, you will need some help to improve it.
    Also, you will need some help for the promotion of your product, si you will need some add wich will use the image of your product.
    Also, you can take an old fashion product and develop something new around him to sell it again.

  13. NIBAKUZE Ines, MENDA Macy, ESAKWA Jennifer 12 October 2016 at 17:25 #

    The aim of copyright seems to be preventing copying (anti-copying) but is it the case? The relationship between both is complex.

    DNA duplication: why does it appear in the video?
    DNA duplication appears as a way to illustrate that copying is inherent to our lives and starts at the very beginning of our existences. Indeed, the process of duplication that occurs with the DNA is a perfect replication (thus a copy) of parents’ DNA (it’s actually a mix of both DNA’s). All this may also be understood as a metaphor illustrating that copying is a natural process and is kind of unavoidable (of course copying can be nuanced, there’re different levels of copying as such).

    Je suis Charlie: what is its meaning in the present context?
    This slogan was used to express the unhappiness towards a form of restriction of opinion. In this case, terrorist attacks were perpetrated against journalists from Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine. Copying this slogan on different items like pictures, posters, or t-shirts is a way to assert that the freedom of expression is fundamental and people will fight for it.

    Keep Calm and Carry On series: is it to the point?
    These series are a perfect way to show how copying can sometimes lead to creativity. Indeed, the poster itself is a parody of a wartime poster. Now, the poster has been used and adapted many many times.

    Why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain ?
    The paperwork refers to Duchamp’s Fountain because his case shows one of the applications of copyright. Duchamp did “ready-made art”. He took a mundane object and made it a piece of art. He thus “copied” a previous work.

    Is the process for creating The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair illustrative?
    The process of creation illustrates the different ways one might be confronted to copying and copyright. The final work is inspired by numerous sources among which we can find previous works done by authors.

    To conclude, the aim of this text and video is to explain that in everything we do, there’s a part of copy involved. Copyright is supposed to enable artists to earn a living from their creative work by fighting against copying. But those artists were influenced by the world around them and is some way of another copied into their work what they experienced. We understand thus that even though Copying has a negative connotation and Copyright a positive one, this two items are linked. Moreover, people should stop thinking that copying excludes creativity and creativity excludes copying like the text explains with the Keep Calm and Carry On series, Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain, the Adventure of the Girl with the light blue hair.

    There’s a few examples of this phenomenon in our everyday lives.
    The first example that came in our mind, was the incorporation of the famous speech of Martin Luther King in Robert Mills’ song. The second one is about the Oreo brand. Everyone knows the brand but not everyone knows that they copied it from Hydrox, which was the original brand when Oreo was the Knockoff. The last one and the most recent is about Kanye West’s music video « Famous » featuring the naked bodies of celebrities all in bed together in which he replicate a painting by Vincent Desiderio.

  14. Cédric Noukpoape, Nicolas Biessaux 12 October 2016 at 17:24 #

    Joseph, a modest artist, created a friendly puppet and decided to sell it. As it was successful, some businessmen payed joseph to use his idea in order to make a movie. Then, a strange phenomenon came up as street artists drew graffitis on walls based on Joseph’s toy. He is worried about the toy’s image but moreover, the vandals work is illegal due to the legal protection of artistic ideas: copyright. They could thus be sued in courts for copyright infringement and be sentenced to pay a fine, stop the activity and even in some extreme situations go to jail.
    Even though copyright does not need a registration, it still requires originality.
    Therefore, as drawings fully represent Joseph’s creation authors would have to respect Fair Use (a legal doctrine that allows the limited use of ideas which are protected by copyright.


    – In 2014, Pharell William’s song “blurred lines” was sentenced to pay (with T.I.) the amount of 7.4$ for copyright infringement. (

    – In 2008, Richard Prince copied Cariou’s picture by saying it wasn’t fair use but copyright infringement. Finally Cariou lost and it wasn’t considered as copyright infrigenment! (

    – In 2014, David Slater claimed money to Wikimedia for a selfie that a monkey took with his phone. Finally he didn’t receive a penny because the copyright belonged to the funny monkey. (—the-unseen-pictures/).

    Sincerely yours,

    Noukpoape Cedric & Nicolas Biessaux

  15. Wafa Lachguer, Rojda Cagro, Lina Khelif, Paulina Brzezinska and Amine Chafik. 12 October 2016 at 17:23 #

    Copying and copyright are different, but they are two things that are related. In the article proposed by Ronan Deazley et Bartolomeo Meletti, this relationship is clearly analysed. On the base of this work, we will try to resume the text through the analysis of five questions.
    DNA duplication: why does it appear in the video?
    We are in a world where the vision of the copy is fairly pejorative. However, we must not forget that if our existence is the way it is nowadays, if we exist, it is only through a process of copy that we can explain through the duplication of DNA stranding from two molecules that represents our parent’s DNA.
    The DNA molecules are made by two DNA strands that during replication are unravelled. This one is the basis for two new molecules replicas from the original (the parents) that is what we call biological inheritance. The means by which genetic information goes from one generation to another. In other words, this allows the characteristics and traits of the parents happen to their offspring. However, no child, totally looks like his parents. Here is the reason: the genetic traits that are copied by DNA replication are then mixed with other DNA during fertilization process, which ensures that every child inherits the traits of one parent while time remaining individual and unique.
    One might therefore say that the creation of a new life involves copying and remixing, and in this context the copy is not just a “good” thing, it is a biological imperative!
    Keep Calm and Carry On series: is it to the point?
    It is to the point. The Keep Calm and Carry On series are a perfect example of copying and transforming. The initial poster was “Keep Calm and Carry on’’. It was produced during the second war by the British Government.
    In 2000, the poster was rediscovered and has been copied. This re-use is a perfect example of copying in a ‘’creative way’’. The poster is use everywhere, by different kind of sellers and reproduced in all sorts of objects: t-shirts, mugs and so on.
    Actually, writing “Stop Copying and start creating” in a poster which was passed by itself a copying process, is hypocritical. This poster perfectly reflects the whole idea of the article, meaning that copying is everywhere.
    This also show how copying can be part of the creative process when transformed in a funny way and given another sense or meaning.
    “Je suis Charlie” what is the meaning in the present context?  
    Only few days after its first publication, the slogan “Je suis Charlie” had become one of the most popular hashtags in twitter history. The raison for such a success is not the idea in itself but the social and political meaning that it’s attributed by public opinion. Initially intended to evoke solidarity and defend freedom of speech “Je suis Charlie” became a controversial symbol and give rise to a lot of debates concerning the meaning of the sentence. The logo was created by the French art director Joachim Roncin. Few minutes after the attacks, he decided to realise this “patchwork” using the logo of Charlie Hebdo for “Charlie” and the typography of his magazine “Stylist” for the “Je suis”. Despite the fact that the slogan can be considered a good example of copying in a creative way, the author claims that the appropriations of the art-work by thirds is dangerous and could devaluate the initial purpose such as commercial use.
    Why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain?
    Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain is one of the most controversial piece of art of the 20th century. His “Fontain” is actually the most relevant example of how artists also do copy their own work.
    How and why did his work become well-known?
    Marcel Duchamp submitted his work of art, called “Fontain” to an exhibition organized by the American Society of Independent Artists in 1917.  It was a urinal (that he afforded at the J.L Mott Ironworks) made of porcelain and signed “R. MUTT 1917”.
    The committee of the exhibition refused to expose his work, even though the only condition requested to have your work accepted was to pay a fee. Committee denied his request because it was not an art made by hands but only a “ready-made” art.
    The Fontain has never been exposed and was even lost later on.
    The reason why we refer to him is because his work has never been exposed nor seen. His work is still living through replica’s based themselves on a picture made of the “Fontain” by Alfred Stieglitz in 1917. Many replicas were made by other artists but also by himself.
    As a matter of conclusion, it shows that creating goes through copying and copying goes through creating.
    Is the process for creating “The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair” illustrative?
    The video “The adventure of the girl with light blue hair” is a clear illustration of the process of copying without necessarily infringing the copyright. It makes in evidence that copyright has not an absolute field of application, but it is rather limited to some specific situations. So copying doesn’t mean that you’re violating copyright. As the article of Ronan Deazley and Bartolomeo Meletti explains, copyright does not guarantee a copying-free zone. For example, in this short video, several sources are used as inspiration without conveying a literal copying of other authors works, and most of them are not covered by copyright.
    Talking of copying and copyright, we can find several examples in the current society that illustrate the process of creating something that is inspired from another work, without being accused for copyright infringement.
    For example, the series “How I met your mother” (produced by CBS) is clearly inspired from the 1990s series “Friends” (produced by NBC). If we pay attention, the two series have the same story background: both are composed by short episodes that last twenty minutes, which talk about a group of friends meeting each other in the same café/bar or apartment to share the stories of their lives. Moreover, the first episode of “How I met your mother” was put on the air a year after the broadcast of the last episode of “Friends” (I suppose that it was a commercial choice, for avoid any coopetition between the two series, but this is our personal opinion).
    Another example can be the Azkaban’s prison that is described in the J.K. Rowling’s novels “Harry Potter”. This mysterious place is described as a high-security prison that is placed in an island, in the sea, where the most dangerous magicians are detained. However, several times it was noted that this place invented by J.K. Rowling, is very similar to a real prison called Alcatraz, that takes place in San Francisco. As we can remark, not only the name of the two penitentiaries is similar, but both are placed in an island and both are described as high-secured (if you are a fan of “Harry Potter”, as we are, you must know that more than one prisoner has managed to escape from the prison of Azkaban, and the same happens in the prison of Alcatraz).
    Finally, we want to propose a last example that regards the original bags Chanel, named “Timeless”, that several times was took as inspiration by important brands as Moschino et Michael Kors where only the symbol of the brand was changed, to not mention all the popular brand that literally copied. In this case, the major difference between these bags is that the original bag costs more than 2000 euros, while the price of the others brands is definitely lower.
    “In nature nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything changes” (Antoine LavoisierTraité élémentaire de chimie). With this quote we can conclude that it’s possible to remark how often something that is considered as new and original, is inspired from others works that are decisive in the creation process.  In the world nothing is entirely black or white, but things have to be considered in relationship with the specific situation that determines if there is or not a copyright infringement. So the question about the relationship between copying and copyright is really controversial.
    Work made by Wafa Lachguer, Rojda Cagro, Lina Khelif, Paulina Brzezinska and Amine Chafik.

