Comments for Is copyright compatible with copying?

Ghislain Alicia, Goblet Alice, Blandie Delacroix, De Brouwer Margaux, De Crombrugghe Caroline
Comment awaiting moderation.
Ghislain Alicia, Goblet Alice, Blandie Delacroix, De Brouwer Margaux, De Crombrugghe Caroline
Comment awaiting moderation.
Andrea Fernández and Esther Rodrigo
Paper writter by Esther Rodrigo and Andrea Fernández Is copyright compatible with copying? Copyright is defined by the English dictionary as the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc. That same dictionary defines copying an imitation or reproduction of an original. These two ideas may seem very simple at…
Read more

Paper writter by Esther Rodrigo and Andrea Fernández
Is copyright compatible with copying?
Copyright is defined by the English dictionary as the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc. That same dictionary defines copying an imitation or reproduction of an original.
These two ideas may seem very simple at the beginning but after reading the paper by Ronan Deazley we can affirm that both of these concepts are not always opposite to each other, and that copying does not always infringe the copyright.
Ever since we are in school we have learnt that copying is wrong and we must avoid it, we are taught that our work should be always original and different from others. As the paper says “If you are copying, you are not being creative; whereas, if you are being creative you are producing something new and original”.
However, if we consider this deeply we can realize that it is actually copying have been and currently are present in many different aspects of our life. The idea of the text is that in reality copying is what has made us move forward and create new things, and not the opposite, as we thought at the beginning. We can find some clear examples in the biological evolution, technological development and human learning.
In fact, up to the XVIII century using other’s work was not seen as a bad thing and it was considered a way to innovate and create. Here we can recall the example of the paper about Van Gogh.
Another example could be the “I heart NY” logo, that even though it was created and registered in 1970 nowadays we can see it in many commercials, t-shirts and souvenirs around the world, and it has become a symbol.

To conclude, copying does not always infringe the copyright, sometimes the authors can create something new that can even become a symbol inspired in previous ideas.

Show less
Reply
Farah Sabrina Bendima, Aamlaoui Amin & Amadeo de Brouwer
First of all, the link between on one side the copyright law and on other side the verb copy , this link is very complex; indeed, one the side of copyright was meanly covered the right of reproduction and obviously not to bind of the action of copy something. Nevertheless, there was an evolution of the scope of…
Read more

First of all, the link between on one side the copyright law and on other side the verb copy , this link is very complex; indeed, one the side of copyright was meanly covered the right of reproduction and obviously not to bind of the action of copy something.
Nevertheless, there was an evolution of the scope of this right due of the improvement of technology and now it is admit that the copyright involves in one set the right of reproduction and also the right to control copying.
In this way , it is authorized largely that copying is a need for normal use of a work ; indeed, this was disclosed int he light of digital technology rise. To conclude, some illustrations of this : « the pipe of Margritte that was copied many times / Google books / textbook available on intrenet ».

Show less
Reply
Léa Gross, Charline Haut, Sigal Starc
Is copyright compatible with copying? Copying, Creativity and Copyright, Ronan DEAZLEY and Bartolomeo MELETTI. The authors argue that Copyright tends to have a positive image, whereas copying is related to crime, immorality, … But they defend that copying can also be positive. They take the DNA replication as an illustration, by saying that in this case, copying is essential in order…
Read more

Is copyright compatible with copying?

Copying, Creativity and Copyright, Ronan DEAZLEY and Bartolomeo MELETTI.

The authors argue that Copyright tends to have a positive image, whereas copying is related to crime, immorality, …

But they defend that copying can also be positive. They take the DNA replication as an illustration, by saying that in this case, copying is essential in order to create new life (question 1).

Deazley and Meletti also stand that babies and children copy people around them in order to develop themselves. And adults immitate too! It’s a way for them to create connexions with friends or family but also with a greater community, such as million people did through the slogan “Je suis Charlie”. Those words were copied to show solidarity, and to protest for the right to freedom of expression (question 2).

When it comes to creativity, we can have a different point of view. The authors take the words of Mr Justice Peterson who said that “what is worth copying, is worth protecting”. This can mean that we should’nt copy any works at all. This is the kind of message we can find in the poster : “Stop Copying and Start Creating”. It copies itself the poster : “Keep calm and carry on”, created by the British government during wartime (1939). The message has been reused since 2000, and been copied and parodied since then. So it’s a bit paradoxical. We can even find this poster on the website : Keep Calm-o-Matic, that sells various copies of the original poster in different forms (mugs, t-shirts, …), and which may be the target of the very poster : “Stop Copying and Start Creating” (question 3).

For the two authors, it is clear that the link between copying and creativity is more complex. They are not totally opposed. They give examples of great artists, genuises who copied others’s works. For instance, Van Gogh used to copy Rembrandt. But they also assert that some artists copy their own works, like Marcel Duchamp. He was the creator of the “ready-made” artistic movement. He changed the art’s vision of the 20th century with his masterpiece, “Fountain”. The Marcel Duchamp’s Fountains consists on a simple urinal presented upside down. He proposed it to the the first exhibition of the American
Society of Independent Artists in 1917 but was not accepted. He then did numerous replicas of it (question 4).

Their global idea is that by creating something, even if it’s new, it’s still influenced by others, by the world we are living in. In other words, even if we copy and borrow an idea from someone else, by transforming and adapting it, we are being creative. « The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair » illustrates perfectly their position. They define it as «a patchwork of cultural references ». They took references from various artists, in different artistic fields in order to create their own piece of work, their own short episode. They did it legally, without infringing anyone’s copyright (question 5). In some way, copying leads to the realization of new artistic works.

Other examples :
– Paintings : Carré blanc sur fond blanc, Malevitch, 1915 and Achromes, Manzoni, 1957.
– Fashion : First lady swimsuit designed by Annette Kellerman, in the beginning of the 20th century, which will be copied and improved by different fashion designers later on.
– Comedy (dramatics) : Aulularia, Plaute and L’avare, Molière, 1668.

Show less
Reply
Clémentine Guelton
Is copyright compatible with copying ? DNA duplication : Why does it appear in the video ? ⇒ First of all, it’s the very exemple of the question “should we copy “ ? If you copy DNA, the result you get is the exact same person / organism as the first one. So, it poses a juridic problem, but also…
Read more

Is copyright compatible with copying ?