  16. Marta Duch Giménez 12 October 2016 at 17:11 #

    Charlotte Coomans Catalina de Biolley Charles De Fierlant Dormer
    Marta Duch Giménez
    Ana Valero Marti

    Intellectual Property Law – Is copyright compatible with copying ?

    I. Introduction

    Is copyright compatible with copying ? We face this situation in every day’s life. To take an example, we might refer to the movie “The adventure of the girl with the light blue hair”, where Mr. Joseph sees the toy he created painted on the wall and asks a professional if this is legal or not. As Watson says, “Copyright infringement is copying someone’s work without permission”. This raises the question: is it possible to copy without infringing copyright laws?

    II. Copying is a subjective notion, which must be examined according to legislation.

    What is the difference between production and copying? The border between these notions seems a bit blur. Besides, it is not always easy to determine whether a piece of work is simply inspired or copied from another one. The issues of remakes can also lead to un-certainties. For instance, can we consider that the famous productions of Andy Warhol are mainly copies of other artists or original pieces of art developed in a style of his own? For sure, Warhol has often been brought to court because of his controversial work. For instance, Patricia Caulfield had sued him for using one of her pictures in his “Flowers” paintings. This story finally ended up with a cash settlement out of court (, 11 October 2016). By contrast, his Campbell’s Soup Cans are not usually considered as infringing copyright. According to Jerome Gilson, “the public was unlikely to see the painting as sponsored by the soup company or representing a competing product. Paintings and soup cans are not in themselves competing products” (as quoted in D. GRANT, The Business of Being an Artist, New York, Allworth Press, 1996, p. 142). In order to know whether there has been a copyright infringement or not, one should take a look at the applicable legislation (in Belgium we mainly refer to the Berne Convention) and at the judicial decisions if the law is not clear enough.

    III. Advances in technology change the scope of the notion of copying

    Legislation should also take into account innovation made in the technological field. With years passing by and technology advancing, our world becomes more digitalized. This reality has a direct impact on intellectual law. Indeed, the world has become more and more networked, making it easier to transfer digital content from one person to another. Therefore, it makes it less difficult for someone to copy the idea of another one. However, copying should not be considered incompatible with copyright, even if the boundaries of copying and copyright are really small. Situations have to be analysed in order to understand if there has actually been a copyright infringement. It gets harder for someone to come up with new ideas, and when it happens, it usually has a similarity with an object/idea/work that has already been created. The criterion that could be taken into account, when adopting the idea of someone else is whether it brings added value added to the product.

    IV. Difficulties to find a completely new idea

    In fact, everyone gets inspiration from another artist, place, event in its life, etc., and uses this experience to create something (more or less) new. This process of finding inspiration in things that already exist leads to a sort of copy of previous works or situations. We could probably say that the act of copying becomes therefore part of the creation process. If we accept this statement, copying should probably be compatible with copyrights, as long as it remains a fair way of getting inspiration, and not the act of copying a complete whole work. As a
    matter of fact, even if one is not aware of it, it is likely that the idea that a person had, while thinking it was totally new, actually came from an experience that this same person forgot. It is also very possible that two people come up with the same idea, without knowing that it did already exist!

    V. Copying is sometimes necessary

    Furthermore, we would like to say more about the idea that copying could be part of the creative process of artists. Indeed, artists could take a piece of art of another person, and improve it, as T.S. Eliot said about poetry: “Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better”. To illustrate this, we can take the example of the Walt Disney studio, which has recently started to readapt its old classic movies (Cinderella, etc.) into new, more modern movies. Deciding if these adaptations are better or worse than their old versions is difficult, because it is completely subjective, but we can say that there is at least one good reason to the «copying» of the original stories: the fact that this decision has been taken to adapt the stories to new mentalities, for example by giving a more active role to the female characters. We could say that the copying of these stories has been used to improve the piece of art in gender equality terms.

    VI. Conclusion

    Copying is a subjective notion. On the one hand, it must be examined having in mind the current legislation. On the other hand, advances in technology make it easier to copy someone’s work and more difficult to come up with a new idea. Hence, the limit between copying and the inspiration process is somehow ambiguous. Besides, copying can be seen as part of the creative process, which confirms the proximity of the notions of copying and copyright. Copying gives a starting point to creation which might again be protected by copyright. This is useful if it is indeed a real change comparing to the starting point. But how do you measure this change? Let’s leave it to the judge…

  17. Mathilde De Koninck, Letycja Karetko, and Benoit Contzen 12 October 2016 at 17:11 #

    Group : Mathilde Dekoninck, Letycja Karetko and Benoit Contzen

    First Question : DNA duplication: why does it appear in the video?
    In this video, there is a copyright infringment. Indeed, the mysterious woman (the street artist who looks like a ghost ), copies the toy without the autorisation of the toymaker. The DNA application appears because the blue painting is a hint that Sherlock used to find the woman. Furthermore, this blue painting in the woman’s hair is on the image.

    Second Question : Je suis Charlie: what is its meaning in the present context?
    After what happened on January 7th 2015, « Je suis Charlie » became a symbol of freedom of expression, of peace and of solidarity and unification against terrorism. The fact that the sentence Je suis Charlie was repeated so many times, by so many people and in so many places shows how copyright can have a huge impact on the society in a particular moment and time.

    Third Question : Keep Calm and Carry On series: is it to the point?
    No, it does not really because the poster is a copy from a wartime poster produced by the British government in 1939 and it used to give the opposite message.

    Fourth question: why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain?
    Marcel Duchamp’s work demonstrates that anyone can take an object from the dailylife and make it into art by, in this case, adding a simple signature. Even if this is not typically considered as copyright, it is clear that his work lacks creativity and imagination.

    Fifth Question : is the process for creating The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair illustrative?
    « The adventure of the girl with the light blue hair » illustrates the difference between concepts that are similar yet different. Indeed, the concept of copyright is not the same as the concept of copying, which is what the authors of the film wanted to show. The film is a unique combination of facts and information not protected by copyright. The authors were highly inspired by different existing art pieces and movies. In addition, this short movie also shows a combination of new ideas by the artist and ideas taken from others.

    Message and examples :
    The message that comes out of this working paper and video is the strong relationship between creativity and copyright but most importantly what distinguishes the two notions. Indeed, while copyright is often considered in a positive way, copying is on the contrary seen strictly in a negative way. What comes out of this paper is that things are not as simple as good or bad, positive or negative and that contrary to popular beliefs, sometimes, one needs to copy to innovate.

    On one hand, copying appears to be necessary and useful in all different kind of ways, whether it is in the scientific field with DNA duplication, or in much simpler things of our every day lives. Most generally, copying plays a significant role in different stages of our education and development as human beings. We tend to only look at the negative aspects of it and to overlook or underestimate the impact it actually has.
    On the other hand however, one must not forget the negative aspects of copying either. Indeed, there is a reason why copying is not usually considered in a positive way. It is important not to underestimate the impact of the world and the environment surrounding us in our process of creation.

    A recent exemple of so-called copying in today’s world can be found in the Smartphone business. Indeed, if we look at the first smartphone made by apple, known as the iphone, it is clear today that companies like Samsung, Nokia, as well as others used the iphone as an inspiration for their own products. For instance, this can be seen by simply looking at things such as the touchscreen, etc.

    In addition, two other examples are the movie Twilight, which was based on Vampire Mythology, and the recent movie The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

  18. Sarens Laurence, Nissan Georgina, Lemus-Monge Gabriela 12 October 2016 at 17:00 #

    First of all, we learnt that we have to distinguish copyright from copying. In fact, copying can be everywhere, like a baby who’s trying to imitate adults. So, here, copying it’s something good and essential, it helps for future baby’s future life, his basic education. Like this we know that copying it’s not only a bad thing, so why do we need copyright ? We need copyright because if someone has an great idea and have invest time and sometimes money to realize this idea, it seems to be natural to protect it . The copyright law is only there to prohibits copying work but in certain circumstances. Finally, one problem subsists, limits are blurred sometimes : we don’t know cleary if we are in presence of copyright, where their limits can’t stop, or if we are only copying. In the article we saw a beautiful example of that : the history of certain plots – which are copied but not exactly the same : some elements are changed- like Charles Dickens’s plot, which was retaken two times.
    About the video, it was interesting to know or to try to find all the references they did. Let’s take the first scene as example, it refers to a recent copyright case ! And in only one episode, they did more than eighty references, the most obvious we’re the Pinnochio’s ones and the ologram from Star Wars. With all these references made, we know where copyright stops : it’s permitted, for instance, to take 4 or 5 words of anothers film/ plot (…) without infriging the copyright.

    1) Brand bags and watches are sometimes selled in streets. Those seem pretty similar to the real ones but they are cheaper, and the reason behind this price is the fact that they are only copies !
    2) Another case of copyright appeared recently with the speech of Donald Trump’s wife who took exactly the same speech of Obama’s wife. We saw a similar case here in Belgium with the scandalous speech of the rector of the ULB.
    3) In the newspaper « La Libre », we discovered in 2014 that Optima asked to Proximus to change its new logo because the « X » was to close to their logo which had a trademark registration.
    4) BONUS : we saw, two years ago, in our CSI course, that there was a litigation against Pharell Williams and Robin Thicke, because their song had common rythms with Marvin Gaye’s song.

    • Alain Strowel 13 October 2016 at 09:29 #

      PS: Just a remark: it was not a speech of the ULB rector which raised a plagiarism issue, it was a speech of a board member.

  19. Soline Meurice, Marie Lilien, Louise Durin, Julie Vanstalle et Cassandra Popleu 12 October 2016 at 16:51 #

    Question 1 : It appears as, in the text, the comparison is done in between the DNA duplication in human genes (a child is his mother and father ADN copied and then mixed up together), and the activity of copying. The metaphor is used to emphasize the fact that copying may not always be a bad thing, and is also somehow natural. The DNA duplication appears when they show the components of the blue phosphorescent girl hair, inspired by the characteristics from a medusa.

    Question 2 : The French graphic designer from the famous slogan « Je suis Charlie » wanted to protect it from commercialization. At the end of the day, it appears that the phrase cannot be trademarked.

    Question 3 : Initially, the slogan was owned by the crown protected with a copyright and used as propaganda aimed at soldiers during the war. But this copyright was only for 50 years, so now it’s in the public domain and everybody can use it.

    Question 4 : We refers to Marcel Duchamp because he is well-known to have disturbed our copyright system by popularizing the ideas of “Found Art” and “Conceptual Art”. His famous and iconic Fountain (an urinal with his signature) is the perfect illustration for this.

    Question 5 : It shows how tricky can copyright be (see the amount of research necessary to accomplish such a work of 3 min 50). The goal is, from our point of view, to stress the fact that there’s a tiny line between inspiration, copying, and brand new ideas. It shows perfectly that new concepts can emerge from old ideas (here, every 3 secs approximately, somebody else’s idea was used but the whole result differs completely). It is also to be pointed that referring to somebody else’s work can be interpreted as a sign of respect or recognition for the other person’s work (see the jellyfish scientist in the video).

    Question 6 : We overall keep in mind that copying isn’t always a copyright infringement. Art is inspired by art. So there are differences between copying, stealing and take something as inspiration. You have to copy in a certain way to create, even if there is a copyright.
    In conclusion, a copyright isn’t always an obstacle for copying.

    Examples of copyright infringement cases:
    – Rogers v. Koons
    – Cariou v. Prince
    – Modern Dog Design v. Target Corporation

    Examples in the video, not mentioned in the article:
    – “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” on Sherlock’s t-shirt, copy of Magritte’s painting.
    – The letters and numbers appearing on screen, the same way as in the movie Matrix.
    – “Anonymous mask” taken from the movie “V for Vendetta”, already icons of the I.T. people rebelling against corruption, financial anomalies,…

    Examples not in the video, nor in the article of iconic objects, firstly pieces of art :
    – “Come as you are” slogan used by Mc Donald’s nowadays, famous song wrote by Kurt Cobain at first.
    – John Kipling’s work “The jungle book” (1894) and its abundant adaptations (scouts movements, Walt Disney in 1967 and 2016)
    – “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” originally a quote from Nietzsche (“what doesn’t kill him makes him stronger”) used today as a daily advice, nearly a philosophy, merely used in pop songs as well, as the one from Kelly Clarkson more recently: “stronger (what doesn’t kill you)”.

    Students : Soline Meurice, Marie Lilien, Louise Durin, Julie Vanstalle et Cassandra Popleu

  20. Gregoire le Jeune d'Allegeershecque, Benjamin Simmonet, Quentin Roger 12 October 2016 at 16:34 #

    1. DNA Duplication: why does it appears in the video?

    DNA duplication is underlined as a primordial factor for our evolution as it is the process that allows life to be and to evolve. As the production of two identical molecules from one parent molecule is a basic principle that occurs in every living organisms.
    The process of replication is to create something new from two strands of DNA coming from two different DNAs. This is the reason why a child has similarities with both his biological parents but also has differences as his DNA is new but entirely based on theirs.
    So it appears in the video because copying something to create something new is essential to allow us to evolve in a way as different art forms are always based on ancient ones.