DNA duplication : Why does it appear in the video ?
⇒ First of all, it’s the very exemple of the question “should we copy “ ? If you copy DNA, the result you get is the exact same person / organism as the first one. So, it poses a juridic problem, but also an ethic one. What would be the consequences of multiple human beings, all the same? And therefore, what would be the consequence of multiple copies of an artwork, made by different persons ? Having a hundred persons all the same would be chaotic, in terms of filiation, liability, personality, and in law in general. But having the same artwork, multiple times, would be also really messy in terms of copyright. Each author of the same art would be able to claim it.

Je suis Charlie : what is its meaning in the present context ?
⇒ The text wants to show that copying isn’t always a bad thing. Of course, businesses will try and sell goods with “Je suis Charlie” on it (which is disgusting), but the more important about that slogan is that people can identify to it, they can unify under a single sentence and everyone who reads it will now that its bearer is under a specific category of people. In this way, you can show your political engagement, and even now, remember this tragic and painful memory.

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

Why to refer Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain ?
It’s an illustration of artist copying their own works. It shows that copying might be creating to, it depends on the cultural and historical context. at the beginning, Fontain wasn’t considered as a form of art, but few years later, it becomes one of the most influent works of art in 20the centuries.

Is the process for creating The adventure of the girl with the light blue hair illustrative ?
In the process, creators borrows amount of others works to create their The adventure of the girl with the light blue hair. It illustrates the fact that it’s not because you copying that it can’t be creatif. We can re use something, it’s not de facto illegal. The Copyright law prohibits the copying of certains works, but not all of them, we can make all sort of creative copying, as the video.

Message in our own words :

Copying plays a crucial role in our society. It starts at the very beginning of our development as children and goes on as we become adults. Copying s part of our lives. It serves as a free speech tool and a helps us bind with each others.

Also, we have to give up the idea that copying and creativity aren’t compatible terms. You can be really creative by copying multiple authors for example, it creates a very original work. It seems important to mention that some of the most famous masterpieces are even a copy themselves … The work that we create is always connected to the work of others before and is a reaction to the world around us.

In the video, “ The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair” , the work looks like an original one but it is actually a combination of eighty references to other people’s work! it is a very well made patchwork of our cultural references. By transforming and assembling all those references, the work is a unique , modern and creative one!

To conclude, if we use the art of copying without infringing anyone’s copyright, copying is absolutely lawful and even suggested! If it is used with parsimony, the combination of copying and copyright can produce great pieces of art.

Three exemples :
We can do it is a wartime poster where you can see a woman contracting one muscle. In the 80’s, it was rediscovered and used for a feminist purpose. Today, it is still used to support equality between men and women. For example, there is a copy of the picture where a man is posing with a baby in his arm or with cleanings tools.

There is also the slogan not in my name. Muslims wrote this slogan on their hands in reaction of the assimilation of their religion with the terrorist atmosphere.

There is also the use of the same ribbon but of different colours to send different messages. For example, the pink one is to support the fight against breast cancer, the yellow one is in favour of the Catalan independence, the red one is to support the fight against Aids, the white one is to support the end of the violence against women.

Eva Oriani
Benjamin Simonet
Jimmy Teissen
Clémentine Guelton

Show less
Reply
Anis Bendimred
Try to tell a 5 years old kid that he is a copier, he will probably start to cry. Why ? Because copying is often associated to something bad, craven, and dishonest. But « copying » may be something natural, creative and genius. Copying as a natural processus from the meiosis to the mitosis, leading to the creation of individuals. And…
Read more

Try to tell a 5 years old kid that he is a copier, he will probably start to cry. Why ? Because copying is often associated to something bad, craven, and dishonest. But « copying » may be something natural, creative and genius.

Copying as a natural processus from the meiosis to the mitosis, leading to the creation of individuals.

And it starts since the creation of life of Humans. Duplication of cells. Replication of the DNA. Fertilization is the fusion of two genetical materials that each came from processus of meiosis which the duplication of one cell giving haploid cells called the gametes. The fertilization is the union of two gametes, leading to the creation of one zygote diploid that will be divided by the processus of mitosis. Mitosis is the processus that divides one mother-cell in 4 identical daughter-cells. All of these scientific terms are just describing systems of « copy-past » of genetical materials. What is interesting is that these processus led to the creation of a unique individu.

Copying can be the start of the creation of something totally unique.

Copying as a natural trait of human way of learning.

Mimetism, it is an imitative behavior in humans, which reproduces the characteristic of another person or group. Children learn by imitating their parents. Copying them. That is a normal processus to grow-up.

Copying as a mean to be part of a community.

They are social facts, codes that became so important that they are sort of references in our societies. Then people are copying themselves, they are imitating others because they want to be part of a community, share the same values, or express something.
In the 80’s, how many American girls started to imitate Madonna look and attitude because at that time Madonna was breaking the rules and bringing a certain speech of liberty. That’s how marketing works. Pushing the individuals to copy a made-up model.
« Keep Calm and … » is a common reference shared in our societies. It is used as a trait of humour because it talks to us.
That’s the meaning of « Je suis Charlie », bring together every people who share the same values ( freedom of speech, religious liberty, democracy,…) under the same slogan, under the same cry. « Je suis Charlie » is not a catchy phrase that has been copied and copied, it is a social fact that describes a feeling that a massive community had during the attacks and for what we had no stronger other words.

Copying as a way to produce something unique.

Copy A + Copy B + Personal Touch = Unique

Mrs Alfort visits her neighbor, she loved the blue color on the wall. Then the other day, she watched a TV show and she loved the HOLMSUND IKEA couch. 2 weeks later she decides to paint her living room with the same blue, and place the couch she saw on TV. 1 week later she went with her husband to a flea market and purchased some furnitures and decorative objects.
Yes she copied her neighbor, yes she copied her favorite TV Show, but her living room is very unique.

When Apple launched the first iPhone, other companies started copying and proposed Touch-screen phones, bringing each time specificities. The copied the concept but it led to new concepts and helped developing new technologies. Copying can be a catalyzer !

Copying as a concept.