    2. Je suis Charlie: what is its meaning in the present context?

    Je suis Charlie is a famous slogan that was popularised after the attacks Charlie Hebdo suffered. It helped to form a bond between all the people who felt like « Charlie » as their own freedom of expression was also attacked and put in danger in the face of those attacks.
    In the present context, the Je suis Charlie trend is composed of hundreds of thousands of different logos based on the same three words. All different in a way but expressing the same idea, based on the same words, allowing us to express what we felt during these times. Underlining that copying is sometimes a good thing.

    3. Keep Calm and Carry on series: is it to the point?

    In some way, it is as it is a copy from an old wartime propaganda poster and was re-popularised during the 2000s to express all kind of things. So yes, copying entirely something can lead to something completely different sometimes, as its meaning in 1939 is definitely not the same as its meaning in the 2000s.

    4. Why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain?

    To make a reference to the fact that artist’s often inspire their work on others or simply copy their work, steal the idea and make something better out of it. Here, referring to Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain is to show that even when you do not modify something but just present it in a different context, you can express something different and « create » something new.

    5. Is the process for creating The Adventure of the girl with the light blue hair illustrative?

    When The Adventure of the girl with the light blue hair was created, its creators « embrace appropriation and copying as a creative technique » and as they said, used up to 80 different sources to create something new. As they say, it is something original and distinct from its 80 different sources, but it is a patchwork of cultural references.
    This process is illustrative of why copying is sometime harder than it seems and is a process of creation in itself. As even if you are borrowing something from someone you are in fact creating something new as you adapt it and it can lead to something entirely new and innovative. Though they did it in a way that respects copyright law as their borrowing is entirely lawful.
    They did it to show how copyright is not entirely a « copying free zone » but is actually full of copies as artists need to find inspiration in their peers but they need to respect certain rules to protect the work of their creators

    6. After having viewed the video and read the working paper, could you explain the message in your own words and illustrate it by three examples.

    The message expressed in the video and in the working paper is the idea that copyright law is not a « copy-free zone » as artists need to be able to inspire themselves from their peers and from others to enable them to keep on creating. In this paper we will illustrate this theme with three different examples.
    The first example will be the birth of Hip-Hop and musical genres and sub-genres in general.
    Our second example will be Dan Harmon’s Tv-serie Community and the benefit of references and « clin d’oeil » to others work. Our third and last example will be movie remakes and inspirations with the Akira Kurosawa movie Schichinin no samurai (1957) that inspired John Sturges The Magnificent Seven (1967) which led to Antoine Fuqua’s remake The Magnificent Seven (2016).

    Hip-Hop is a concrete example used to illustrate that art lives because of inspiration and imitation. and if copyright laws were too harsh, innovation would be impossible while if copyright laws were too soft, there would be no recognition to older artists and genres and would lead to a loss of culture.
    Hip-Hop is a known musical genre that was created in the early 70s. It is inspired by jazz, blues, disco, funk, … Nowadays, it inspired rap music, R’n’B and mainly electronic music as it was nearly entirely based on DJing and turntablism.
    Hip-hop is in some way a culture as in Hip-Hop you can find street poetry (MCing), DJing and turntablism (beat-making), breakdancing and graffiti art. Every of these types of art are linked and cannot evolve without inspiring themselves from each other as they keep on influencing themselves as they evolve together.
    The interesting thing about hip-hop is that it is a new genre of music and a new cultures and it is easy to see its influences on our culture and how it was influenced.
    We chose this example because music in general evolves this way as a genre creates a sub-genre and if and only if the sub-genre becomes popularised and old enough may it become a new genre with different sub-genres. We also chose this example as hip-hop created an entire culture and four different types of art which as we said earlier evolve together because of their influences and we believe that it is a great way to express what was expressed in the video and the working paper.

    Our second example is Community, a tv-show created by Dan Harmon that premiered on September 17, 2009 and that lasted for six seasons. This series is widely known for its multiple references to pop culture.
    References is an important part of the show as it is a way to pay a tribute to what Harmon and the other writers like, to what inspired them in their work and to push younger generations to interest themselves to older movie, older music, to interest themselves to things that would not especially interest them.

    Community represents to us why copyright law need to be soft enough to pay tribute to what inspired them to be what they are today, or to write/direct how they do as they filmed Community, as we said earlier, it is also a way to market and to sell older art forms to younger generations and give those movies (in this case) a new following. If copyright laws were too severe, those kinds of references could not be used and series like Community could never have been as good as they are, just like other series like The Big Bang Theory which is a series nearly entirely based on geek culture and on Marvel or DC universe culture.

    Our last example is the series of movies based on Akira Kurosawa’s Schichinin no samurai (1954). The movie was remade by John Sturges The Magnificent Seven (1967) which led to an amazing western that immediately influenced the western genre and led to three sequels. Walter Mirisch (the producer) acquired the rights from Japan’s Toho Studios and finalised a distribution deal with United Artists. They adapted the original script and rewrote it to create a Western genre movie.
    In this cas, Akira Kurosawa was extremely pleased with the movie and really impressed by what John Sturges did. The movie is now considered to be a reference in itself. It is the second most shown film in US television history.
    This year, in 2016, a remake of the movie was made by director Antoine Fuqua and received mixed reviews, apparently praising the cast but blaming the fact that the movie does not offer much innovation nor originality from Sturges’s version. The movie is basically a pale remake that didn’t especially express correctly the vision that was implemented in the two first movies as it only depicts a good guys versus bad guys movie.
    There is an underlying problem with remakes which is that they do not especially pay respect to their older version and they often deteriorate the movie’s prestige or the book’s prestige when an author movie is made (we can see this with the Narnia series for example). In this way, copyright law is too soft as it allows these remakes to be made without really respecting the original copy or paying a correct tribute to it.
    It is something that we can see as a problem, but it is complicated to assure a proper version so even if we blame the fact that it allows too much but no remakes would ever be made if copyright laws concerning them were more severe.

    As a conclusion, we believe that copyright law enables new types of art to be created and ancient ones to evolve as we can see it with music. It also enables other artists to pay respect to people who inspired them and to give a new revival to their work. Unfortunately, it is hard to satisfy everyone and by enabling inspiration to that extent as you allow artist to have more inspiration but at the same time bad reproductions can be made.

  21. LYCKE Audrey, STEWARDSON Lucy, DUYMS Eloïse, JEUNIAUX Candice, DEGUSTE Adeline 12 October 2016 at 16:04 #

    In this paper, the authors are trying to show that the dividing line between copying and creating is not as thick as people tend to think it is, and that copyright is not about prohibiting copying as a whole.
    Indeed, copyright is often considered as positive, because it encourages creativity and protects a « unique », original work. Furthermore, it allows to safeguard the economic interests of the author of the work. However, the authors of the paper consider that, to some extent, copyright allows room for copying. This might sound surprising, as copying is viewed as a negative phenomenon. Indeed, it is thought to reveal a lack of creativity and to involve the theft of someone else’s work.
    However, the authors state that copying also has positive effects and give numerous examples in which copying can be beneficial, and even essential, both to life in general and to the process of creating more specifically. Of course, there must be a limit in order to protect to author of a work, but copying remains an indispensable – even though sometimes subconscious – part of creating.
    For instance, copying is at the heart of fashion: it is often said that trends come back to fashion after a certain number of years. Designers find inspiration in styles of clothing from different periods (vintage, hippie, rock and roll, etc.), then add a modern touch and the style comes back into fashion. If designers were not allowed to copy anything, they could not create as much, our range of clothes would be very limited and could never be improved. Also, the concept of fashion is that consumers will like a certain look and want to copy it; without that basic reflex, there would not be any fashion industry at all!
    Another example would be the textbooks written by professors from University. These contain a lot of theories and inspirations taken from different authors, which is absolutely normal since scientific knowledge arises from the addition of different theories and the way they intertwine. It is not illegal, because it is intended for the purpose of education, transmission of knowledge, in a non commercial goal.