That was one of the ideas of Marcel Duchamp. Making his art viral by letting people copy him.
But we can also look at Haussmann Work. They’re a lot of Haussmannian buildings or Boulevard in Paris that were not designed by Haussmann but because he transformed Paris and proposed a new model of architecture ( and a new model of life), it led to the construction of multiple Haussmannian not Haussmannian buildings or Boulevard. He created a style. Used and «  copied » all around the world : Brussels, Algiers, Montreal, Roma…

Show less
Reply
Flore Flandre, Ysaline Reid, Lola Gillet, Pauline Bernard, Juliette Campogrande
Work realized by Ysaline Reid, Lola Gillet, Juliette Campogrande, Pauline Bernard and Flore Flandre. The text is about the complex relationship between copyright, copying and creativity. Copyright constitutes a barrier for copying, but the process of copy something is not to be completely damned. It is actually a virtuous process to extent creativity. Creativity always involves some inspiring underlying works. Does…
Read more

Work realized by Ysaline Reid, Lola Gillet, Juliette Campogrande, Pauline Bernard and Flore Flandre.

The text is about the complex relationship between copyright, copying and creativity. Copyright constitutes a barrier for copying, but the process of copy something is not to be completely damned. It is actually a virtuous process to extent creativity.

Creativity always involves some inspiring underlying works. Does it mean that copyright of a specific author has been infringed ? Certainly not. Copyright doesn’t prohibit the process of copying ideas. What is condemned is the reuse of a particular ideas in the way a particular author had expressed it, and this without its approval.

Society teaches us that copying is bad, and creating is good. Both are presented as opposed. In fact, the relationship between both actions is much more complex.

When you copy something, you never perfectly replicate the original model. Indeed, because everyone is unique, a person copying will add his own personality and touch to the copy. A copy is a form of creation. Moreover, every creation contains a form of copying. It is impossible to create something that is completely new and original, you are always being influenced by work created by others before, whether consciously or not.

Sometimes, even artists copy their own work. One famous example is Marcel Duchamp’s Foutain who represented a fountain which was rejected- nevertheless he copied the original in other exhibitions which then became famous around the world.

Copying and copyright are similar in this way that they both aim to stimulate innovation. Copying process can be addressed as a phenomenon that help us learn, innovate and establish bonds with others. A good example is the hashtag “Je suis Charlie” which is an illustration of copying as a sign of identity and solidarity.

Therefore, as long as we’re aware careful not to encroach the legitimate interests of a special author or artist, copy has to remain lawful as it is a motor force of creative works, innovations and learning skills. The essential is to appropriate those sources, express them in our own way. For instance, the video “The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair” is based on several sources such as Star Wars, Pinocchio, Sherlock Holmes so the authors copy but “in a manner that did not infringe anyone’s copyright”.

During art courses, you reproduce existing art works, but you copy them in your own way. Your reproduction of the painting will never be exactly the same as the original painting, you’ll add your personal touch into it. Moreover, reproducing famous paintings enables you to learn how to paint, in order to create your own art later.

This is the same with music instrument: you learn how to play an instrument by reproducing music partitions, but again, while playing these partitions, you’ll add your own personality, life and touch into it, which will make it unique. A piece of music is never played twice the same.

A last example, would be the industry of fashion. Copying how others dress and how they associate clothes together enables one to enter a certain group or to feel an appurtenance to a community (for instance: gothics, punks, etc.). Nevertheless, even doing so, the industry of fashion is a tool to express our personality a

Show less
Reply
Pauline Boudringhien et Camille Prinzessin von Croÿ
Is copyright compatible with copying? To begin, it is important to notice that copying isn’t always related to the infringement of copyright. Effectively, there is a sort of barrier between the fact of copying and the fact of creating. Some form of copying can be considerate as part of the creating process. According to T.S Eliot, “Immature poets imitate; mature poets…
Read more

Is copyright compatible with copying?

To begin, it is important to notice that copying isn’t always related to the infringement of copyright. Effectively, there is a sort of barrier between the fact of copying and the fact of creating. Some form of copying can be considerate as part of the creating process. According to T.S Eliot, “Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take”. This quote prove that the author implies a sort of decriminalization of the infringement of copyright for poets. Whereas Nina Paley, in her cartoon about artists (good artists copy, great artists steal. For everyone else, there’s copyright), also adopts a similar position but refers to artists and not to poets (cartoon which has been inspired by Picasso’s famous sentence : “les bons artistes copient, les grands artistes volent”).

What does this mean? That only poets (//Eliot) or artists (//Paley and Picasso) can copy, otherwise it is considerate as copying and falls in the area of copyright? This seems to be discriminatory. What about Picasso and Paley compared to Eliot’s first quote? Is that not copying? The sentence is quite exactly the same apart the qualification of the worker.

According to it, we can considerate that copying is a natural process of life. Everyone is doing it and will always do it. However, IPL law allows the original creator to be recognized rightly. Copyright supports the copying but only to some extent. Where does the limit lies between creation and infringement? Let’s see some examples :

“Je suis Charlie” has a deep meaning and it used to pass a point across on a public point of view, it serves the general interest. Therefore we can consider that many more people can use it. It’s a way of expressing its solidarity towards the victims of terrorists attacks but also a way of showing that people are not afraid to live the life they want.

Keep Calm and Carry on has been copied and twisted many many times. What makes it alright for people to copy is that people change the text therefore they are technically not literally copying.

Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain has been removed from an exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists. Some years later, the original Fountain has been lost but several copies has been produced. However, in this case, Marcel Duchamp had gave his approval for the copies so the copyright has, here, been respected.

Andy Wharol’s famous paintings have been copied and changed on various occasions. When we see a painting that has the same style we can directly pinpoint it to Andy Wharol’s original idea because it has such a style we know where the artist got the inspiration from.

Wha about remix? A lot of singers resumes songs from other singers. However, this seems to be accepted but several conditions (autorisations,…) are required in order to protect the author and the IPL rights.

In conclusion, copying is part of our daily life. However, the fact of copying is accepted within some limits because it’s inherent to the concept itself. It’s also a huge part of the creation process because it allows artists and creators to inspire themselves from other art. They need diversity to create new original content.

Show less
Reply
Franck-Victor Laurant - Antoine Barazzoni - Léopold Brutoux - Tom Aksoyek
Is copyright compatible with copying? As mentioned is the article and also illustrated in the web series The Game is On! the issue of copyrighting is a very complex one. Can we say that copyright is only or just not copying other’s work? What are the policy tools for people who want to use “copyright”? First of all, it is…
Read more

Is copyright compatible with copying?

As mentioned is the article and also illustrated in the web series The Game is On! the issue of copyrighting is a very complex one. Can we say that copyright is only or just not copying other’s work? What are the policy tools for people who want to use “copyright”?

First of all, it is important to define what copyright is. We can say that copyright are all the rights and prerogatives that a person has on what he or she created/produced. It is specific to Commonwealth countries, in opposition of the droit d’auteur used in civil law countries.

But, as seen on the cartoon, which use the sentence of Picasso “Les bons arstites copient, les grands arstites volent”, we can understand that there is an uncertain border between copying and stealing, and further more between copyright, copying and creativity.

At first sight, we could say the copyright prohibits copying. Everybody has his own rights on what he produces and has the right or power to prohibit somebody to copy his work. There is a kind of exclusivity. But, as demonstrated in the video, you can sign contracts with other people/companies to sell your productions and give the power to these persons to also use it. Be careful, it’s very regulated! There are specific clauses in contracts and the producer has to give his agreement on the way his work will be used in the future. It only gives the rights to people who pay for the production and are part of the deal. It is not because Joseph signed a deal with the Hollywoodland producers that the mysterious girl with light blue hair can also use it in her graffitis. BUT (histoire avec la peinture bleue à la fin pas compris, je pense qu’elle utilise justement un truc qui fait que ce n’est pas du copyright).

Nevertheless, we can see that it’s not always the case and sometimes, people say that copyright, in some limits, authorize a part copying. It demonstrates the uncertain burden that exists between those different terms. At what point is someone copying other’s work? Artists can defend themselves by saying that there is a kind of inspiration but it cannot be seen as stealing or copying because some details are different. Everybody finds his inspiration in other’s work.
The best example is music. There are a lot of different melodies, but some of them can be very similar. Can a musician attack another one because the music he created is quite similar, even it’s not exactly the same?

Show less
Reply
Laura Knab & Sherazad Chaouch
Traditionnally, we think of copying as a bad thing, a thing that untalented artists use because they’re unable to create something for themselves. And that’s why copyright laws protect the rights of original authors from these infringements. But there is a thin line to be drawn between the author’s original rights and the rights of everyone else to use their…
Read more

Traditionnally, we think of copying as a bad thing, a thing that untalented artists use because they’re unable to create something for themselves. And that’s why copyright laws protect the rights of original authors from these infringements. But there is a thin line to be drawn between the author’s original rights and the rights of everyone else to use their creations in a legal way that enhances creativity.

Without knowing it, a lot of cultural, artistic works that surround us are inspired by other creations and it is normal because every human being, every artist, directly or indirectly finds his inspiration in the things that surround him.
The author of the text uses the example of DNA being passed on to the next generation because copying is so important it can even be found in human nature : the DNA replicates itself being passed on to the next generation even though it is never exactly the same. This comes to show us that copying can be a good thing : society wouldn’t be able to evolve without copying, it is essential to pass on information.

The same principle applies to artistic creations, for example : fashion trends start by the work, the design, the vision, the prints of a designer that unleashes a trend that will be copied by other creators for a small or very long period time. In this example we see that copying actually starts a whole movement of creative production. Of course we aren’t talking about a designer that would entirely copy a collection, but getting inspiration from various collections can definetly be seen as enhancing the creative process. It is also a good thing because by getting inspiration from high end brands that are very expensive, cheaper brands like Zara can make fashion trends accessible to all social classes.

Furthermore, artists may inspire themselves of the work of others, or even copy it as long as the special use made by them, isn’t the one protected by their precise copyright.
In the wake of the mass production of youtube videos by creators, a legal doctrine was born. The fair use doctrine, that enables creators to use a small portion of a copyrighted work without getting the permission from the original author. This doctrine allows them to create content more freely as they are able to use clips from a movie to publish a review on it for example. However, this doctrine is different from country to country and creators needs to respect some conditions like the extent of the work, the goal from the video, is it make money ? Is it to replace the original work ? The judge will take into account all of the conditions.

As a last example we can talk about the penal code drafted in the aftermath of the French Revolution : this legal text has been highly inspired and even partially copied from the enlightment philosopher’s ideas, writings and speeches, like for example Montesquieu’s « Esprit des lois » or Beccaria’s writings. Without copying these revolutionnary ideas, it wouldn’t have been possible to create this new penal system aimed at providing fairer solutions than the old regime. This shows again how crucial copying can be for the evolution of society.

To conclude, copying is not as bad as its reputation tends to make us believe : as long as certain legal limits are respected, it permits positive evolution and enhances creativity both on the artistic as well as on the social field.

Show less
Reply
Sophie Merckx, Lisa Mailleux, Giulia de Pascale, Meryl Culot
Is copyright compatible with copying? DNA duplication: why does it appear in the video? DNA is referred to in order to show that copying is, in the words of the article, a process that underpins all life on our planet. Copying is thus not necessarily a negative thing. A funny thing is it mentions that children never exactly look alike their…
Read more

Is copyright compatible with copying?
DNA duplication: why does it appear in the video? DNA is referred to in order to show that copying is, in the words of the article, a process that underpins all life on our planet. Copying is thus not necessarily a negative thing. A funny thing is it mentions that children never exactly look alike their parent, what is a metaphor to demonstrate that the creative process can and should involve copying. Still, they mention that even if they have the same effect, and are quasi the same genetically, the natural lapis is still favored by the girl with blue hair to the synthetic plant. She also uses the luminescent effect of the jellyfish on her hair and on the painting. It is a mean to say borrowing elements from others actually entails creation.

Je suis Charlie: what is its meaning in the present context? Copying can help forming bonds and enables a community to come together. Here through the hashtag used by millions (#JeSuisCharlie) a community came together to assert the importance of free speech.

Keep Calm and Carry On series: is it to the point? This series show that the relationship between creativity and copying is much more complex than the poster (“Stop Copying and Start Creating”), as it is itself a copy of the Keep Calm and Carry On series.

Why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain? Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain is another illustration of the relationship between copying and creating. Indeed Duchamp turned an urinal and presented it as a piece of art. After his Fontain was rejected from an exhibition and lost, he made some replicas of it that were based on the photography of his original Fontain taken in 1917 by Alfred Stieglitz. So he copied his own work.

Is the process for creating The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair illustrative ?
The message is to demonstrate that copying is not inherently a bad thing. It is even necessary in some instances. Now as for the creative process, copying can sure be negative. But copying and creativity are not polar opposites, the creative process feeds itself from copying previous work. Indeed, in order to create the short film, they copied from a lot of different sources but the result of this copying is a creative work that has its own originality. The film condenses many copies to provide a caricature but the point is to demonstrate that a lot of famous artists have copied the work of others as it enabled them to create something new (they give the examples of Disney, Star Wars, etc.).