    A third example to illustrate the beneficial effects of copying could be found in the artificial hearts that scientifics have created by reproducing the mechanism and structure of real ones. This medical technique, based on copying, is extremely beneficial as it enables people to live longer. The same reasoning applies to the hip prothesis and other artificial parts of the human body.

    To conclude, it is important to adopt a both nuanced and realistic position : copying can be creative and, similarly, creativity often involves copying and appropriation. Even the greatest artists found inspiration in the works of their predecessors and in the world that sourrounded them, and this led to innovative and original works of art.

  22. Rosati Roxana, Wolvesperges Sophia 12 October 2016 at 16:00 #

    1) DNA duplication : why does it appear in the video ?

    DNA duplication appears in the video in some way because the professor analyzes the unknown woman on the picture and duplicates her by changing the colors, showing that by copying, the picture is not entirely the same.

    For example, a child never looks exactly the same as his parents, even though his DNA is copied through DNA replication.

    2) Je suis Charlie : what is its meaning in the present context ?

    « Je suis Charlie » is a way for people to express their anger towards the attacks of Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris on the 7th january of 2015, where some people were killed. This expression is used in order to fight for freedom of speech and political engagments, but most of all, to protest and to show solidarity towards the victims.

    3) Keep Calm and Carry On series : is it to the point ?

    At first, a Keep Calm and Carry On poster was used during the second World War by the British government. In 2000, the poster was rediscovered and the enterprises that used it wrote on their websites that it was forbidden to copy the Keep Calm and Carry On series, but they were already copying it, as they took the idea from the Second World War poster.

    4) Why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain ?

    As T. S. Elliot said « Immature poets imitate, mature poets steal, bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better », Marcel Duchamp created an art work called the Fountain, which is a urinal but it was rejected at the time by the American Society of Independent Artists. Later, Fountain was lost. He then had the idea to replicate his work, thanks to a photograph that was taken by Alfred Stieglitz. It shows that when he copied his work again, it turned into something better, as it was appreciated and exposed all over the world.

    5) Is the process for creating the Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair illustrative ?

    On the one hand, it is illustrative because they bring up the copyright law matter, especially that copyright laws don’t forbid all types of copying. But, it also helps viewers to overthink the subject and it allows them to be creative aswell.

    6) Explain the message and illustrate it with 3 examples

    In the end, the text and the video tell us that copying is not always bad, as we would usually think, but it can also be a source of creativity. But on the other hand, we can see in the video that the Professor doesn’t like the fact that his toy was used in a bad way, so it can create bad consequences for the author. It happens in real life aswell, « PewDiePie », a famous youtuber, called Felix Kjellberg recently posted a video denouncing different firms that copied his logo, used in different products that were sold in different websites but he never agreed to it.

    Even though copyright law may forbid copying, we can’t forget that from copying, some new ideas can emerge and be in some way different. For instance, a good example of copying would be spin-offs, that are inspired from original series. From Walking Dead, a new series was created, called Fear the Walking Dead, that is indeed inspired and in some way copied, but is a totally new story.

    Finally, an other example of copying that turned out to be creative is the youtube channel « Les Kassos ». There are mini series that take different cartoons, series or film and transform their characters in their way in order to be funny and absurd.

  23. Elsa fernandez 12 October 2016 at 15:46 #

    1. DNA duplication is “a positive copy” because it’s the process that underpins all life in this planet. basically it’s the production of two identical molecule and then it leads to provide the basis for two new replica molécules based on the original. All genetics information are passed (copied) from one generation to the next one so children never look exactlyl like their parents. It’s because DNA copies the genetic information then mixes it with another DNA that we are all unique.

    2. “Je suis charlie” is a popular hashtag that has been copied millions of times. The meaning is that this hastag helped people to express themselve about the journalist killed at the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine on 7 January 2015. It facilitated people to communicate across the world and to assert the importance of freedom of speech.

    3.”Keep calm and carry On series” are series of posters based on a wartime poster produced by the British government in 1939. Then, it has been copied and adapted by clients that can create other form of speech based on this poster. It show that copying can be creative and so that crativity often involves appropriation.

    4. Marcel Duchamp was a famous artist that copied his own work by appropriating an ordinary mass produced object and presenting it as a work of art. It shows that a work of art can be based on a copy of something but in the same time it creates something new without contest the genius.

    5. Yes because we see that the process to create this video is based on multiple sources of information: the creators copied a lot of things that already exist : the toy (refers to Pinocchio), a dialogue from A Scandal in Belgravia, “once upon a time” takes from the first issue of Fables. All those copies help creators to make the video and to create something new so we can see that copying is not only a bad thing because it takes a part in the creative process.

    6. The message is that it’s important to know that copying takes part in the creative process so it’s not only a bad thing. To create we need to adapte the things that already existe and that we already know to create something new based on it. We imitate and copy also for other reasons as the DNA or the behaviour between humans (smiling). We see that copyright helps us to create something new and original.

    – About fashion: every creators based (“copied”) their work on other work that were previously made or they borrow things that already exist to put in on a garment..
    – Michel Obama based her speech on another speech in order to pass a powerful message to the population.
    -The advertising industry copies things that we love to put it in a video linked to the product that they sale in order to make us feel attached by it and then buy it.

  24. Audrey Costy, Patryck Andruszyszyn, Violette Hanon de Louvet, Alicia Cattoir, Emilie Van de Calseyde 12 October 2016 at 14:52 #

    In our opinion, the main idea of the article consists in proving that the notions of copyright, copying and creativity are necessarily related to each other. The public opinion often considers copyright as a good thing, and copying as a bad one. However, the author tries to make us think the opposite. According to him, nobody can create something starting from nothing; in other words, creating often involves copying. From the very beginning of our lives and later on, we learn by imitating the others. That’s why copyright law was invented: to protect the work of certain people by giving them a monopole on their work. But we must realize that copyright does not protect all creations: it « only prohibits the copying of certain works, in certain ways, and under certain circumstances » (p.10). Therefore certain forms of copying are allowed and even encouraged. There are many examples of lawful copying all around the world. For instance, the cover of the album « Abbey Road » by the Beatles has been imitated many times (by Playmobil, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Tintin, …). We can also think about the movie « Pride and Prejudice », based on the famous book of Jane Austen, that has been readapted in a horror movie (« Pride and Prejudice and Zombies »). Concerning copying in the film industry, we can also give the well-known example of « Scary movies ». Those films are Horror films that take explicitly inspiration from other movies such as « The Sixth sense », « Forest Gump », « Scream », « The circle »,… Finally, the famous picture next to the Pisa tower where people are faking to lean on it is a good example to conclude.

  25. Ferrari Laura 12 October 2016 at 12:52 #

    Copying could be positive or negative. A lot of people are thinking that copying is an awfull and bad think. Most people think copying is killing the artist, the author. That copyright cannot be considered as a source of inspiration but just and only plagiarism.
    But at the end, the author shows us in this text that people are wrong and copyright can be positive and that’s the reason why the text is mostly focused on the positive aspects of the copyright.
    Since we were born, we are inspired by the people around us, we copy people around us in order to live and to learn. Copying people around us is also renforcing the social cohesion between the people. It strenghtens the bonds of family and friendship.
    So finally, for the author, being inspired or copying somebody or something, if the copy stays in the limit of the reasonnable and if the copy is acceptable, is absolutely not wrong.

    Examples of copy considered as legal and acceptable :
    • Generical medecines : pharmaceutical industries copy the molecular formula of a medecine and use it in order to create another cheaper medecine.
    • Sample : « the act of taking a portion, or sample, of one sound recording and reusing it as an instrument or a sound recording in a different song or piece ».
    • Andy Warhol and the pop art : a lot of people use and have used the concept of pop art Andy Warrol introduced, the concept of the 4 colored rectangles.

  26. Creativity and copying are two notions that can’t be completely separated from each other. While many distinguish them completely, seeing creativity as the creation of something completely new and original, and copying as the simple appropriation of someone else’s work, things are not that easy. A lot of famous authors, praised for their genius and creativity, actually borrowed a lot and reappropriated themselves past works that had great influence on them. Creativity is often a process of inspiration, and reappropriation or transformation of different sources, influences. It often involves drawing inspiration from past works, and transform that into our own piece of creation, of art. As such, copyright must not prevent completely the process of copying, but accompany and encourage lawful copying, which will encourage the creativity of all people.

    Three examples:
    1/ Ipad existed before apple created them. In fact Toshiba produced tablets way before apple introduced their iPad. Apple took inspiration from the existing products but reapropriate those concepts in their own special way.
    2/ “La classe américaine” is a french téléfilm, which is a mashup composed of Warners bros films, created between 1952 and 1980, to create a completely new film, praised for his humor and creativity.
    3/ A lot of the songs of the early albums of Daft punk were filled with samples of 80’s classics:

  27. BLANCHE DE LANNOY - RIVAELLE DELORY 12 October 2016 at 01:12 #


    1. DNA duplication: why does it appear in the video? They used the DNA duplication as example to explain why we need and use previous works to create new ones. Our DNA is the fruit coming from a mix of our parents’ DNA and a new DNA during the fertility process. So, if we started from existing DNA (mixed with a new one) ours is different that those basic ones. We have traits from both parents, but we also have our owns. This is why they say in the CREATe working paper that “children never look exactly like their parents “. The idea is that by copying previous works, and by adding new elements and by mixing them up together, we create something new and this new final result is different from the original work (“and yet, children [the final result] never look exactly like their parents [the work that has been copied from]). This shows up that nothing comes from nothing.

    2. Je suis Charlie: what is its meaning in the present context? Since many years, freedoms seem to become a key principle in our society: freedom of choice, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of expression… So when on 7 January 2015, the worldwide community used the three simple words Je suis Charlie, it was not merely an expression to commemorate the victims of the Charlie Hebdo’s attack. Indeed, copying and sharing this same message, this same expression, citizens from all over the world showed that if we were touched by this event, it is also because it touched on our freedom. The fact that those three words has been posted around the world is by itself a message: We defend the freedom of expression. In such a case, copying had a positive effect: it brought together every single citizen whom felt his freedom of expression touched and therefore lead to SOLIDARITY.

    3. Keep Calm and Carry On series: is it to the point? During the WWII, the British government decided to create the Keep Calm and Carry on poster to lift up the citizens’ spirits in case of invasion. But this concept has been rediscovered in 2000 and is still copied today. Indeed, we should say readapted because we can see that many sellers and companies keep the Keep Calm but change the end of the expression. Whatever, the main point is that the Keep Calm is currently used by companies, usually readapted for a new aim (to sell) and it works! There is the example of the Keep Calm-o-Matic website in the CREATe working paper, but will see a new recent example at the 6th point of this paper. In other terms, todays companies copy the Keep Calm and Carry On concept, change it to make it suitable to their objectives, and by doing that they create something new. They started from a previous concept to make a new concept. So, we can affirm that copying can be creative because they turn a concept to meet their interests. But of course, once you’ve started doing this, your creation will be copy to create a new creation and so forth.

    4. Why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain? Deazley and Meletti insisted on the creative dimension of copying. Indeed, some extremely talented artists based their work on other artists (for instance, Van Gogh’s Good Samaritan copied on Delacroix’s) and we are far from questioning their obvious talent (even if we know they copied). We would also not contest an artist’s talent because he copies his own work. And here is where Duchamp’s Fountain comes into play. His famous Fountain was lost (or destroyed?) after having been rejected by the 1917’s exhibition of the American Society of Independent Artists. Years later, Duchamps would “recreate” several Fountains which are exact copies of his original of 1917. What is controversial about Duchamps is not that he copied his own work but the controversy is more about can Duchamps “readymade” be considered as art. But what is sure is that even if we do not agree on whether readymade is art, we all agree on the creativity of Duchamps’ urinals even if they are all copies of the original.

    5. Is the process for creating The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair illustrative? Yes it is and in a very strong way! Deazley and Meletti’s video is a very creative piece that articulates legions of references. And still, the video is not illegal, it does not constitute a copyright infringement as copyright does not prohibit all forms of copying: everyone can copy the work of one another if he or she, when appropriating an other’s work, transforms it in a creative way. And it is exactly what the authors did when they created the video. As they explain in the CREATe working paper, they sometimes took sentences that they barely changed (“Once upon a time in a fictional land called New-York”, replaced by “London”). They were also greatly inspired by pre-existing works whether it was the plot that was inspired by a copyright case or the beautiful, wonderful toy which is without any doubt a mere copy of Disney’s Pinocchio (who has also been deeply inspired – copied? – by the character created by Chiostri) or the multiples references to Star Wars, etc. The authors believe that art and creativity generally comes from the appropriation and the transformation of another’s work, whether it is conscious or not. And this is not a bad thing, quite the contrary: if every kind of copying was unlawful, we would never be able produce any great work anymore, creativity would be sentenced to death.

    6. Explanation of the message in our own words and illustrations. As it is said in the CREATe working paper, the authors of the video wanted to highlight the fact that copying is not as bad as it sounds like – all our life, through most situation we tend, even unconsciously, to copy one another. And copying can clearly be creative (think, for instance, of a parody). The authors thus created a video filled with a myriad of cultural elements, by copying others (identical plot, one of the character is Sherlock Holmes, the wonderful, beautiful toy is obviously Pinocchio), by referring to them. But there is no copyright infringement! And their final video, even if it has been make upon the copy of multiples other works doesn’t look like any other video! They also referred to the DNA process to make us understand that copying can be great, and the result of a work based upon another’s can be a real original of its own kind! Why? Because everyone of us is how he/she is thanks to the copying process of DNA replication!

    Illustrations: The first illustration is about the Keep Calm and Carry On concept. As we said, companies readapted it but not only! Indeed, on 25 January 2016, Audrey Akoun and Isabelle Pailleau, two authors, published a new book named Keep Calm and réussis tes exams. Obviously, there is no doubt of the Keep Calm concept using and moreover, we can see that they readapted it to make it suitable with the book’s concerns (and also maybe attractive). In other terms, they used a previous work to make a new one.

    Another illustration is the audacious work of Richard Prince. Prince did more than copying – if more than copying can be possible. He took screenshots of strangers’ Instagram photos and printed them on canvases. He exhibited his work at the Frieze Art Fair in New York and sold some of them for about $90,000. Prince’s work is very controversial and we can easily understand why. But when we googled his exhibit, we thought that, even if his work is a harsh copy, it was a beautiful exhibit.

    Andy Warhol also based his art work upon previous works. The “Marylin Diptych” is a painting made by Warhol in 1962 but based on the picture of a publicity for the movie “Niagara” from 1953. Warhol also painted his “Campbell’s Soup Cans” on the obvious base of the Campbell’s Soups. Most of his works have copied, are inspired and based on pre-existing work, items, etc., and yet Andy Warhol is one of the most popular artists in the world. He might have copied, but what he created from that was so special, so modern and so colorful that the final result is worth it! And his work has also been copied a billion times: How many times did we not see a reproduction of Warhol’s works in furniture’s shops?