Examples
1. People on Youtube who sing covers copy the lyrics of the song but sing it their own way, sometimes by changing rythm or notes. Somes covers became really famous
2. Quotes from very famous movies that are modified in a funny way to print it on t-shirts or other goodies
3. Some people actually continued the Harry Potter Saga after it ended. They made a little movie and posted it on Youtube. It was a great way for fans to keep up with the series without its proper autor.

Show less
Reply
Anya Murphy, Andreea Nita, Cédric Blumenthal, Claire Didisheim, Sara van Gansberghe
Is copyright compatible with copying? 1) DNA duplication : Why does it appear in the video ? The replication of DNA is the process of creating two identical models of gene based on the original DNA. The copy of DNA, away from being an offense, is the phenomenon that allows the perpetuation of life. In other words, the fact that this process is…
Read more

Is copyright compatible with copying?

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

The replication of DNA is the process of creating two identical models of gene based on the original DNA. The copy of DNA, away from being an offense, is the phenomenon that allows the perpetuation of life. In other words, the fact that this process is possible does not mean that a combination of gene will always create the exact and same DNA sample.

This phenomenon is used in the video while explaining the materials used in the mural painting. In this case, it is observed that the painting, first looks exactly the same but when studying deeper the chemicals are not 100% similar; and that is because we’re talking about two different paintings. The painting used for the walled fresco is one made using natural lapis lazuli – while the other, called “synthetic ultramarine”, although being chemically identical, has the advantage to be much cheaper. After analysing more precisely the composition of the painting used for the fresco, Sherlock discovers there is no binder in it; so normally the painting should not adhere to the wall…

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

The slogan “Je suis Charlie” comes from the creativity of Joachim Roncin, a French graphist. The headline has been used by many other people social media after the terrorist attack that took place on 7 January 2015.
Even if it has been used (copied, we could say) by other people than its creator, it is not, strictly speaking, considerate as copying, but rather as a way to be part of an universal action of fighting the terrorism. A person using the sentence feels like she or he is in a group of people; in this a person can express his feeling of abhorrence concerning the terrorist attack, and affirm the cardinal importance of freedom of expression right.
In this particular case, copying those 3 simple words was a way to evidence our solidarity, our and our refusal to let those kind of events happen, as well as refusing to let whoever take our right to freedom of expression away from us.

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

Firstly used in 1939 at the beginning of the WWII, it has been reused in the 2000’. Rather than thinking that the point is to copy the sentence, we should understand that this sentence became more a way to express ourselves in a more original manner.

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

In 1917, the artist created his sculpture. The piece of art lost, he decided to create replicas in order to be able to sell some of them by still using the name of the original creator.
In this case, even the original was lost, and the today’s Fountain are copies, it cannot be considerate as copying. The artist himself decided to recreate his first inspiration and creation.

Sources:
http://www.ipdigit.eu/2016/10/is-copyright-compatible-with-copying/
https://www.create.ac.uk/publications/copying-creativity-and-copyright/
https://www.copyrightuser.org/educate/the-game-is-on/

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

The idea of illustrating the idea of creating vs the issue of copying is a manner to let us understand the differences between both definitions.

To us, the article “Copying, creativity and copyright” brings to light the fact that copying isn’t always a bad thing (as we usually think about it); and that it can be, on the contrary, an essential one – for example when it comes to the role of copying in the perpetuation of every form of life, or in our education, in our relationships with other, etc…

Examples of copying that can be a positive thing:
– It is by copying that hand-craftsmanship can be transmitted to the future generations; moreover, how could we have invented French viennoiseries, specially the croissant au beurre, without copying (and then improving) the ones who existed in Vienna?
– Copying is mandatory when it comes to common law case law; where judges have to respect the decision made by another judges – specially the ones of SCOTUS.
– Think of the work of Andy Warhol, great copying isn’t it?

Show less
Reply
Fahad Alsadoon, Lara Coël, Melis Metin, Jana Degrott, Sonia Belhassen
One can easily believe that copyright is a barrier to artistic creation. Indeed, in the case Temple Island Collections Ltd v New English Teas Ltd & another, justice Bris held in favor of a photographer who argued that his job was stolen by another photographer, based on the fact that both photos pictured a red bus passing on a black…
Read more

One can easily believe that copyright is a barrier to artistic creation. Indeed, in the case Temple Island Collections Ltd v New English Teas Ltd & another, justice Bris held in favor of a photographer who argued that his job was stolen by another photographer, based on the fact that both photos pictured a red bus passing on a black and white Westminster bridge. The judge held that there were obvious similarities between the two images. Copying is simply the use of other art works without their permission.
However, in contradiction with the common belief copyright is a toll that promotes creation and the spread of knowledge, this is not only by providing creators with rights to protect their work. But mainly, by allowing the public to make use of that way. Copyright does that by protecting only the expression of ideas not ideas! This means that novel, songs, paintings,… are open to be a source of inspiration for future art works but what is prohibited is copying the original work of the artist. What is lawful is to be inspired by Bolero (Maurice Ravel) or Dali’s elephants but what is unlawful is copying the exact original expression of ideas. Don’t copy Rauschenberg’s monogram, unless you do it with a shark or a pig instead of a goat.
Under English law there are few exceptions to copyright, mainly satire and caricatures. To answer the question whether copyright is compatible with copying? The answer is yes, but only if you copy in a clever way.
For the three examples:
• The slogan “touche pas à mon pote” used by SOS Racisme in France in the 80’s and the 90’s, was convalesced and reinvented by other way of expression, like the TV program “Touche pas à mon poste”,
• The “this is not a pipe” of Keith Haring inspired by Magritte’s notorious “la trahison des images”,
• Carmen a song by Stromae inspired by George Bizet’s Carmen.

Show less
Reply
Villance Antoine, Willems Sébastien, Garcia Da Silva Bruno, Louka Lacroix, Sami Manjah, Guillaume Porcheron
Is copyright compatible with copying? 1) Why does the DNA duplication appears in the video ? The main idea behind the video and the article is to present another side of copying. In the article the author is comparing the DNA duplication with the essence of copying. In our apprehension, we would consider copying as stealing someone else’s work. However the author…
Read more

Is copyright compatible with copying?

1) Why does the DNA duplication appears in the video ?

The main idea behind the video and the article is to present another side of copying. In the article the author is comparing the DNA duplication with the essence of copying. In our apprehension, we would consider copying as stealing someone else’s work. However the author of the article considers that there is a form of “biological imperative“ to contribute to copying.

Humans are transferring a part of their DNA into their child’s. We can establish that everyone’s DNA is “nothing” more than the remixing of his/her parents’ DNAs. Therefore, it is in our own human essence to copy someone else. But we cannot consider the DNA duplication to be a true copying mechanism based on the fact that the DNA represents our own identity. Indeed, no one else on earth has the same DNA, or the same eyes, or even the exact same hair color. But the process of having one is similar to the inspiration someone would have while watching a “Da Vinci”, willing to paint a piece of art as beautiful as “Mona lisa ”.

Can we then assimilate these two processes as natural things that occurs in our societies? While DNA duplication is the founding biological process that allows every living being to reproduce itself, the process of copying another person’s product is far to be a necessity for the art’s existence. However, it does contribute to a great idea of creationism in a society. The author is convinced that the one who copies a work doesn’t copy it completely. He is just making a remix of the basic work the previous author did. That way, we must copy, it’s a biological imperative!

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

“Je suis Charlie” refers to a slogan that was used to commemorate the people killed at the Charlie Hebdo magazine in a terrorist attack on 7 January 2015. The slogan was used to reunite people all around the world and more specifically the french. The idea behind these three words was to answer the terrorist attacks with a slogan that expresses that the attacks against a magazine was an unacceptable infringement of everyone’s right to freedom of speech.

The author believes that the slogan used by many people after the attack was in a way a copy of someone’s idea to use these three words. Even if people refer to copying as a synonym for stealing, in these circumstances, can we can’t consider copying having a negative impact on our society. Indeed, we see that copying can be a good thing and can help to “come together and speak with one voice” (article, page 3 and 4).

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

Today, we can see almost everywhere t-shirts bearing the following annotation “Keep calm and …”. This is a parody of “Keep Calm and Carry On”, a wartime poster produced by the British government in 1939.

Similar to the idea of “je suis Charlie”, the idea behind this example is to show how the copy of similar external aspect such as the language doesn’t have a negative aspect. The meaning of each “keep calm and ….” is different. Therefore, in such a collective way to copy someone’s idea, we can identify an identity by specifying how we can keep calm. Several websites allow us to create our own t-shirt. The author refers to one particular website which is “Keep Calm-O-Matic”. This website allows you to create your own and unique t-shirt. The idea is to compose a sentence by starting with “Keep calm and …”. The creation stands precisely on the end of the sentence. One will be able to have a t-shirt bearing “Keep calm and eat pizza” and another “Keep calm and drink a beer”, etc. Both copied, but at the end, they have something different and unique.

Contrarily to the French sentence that’s changing the forms (it can be written on Facebook, on the statue of liberty, etc…), the English sentence is changing the meaning (keep calm I am a doctor; keep calm and party on). With this opposition, we can conclude that « Je suis Charlie » was used in a specific context, of fear and terrorism as « Keep calm and carry on » was used across the times,

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

Marcel Duchamp’s urinal is a piece of art in which a real urinal is used as a fountain to create piece of art. This idea brought by the artist was to take an object (manufactured by the J.L. Mott Ironworks) turned on its side and signed it with his name before to present it as a work of art. What is particular with this object is that the artist uses a real common object, but he shows it on a different angle to make it original.
The reference to Marcel Duchamp’s fountain helps to understand that not only can someone, in certain circumstances, copy parts of other’s work, but the inventor/artist/author himself sometimes copies his/her own work. Hence, we can see a beautiful correlation between an object created by someone and a way an artist uses it to create something totally different even if it is based on the first object. It shows how the DNA of an object can be similar to another but very much different in its identity by the artist’s conception of his peace of art (related to the DNA duplication’s idea by the author).

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

In this video, the authors have decided to get their inspiration from several movies, plays, etc (Star Wars, Disney, Sherlock Holmes, and Hounds of Baskerville). Even though if they did not copy the content of any of these inspirations, they used the idea of a movie and certain famous lines to entertain their audience. A good example of it is the following: “At the end of his message Joseph says: “Please help me Mr Holmes. You’re my last Court of Appeal, my only …“. The text at this point is really an amalgam of Princess Leia’s plea to Ben Kenobi (“Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi. You’re my only hope.“) and Sherlock Holmes’s comment to John Openshaw in The Adventure of the Five Orange Pips: “I am the last court of appeal“ (article, page 14). This is a patchwork.

Nevertheless, there is only one video like this one. Indeed, they copied, took inspiration, etc. But because they used the original ideas in their proper manner, reinterpreting it, they created by copying. We can’t consider this episode as a copy because here again, it’s based on different sources in order to make another one which will be unique. It’s always a remix of sources, works of art.

Finally, we can find quite strange that they copied on other people’s idea to create an episode regarding the copyright infringement. We could think that the authors used this irony to show within their own episode that you can make something that is not considered to be in violation of copyright while copying on other sources.

6) 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 authors of those documents)

Copyright provides a protection for an author. As such, this is of course something laudable. But sometimes, we tend to think that protection means strict interdiction of copying. The message of the video and working paper is to say that not only copying should exist, but it must exist. Copyright has to accommodate with copying when it is a creative process.
Because indeed, copying can be assimilated to theft when this is a simple duplication. But when someone uses another’s idea in a different way by adapting or interpreting differently, then this person is creating. That kind of copying is good for the promotion of new works and as such, should be fostered.
The three examples :
First giving you the example of the technical and skills of the footballer « Zlatan Ibrahimovic » : Indeed he acquired his skills by watching and inspiring from Ronaldo (the Brazilian) during his childhood. But they don’t ‘ve the same weight, height so of course his technical defers from Ronaldo’s one. Those kinds of dribbles were adapted by Zlatan to himself. In French we even have a verb « Zlataner » which highlights that Zlatan didn’t merely copy the style of Ronaldo but reproduced on his own way.
Secondly, the well-known serie « Rick and Morty » encapsulated a multitude of references to movies, actualities etc… But the originality of the thing is that this quirky serie often projects directly our two protagonists into the plot of the movie. So you’ve for example Rick and Morty that ‘re personally engaged in a purge of a planet in reference to the movie « American Nightmare » (which is a fiction film about a terrible night that happens once a year in America and in which everything is permitted including killing your neighbor) or in another episode you’ve got a creative parody of Inception. Finally, today it’s not uncommon to hear songs that sound a bit similar. The explication is simple: There ‘re so many musicians around the world and for so long that it’s merely impossible to make a tune that doesn’t sound like another for some part at least. But as we saw that doesn’t prevent creativity. Although They inspired from others, their song ‘re never exactly the same because singers have their own voice and can slightly modify the melody. Otherwise it would be a pure copy and that is most of the time forbidden.