  28. MIDANI YAMEN 11 October 2016 at 22:59 #

    DNA duplication: why does it appear in the video?

    DNA duplication doesn’t clearly appear in the video, but the concept of DNA replication is addressed in the “CREATe Working Paper 2016/02” as an illustration of how copying is not always a negative thing. In the particular context of reproduction, copying is a biological imperative. The matter is not a lack of creativity, plagiarise, fake, forgery and counterfeit, it’s part of the fertilisation process. Biomimetics are also discussed in the paper and are a good illustration of how “copying” is a positive thing for the human kind.

    Je suis Charlie: what is its meaning in the present context?

    “I am Charlie” in french is the most used tag on Twitter ever. It has been copied or every object possible and imaginable to show support for the victims of the terrorists attacks of 7 January 2015. The slogan is a cry of encouragement to the freedom of speech. Copying in that context was seen as a positive thing to do, to help radiate the message of help. The sentence was even used to protest against censorship and threats. Behind the simple logo and those 3 words, there is an idea worth duplicate, again and again. Why ? Because the background of that logo englobes a lot of ideas used to protest around the world. The threat against freedom of speech is shared all over the globe and the power of that slogan is precisely in its hability to spread without any form of censorship or copyrights.

    Keep Calm and Carry On series: is it to the point?

    The Keep Calm-o-Matic website is a good illustration of how copying can be creative. It raise the subject of artistic inspiration. In my opinion, nobody does create something totally new. There is always an external influence, conscious or not. A lot of creators rely on others works to do something new. A new work is like a new born… there is a mix of both the DNA of the parents. It’s something unique but with similarities with others (assumed or not).

    Why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain?

    The Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain situation is used as an example of artist using copying as a primary source of inspiration. It’s not laziness, in my opinion, of a lack of creativity… it’s just a form of work as a whole. We have to see the copying of its own work like an artistic expression itself. And in that way, copying is paradoxically an original work.

    Is the process for creating The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair illustrative?

    It is illustrative especially because the protagonists are a direct reference to the personas created by British author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The “fictional land” called London is actually really similar to the England’s capital.

  29. Germain Haumont, Amandine van Zuylen, Mathilde Hardt, Stéphanie Thiry and Charlotte de Meeus 11 October 2016 at 22:31 #

    This short animation illustrates the strong and complex relationship between copying and creating. An absolutely original piece of work is impossible. The creation process does not occur in a void, it feeds on existing elements in the creator’s sphere of interest, including other people’s work. Though copying is rightly frowned upon, to some extent, it is necessary to achieve something new.

    However, while copying is necessary, there are some boundaries that shouldn’t be crossed. This is where notions of “fairness” and “fair use” come into play. A legal frame to define what can and cannot be done with regards to replication definitely needs to exist to protect the original creators from being ripped off as well as the parody makers (among other commentators) from being unfairly sued when they patch some pre-existing work into their own.

    In “The adventure of the girl with the light blue hair”, the creators drew inspiration from a huge number of different art-pieces and made a lot of pop-culture allusions. This patchwork of those many different references eventually comes together to create a story of its own. This is why this short cartoon illustrates the relationship between old and new, between copying and creating, really well : it makes a sort of “synthesis” between what others created and the imagination of the artist. Many examples of that can be found in movies and literature. For instance, Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” elaborated a specific sort of mythology that was later reused by hundreds of authors but he himself was inspired by antic mythology and medieval books like Beowulf.

    Movies and TV shows often use cultural references in order to make a parody, for comedic purposes or to make people reflect on the mentioned work (The Simpson, South Park).

    With the emergence of the internet we have witnessed a change of perception on the idea of copying. With the growing easiness of downloading, new forms of art and entertainment have emerged such as the internet “Memes”, which consist in funny or interesting videos, pictures, sentences that are widely shared, modified and spread from users to users on the internet and that only make sense because of the repetition and reappropriation of each user (for instance nyan cat, troll face…). We can also mention other types of art such as fan fictions, fan art…

    Group : Amandine van Zuylen, Germain Haumont, Mathilde Hardt, Stéphanie Thiry and Charlotte de Meeus.

  30. Marie-Capucine Michelot, Emilia Pankiewicz, Melichia Miniandee 11 October 2016 at 21:22 #

    1) DNA duplication is used in the video to compare the painting used for the girl with blue hair and the painting in the wall. Sherlock realized that in the wall’s painting, all elements are present except one : the binder. This illustrates the fact that even if things look the same ( like the painting with almost all the elements) , they are different.
    2) In the present context, « Je suis Charlie » has been copying a hundred of times in the aim to express the solidarity towards killed people the night of November, 13 rd. In that case, copying had a positive effect and make people aware of the importance of liberty of expression and to express their own.
    3) « Keep Calm and Carry On » serie comes from a poster made in 1939 used during World War II. It has been rediscovered in 2000 and the catchword was retaken in differents ways for commercial purposes ( « Keep calm and be cool », « keep calm and sparkle on.. »). Even today, some companies propose to people to buy assets with their own slogan. The point is that copying doeodysn’t necesserly mean a lack of creativity.
    4) According to the text, everybody copies when he creates, even artists. It’s the case of Marcel Duchamp : one of his most famous creation is « the urinal turned on its side ». He took an existing urinal and put it down in a pedestal. Even if he doesn’t create the object, Duchamp created a work of art from something that already existed. He was the pioneer of the movement that we call « readymade ».
    5) The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair is illustrative of the process of creating. The film used copied references from the beginning to the end (e.g :Once Upon a time when the film opens, Pinocchio is based on the work of Carlo Callodi, the holographic projection that comes from Star Wars episode IV ( but even them inspired themselves from borrowed works, for example, Pinocchio is actually based on folklore ..). The point is that copyright allows people to copy facts and informations ( = unsubstantial parts ).In conclusion, even if the authors copied all these works, they created something new and original, by using borrowed works but also with other people’s works ( filmakers, artists …)
    Summary + exemples :
    The message pointed out in the text is that copying is not always negative as many people could think.
    People always copying, and that, in all fields like in science with DNA dupplication, artistic area or even in our daily life since our childhood when we wanted to imitate everything our parents did. However, copying is not a lack of creativity and can permit to people to create something new and original.
    Firstly, in fashion world, fashion is always an eternally repeats and each designer can put his « personal touch ». From one simple black coat, hundred ones can be created.
    An other example is practical works : we use doctrins ( made by some authors that can themselves use borrowed ideas ), nevertheless, this should not stop us creating something new and original.
    Finally, in the musical field, lot of people pick musics ( covers) but by using an other interpretation ( remix, choirs ..)
    In conclusion, we can say that a world without copying doesn’t exist because it allows and encourages people to improve its own creativity.

  31. de Radiguès Victoria, De Wael Raphaël, De Spiegeleir Antoine 11 October 2016 at 16:50 #

    Firstly, regarding the short questions:

    – DNA duplication: why does it appear in the video?

    It is the most basic example of the importance of copying in our life, and the creativity that can be linked to the process: the child gets part of the DNA of his or her parents (through duplication), and then makes a whole new DNA model for himself (copying AND creativity).

    – Je suis Charlie: what is its meaning in the present context?

    It is a symbol of freedom of speech, but in the present context it illustrates the solidarity aspect of copying: copying to be part of a movement, maybe even a protesting movement, and to acquire a certain identity.

    – Keep Calm and Carry On series: is it to the point?

    It shows how creativity and copying are linked: while copying the standard poster, you are able to create something new. So, the answer is yes.

    – why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain?

    To illustrate the fact that artists sometimes even copy their own work (he produced several “pieces of art” made of urinals in the fifties and sixties, copying his first “reversed urinal” from 1917).