Show less
Reply
Corentin Burton, Catherine Lipski, Andreea Pletea, Maxime Vanderhaeghe, Céline Vandermeulen, Scott Vilasco
Copyright and copying are related, yet different concepts. On one hand, copyright is depicted in a positive manner, as it encourages creativity and enables artists to make a job out of their art, so to earn a living. Moreover, copyright is seriously contributing to the economy. On the other hand, copying is seen as something negative and is usually associated…
Read more

Copyright and copying are related, yet different concepts. On one hand, copyright is depicted in a positive manner, as it encourages creativity and enables artists to make a job out of their art, so to earn a living. Moreover, copyright is seriously contributing to the economy. On the other hand, copying is seen as something negative and is usually associated with stealing.
However, copying is at the origins of life on earth. DNA replication is a kind of copying. In addition to this, copying enables human beings to create themselves, starting with the child imitating the parents and so on. We could even say that copying is a social phenomenon: consciously or unconsciously, we often copy the behaviour, movements, mimics of those around us.
On a larger scale, copying enables the communities to create bonds and forge one voice to express their general opinion. Men also copy nature to develop technology.
However, copying is not considered to be a positive thing when it comes to creativity. This relationship must be nuanced. Copying itself can be creative, when it involves appropriation: we are then talking about « taking inspiration ». Sometimes, artists even had to copy their own works.
It was until the late 18th century that copying was an integral part of the artistic product. After this period, the idea of the author creating art out of nothing became preponderant.
We got finally to the conclusion that our current artistic work cannot and should not be dissociated from what has been done previously. We take inspiration and we create something new, in response to the world surrounding us.
To regulate art industry, but not only, copyright regime was enforced. Copyright does not prohibit the copying of an idea, but the manner in which a particular idea has been expressed by a particular author. As long as we stay within the limits imposed by law, copying is authorised. Quotations for instance are a fair and lawful method to copy someone else’s work. Actually, we need copying to ensure that we continue to produce information and art.

For an example of something that had been copied by other but wasn’t as bad as copyright law should think of it, we can take an historical and sociological point of view and look to the revolutions in the XIXth century. Effectively many revolutions started by learning that another city in Europe revolted against its leader. The city simply copied of what their ear coming from elsewhere. There were some waves of Revolution across Europe during this century. The most notable being the one of 1848 who started in Paris with the barricades. When the French people made a revolution, they were followed by the others : Belgium, Italy, Hungary, Germany and others revolted. Even if they didn’t have the same goal in each revolution, they kept the same method to obtain it. And better than only let one revolution in more in the history, they created an event that is known today as the spring of people and an example of the willingness of the street to make hear its voice.

Another way to exemplify this is the way professional sportsmen copy what they have seen from their childhood idols. This does not prevent them from being creative and revolutionising their sport by themselves. For instance, before the 1930’s, all the tennis players used a one-handed backhand. It was only when Vivian McGrath and John Bromwich started using two-handed backhands that other players realised that this grip could be more efficient in some situations. The same can be said about Dick Fosbury who invented the “back-first” technique in high-jump and all the football players that invent new skill moves. All these athletes acquired their initial level by copying other players and could, from there on, be creative by themselves. Sometimes, it’s not only some moves but an entire way of playing that is inspired by another one. This can be illustrated by how Pep Guardiola used Johan Cruyff’s (his former trainer and the man he later described as “the most important person in his professional live”) “total football” tactic to create his own “Tiki-Taka” tactic that has completely revolutionised the sport.

To conclude with a last example, we can talk about a famous social media, Instagram, where an uncountable number of pictures are posted every second.
Indeed, there are more and more people who use their account in a professionnel way, with some sponsoring, but also to make discovering beautiful people or landscapes, creating unique content and making people dreaming about it. We are talking about the “influenceurs ou influenceuses” in French. It is a way to inspire people all around the world.
Sometimes, it can happen at the beginning that a famous person on the mentioned social media takes a picture in front of, for example, a pretty chalet in the Switzerland’s mountains, with snow in her hair, her arm tight behind and wearing a bobble hat.
After a while, some people will take exactly the same picture because they saw the initial picture and wanted to make a beautiful picture too. But can we talk about copyright for the first person who has done the picture ?
We think not. Indeed, it provides us also a paradigm of a “picture style”. The picture of the second and the others will never be the same as the first one but there is here something in common : a willingness to reach beauty and inspiration in the heart of million of people.
In this sense, we can conclude that copyright is absolutely compatible with copying.

Corentin Burton, Catherine Lipski, Andreea Pletea, Maxime Vanderhaeghe, Céline Vandermeulen, Scott Vilasco

Show less
Reply
Manuella Buckinx, Claire Martin, Marilou Debouche, Trecy De Leener, Elodie Vanderbist
Is copyright compatible with copying? Actually, the answer to this question is not as clear as it may seems at first sight. In the document “Copying, creativity and copyright”, we can distinguish these two notions. Indeed P. van der Kooij and D. Visser are defining copyright as being the “exclusive right of the author of an original literary or artistic…
Read more

Is copyright compatible with copying?
Actually, the answer to this question is not as clear as it may seems at first sight. In the document “Copying, creativity and copyright”, we can distinguish these two notions. Indeed P. van der Kooij and D. Visser are defining copyright as being 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, distribution and communication to the public”. On the one hand, the copyright is seen in a positive way as the protection of a certain work (music, invention, etc.) while on the other hand the copy can be seen in a negative way as it is the copy of someone else’s work. We could therefore presume that copying is incompatible with copyright.
However, we don’t always realize that we are surrounded by the phenomenon of “copy”. There are several examples in this text. First, the reproduction of DNA. The reproduction of DNA can be considered as copying because we will create two molecules identified on the basis of an ADN molecule. So, these two new molecules are based on an original, which is copy.
Then, the phenomenon of “Je suis Charlie”: it can be considered as copy too. These three words have been repeated millions of times in different forms. However, we can consider this as a positive copy, in the sense that we don’t steal the work of someone, but we use it to spread a message throughout the world, it is solidarity.
Furthermore, the series of “Keep calm and carry on”. This is the same explanation as « Je suis Charlie »: this phenomenon used the same basis to send a different message. Actually, these two phenomena (“Je suis Charlie” and “Keep calm and carry on”) have taken so much filler at the end compared to the original.
Moreover, copying can push through another dimension of creation and this is illustrated by the example taken form the working paper of Marcel Duchamp’s fountain. In this case, an artist is copying a famous product and turn the object into a piece of art with its own existence and originality. The work of Christian Boltanski to take another original example is an art based on everyday object, some of them even protected by copyright but still, he takes the exact same objects, then change their use and disposition and the result is a creation which could be granted copyright for its own.
In the end, copying is not something so negative from the moment that it is done in a fair way to someone else’s work. Example: I steal the idea of a music from someone and I pretend to be the author. In this case, the copyright law must intervene to sanction this. But It should not always be compared to an evil act as artists, authors and inventors found their creations based on the influence they received, on research they have done. They often take inspiration from already protected assets to create and allow society evolving. A too restrictive copyright would bound and stop any one to produce anything which is contrary to the rationale of copyright itself. So, in a sense, yes copyright is compatible with copying. We can find this idea in “The adventure of the Girl with the light blue hair”. This document illustrates the fact that we are surrounded by copying but that the copyright law cannot and should not be too restrictive; “Copyright law only prohibits the copying of certain works, in certain ways, and under certain circumstances ».