    – is the process for creating The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair illustrative?

    Yes: at first glance, it looks like a very creative animated movie. After reading the article, we realized how much it was based on other works. The approach of the authors (trying to consciously borrow from other works and list those works down) is very interesting and provides very clear evidence of the close relationship between copying and creativity (and copyright).

    Secondly, regarding the main aspect of the article (explaining the message of the article in our own words + giving three illustrations):

    The message is quite clear: there is a close relationship between copying and creativity. To be more specific, we should note that 1) copying is inevitable, and part of who we are – as living creatures, as humans in the society (through education), etc. –, 2) pure creativity seems unattainable (the process of creation always includes (re-)appropriation of other works, either consciously or not, 3) copyright is the legal tool necessary to protect the authors of new pieces of work, but must be limited in order to allow the creative process to take place and 4) we should abandon the Manichean view on copyright and copying (the latter being bad, and copyright being the ultimate remedy). Finally, isn’t paradoxical to get punished for the infringement of a copyright since the protected product is, in itself, generally partially based on copying?

    As illustrations of this message, we chose:

    I. “Les Fables” de la Fontaine is inspired by Hesiod, Phaedra or Horace (among others).

    II. The huge amount of legal theories that we can find in the library: most of them are commentaries about previous commentaries on the law.

    III. The copying/creating process is at the heart of the architectural history: cf. for example the “Renaissance” movement, or the “neo-gothic” movement.

  32. Coline Coeurderoy, Jeanne Félix, Amandine Andrin 10 October 2016 at 20:04 #

    Here it’s our answers to the questions:
    • DNA duplication: why does it appear in the video?
    DNA is used in the article to explain that copying is not always a bad thing: here he explains that DNA replication is a copying mechanism, and it’s what it makes who we are. In the movie, we can hear the name “Crick”. It’s a reference to Francis Crick, a biologist who discovered the structure of DNA molecule in cooperation with James Watson.
    • Je suis Charlie: what is its meaning in the present context?
    “Je suis Charlie” is an example of copying: millions of people copied this 3 words to commemorate a noble cause. This example shows how copying can encourage free speech and political engagement. Through a logo, a quote, people can bond and enhance solidarity.
    • Keep Calm and Carry On series: is it to the point?
    Some people think that when you’re copying, you aren’t creating but the relationship between both is more complex. Here we’re talking about the example of the poster “Keep calm and Carry On” that has been parodied 10000 times. This famous wartime poster has been reappropied and proves that creativity involves copying and appropriation.
    • Why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain?
    It shows an example of an artist copying himself.
    • Is the process for creating The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair illustrative?
    Yes because they created a short movie about creativity, copy and copyright, while at the same time copying other people work to create this movie.

    Explain the message with our own words:
    The author shows first that copying is not always a bad thing. We can see with the DNA process, the education of young children, etc, that copying is “natural”, it’s in the nature. Copying is also used to spread a message (“Je suis Charlie”). The history of art is as well touched by the process of copying.
    The author tries to show that copying isn’t the total opposite of creativity. You can copy, be inspired by something and create something new. That’s what we see in the video, a lot of references are made to brands, authors, famous sentences, pictures… Some things are borrowed, others copied. But still, they are copying in a manner that there is no infringement, of course. We can see the limit of copyright.

    3 examples:
    – Chagall, Soutine and Rembrandt with the Boeuf écorché. They all three painted the same painting, but with their own style.
    – Andy Warhol pop art style of the Marylyn Monroe’s portrait: everybody took that picture to create its own portrait.
    – Another example could be the architectural style named the Greek Revival. During the 18th century a lot of architects inspired by the mythology and the Ancient world designed building with the same type of columns and arcs than Greek Temples. In fact, this kind of architecture was meant to represent in the collective psyche a symbol of strength, power, authority, stability, durability. Here are some examples of that style : the Federal Hall (New York), the Second Bank of the United State, the Bourse (Belgium)

    Jeanne FELIX, Amandine ANDRIN, Coline COEURDEROY

  33. Patrick Debroux - Céline Moreau - Charlotte Lenz 10 October 2016 at 11:53 #

    1. DNA duplication : why does it appear in the video ? (Céline Moreau)
    There is numerous example of copyright in the little video. The reference to the DNA duplication is one of those:
    When Sherlock is explaining the nature of GFP, the protein isolated from a jellyfish, Watson interrupts, “All right! All right! Take it easy Crick!“ This is an adaptation of a line from The Hounds of Baskerville (2012): “All right, Spock. Just take it easy”. In substituting Crick for Spock we wanted to reference Francis Crick, the renowned biologist who co-discovered the structure of the DNA molecule with James Watson
    It highlights that we can « copy » but because we are in a different context, it creates something very different and sometimes funny.

    2. Je suis Charlie: what is its meaning in the present context? (Céline Moreau)
    The text explains that in some situation, copy is not « bad ». Copying can also have positive aspects and can be a positive thing. It’s too easy to declare that “in a world in which copyright protection is ’good’ and copying is ’bad’. In some situation, copying can facilitate the freedom of speech by helping people and communities to gather together and « speak with one voice ». The slogan of #JeSuisCharlie is a good example. Three words, one logo and the world is reunited against terrorism. This is a copying as identity, as solidarity and as protest.

    3. Keep Calm and Carry On series: is it to the point? (Patrick Debroux)
    It’s absolutely to the point! “Keep calm and Carry on”, a wartime poster of 1939 was rediscovered, copied and adapted many times since 2000 by different social media, website, enterprises… it’s an example with a famous poster that copying can involve creativity. Usually, it’s said, since beginning of the 19th century, that if you’re copying, you’re not being creative, each creation should be new and original. But in reality, the relation between the copying and creativity is much more nuanced than the negative image conveyed by the society.

    4. Why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain? (Patrick Debroux)
    In the past, many well-known artists like Vincent van Gogh and William Shakespeare were already copying for the creation of some of their greater works at a time where copying was not seen as a sacrilege. With the fountain of Marcel Duchamp we have an example of an artist copying himself. In fact, the first fountain, refused by the exhibition of American society of independent artists, disappeared, and 40 years later, Duchamp made replicas of the seminal work that can be found in public galleries all over the world. It’s again an example of the nuanced relation between creativity and copying.

    5. Is the process for creating The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair illustrative? (Patrick Debroux)
    “The adventure of the girl with the light blue hair” is a 4 minutes’ film that is expressly copying more than 80 times to inform about key aspect of contemporary copyright law and to invite reflection about creativity, copying and copyright. It’s a patchwork of cultural references, some under copyright but often facts and information with are not protected by copyright. A few examples: Pinocchio, the “Holliwoodland” sign before 1949, the holographic projection of Star Wars 4. The filmmaker believes that a creative process involves appropriation and transformation whether we aware of it or not.

    6. Explanation in our words and 3 more examples (Charlotte Lenz)
    In our societies, copyright is seen as a good thing while copying is a bad thing. This point of view has a cultural and historical reason: in the 18th century, copyright was associated to an original and new work. But copying is not such a bad thing, it can also be a part of a creative work. Indeed, when you create you are inspired by a lot of things, you always copy the things you have seen in your life and mix them to create an original work. A creative work is just an appropriation of the world around us. Therefore, copyright doesn’t prohibit all forms of copying, it allows creative copying.
    1. A musician, particularly a DJ, takes one or several music’s and mix them together to make a new one which is totally original but made from other songs protected by copyright.
    2. The song “One day-Bakermat”. The author took some parts of Martin Luther King’s speech from 1963 and putted them in music to create a new song.
    3. This pub for a Nivea spray tan which was inspired by the Walt Disney’s Snow White.

    Patrick Debroux
    Charlotte Lenz
    Céline Moreau

Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>