Manuella Buckinx, Claire Martin, Marilou Debouche, Trecy De Leener, Elodie Vanderbist

Show less
Reply
Eva Prskalo, Naomi Ramos, Amandine Wiame
Is copyright compatible with copying? As said in the article, the relationship between copyright and copying is indeed complex. Copyright can sometimes be favorable to copying. Nevertheless, copyright is one of the main factors slowing down the creative process and the creation of innovations. On the one hand, historically our greatest innovators functioned without copyright laws. In fact, if copyright…
Read more

Is copyright compatible with copying?

As said in the article, the relationship between copyright and copying is indeed complex. Copyright can sometimes be favorable to copying. Nevertheless, copyright is one of the main factors slowing down the creative process and the creation of innovations.

On the one hand, historically our greatest innovators functioned without copyright laws. In fact, if copyright laws would’ve been applied a few centuries ago, most of the achievements would’ve been impossible.

When we first take a look at Pablo Picasso’s sentence « Les bons artistes copient, les grands artistes volent », it can seem pretty immoral. It mainly seems wrong because nowadays, the smallest things are patented by people wanting to be the only one benefiting from their discovery. However, if we take Shakespeare as our example, we can see how the world functioned without specific copyrights. He almost never invented absolutely new stories. His masterpieces were all adaptations and improvements of stories written by others. This was called artistic freedom and is still used today. In fact, if we take a look at our music industry, we realize copying is compatible with copyrights because most of today’s songs are “sampled”. Samples are protected by copyright laws. Copying a portion of a song is allowed if you first obtain a permission. Still, it is possible to copy a part of a copyrighted work without a permission but only for limited purposes.

On the other hand, copyright isn’t compatible with copying for different reasons. First of all, without copyright laws, the incentives to participate in certain creative activities would be weakened. Furthermore, big companies tend to manipulate and abuse of copyrights or patents. Some companies go to third world countries to discover materials in order to use them in their products, that are protected by copyrights. This has huge consequences on locals, who can’t use similar formulas even though the material comes from their town. It is pretty unfair because those poor countries have to buy some kinds of medicine for example from big international companies for a lot of money, when they have the resources to do the same but it is protected by copyrights.

Last but not least, most of us can agree that currently copyrights aren’t compatible anymore with copying mainly because “Intellectual property is in fact an intellectual monopoly that hinders rather than helps the competitive free market regime that has delivered wealth and innovation to our doorsteps” (Joseph Gibson). Copyright has now grown far beyond its original purpose and became extremely restrictive.

Show less
Reply
Sébastien Willems; Bruno Garcia Da Silva; Antoine Villance; Louka Lacroix; Sami Manjah; Guillaume Porcheron
- Why does the DNA duplication appears in the video ? ​The main idea behind the video and the article is to present another side of copying. In the article the author is comparing the DNA duplication with the essence of copying. In our apprehension, we would consider copying as stealing someone else’s work. However the author of the article…
Read more

– Why does the DNA duplication appears in the video ?

​The main idea behind the video and the article is to present another side of copying. In the article the author is comparing the DNA duplication with the essence of copying. In our apprehension, we would consider copying as stealing someone else’s work. However the author of the article considers that there is a form of “biological imperative“ to contribute to copying.

​Humans are transferring a part of their DNA into their child’s. We can establish that everyone’s DNA is “nothing” more than the remixing of his/her parents’ DNAs. Therefore, it is in our own human essence to copy someone else. But we cannot consider the DNA duplication to be a true copying mechanism based on the fact that the DNA represents our own identity. Indeed, no one else on earth has the same DNA, or the same eyes, or even the exact same hair color. But the process of having one is similar to the inspiration someone would have while watching a “Da Vinci”, willing to paint a piece of art as beautiful as “Mona lisa ”.

​Can we then assimilate these two processes as natural things that occurs in our societies? While DNA duplication is the founding biological process that allows every living being to reproduce itself, the process of copying another person’s product is far to be a necessity for the art’s existence. However, it does contribute to a great idea of creationism in a society. The author is convinced that the one who copies a work doesn’t copy it completely. He is just making a remix of the basic work the previous author did. That way, we must copy, it’s a biological imperative!

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

​“Je suis Charlie” refers to a slogan that was used to commemorate the people killed at the Charlie Hebdo magazine in a terrorist attack on 7 January 2015. The slogan was used to reunite people all around the world and more specifically the french. The idea behind these three words was to answer the terrorist attacks with a slogan that expresses that the attacks against a magazine was an unacceptable infringement of everyone’s right to freedom of speech.

​The author believes that the slogan used by many people after the attack was in a way a copy of someone’s idea to use these three words. Even if people refer to copying as a synonym for stealing, in these circumstances, can we can’t consider copying having a negative impact on our society. Indeed, we see that copying can be a good thing and can help to “come together and speak with one voice” (article, page 3 and 4).

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

​Today, we can see almost everywhere t-shirts bearing the following annotation “Keep calm and …”. This is a parody of “Keep Calm and Carry On”, a wartime poster produced by the British government in 1939.

​​Similar to the idea of “je suis Charlie”, the idea behind this example is to show how the copy of similar external aspect such as the language doesn’t have a negative aspect. The meaning of each “keep calm and ….” is different. Therefore, in such a collective way to copy someone’s idea, we can identify an identity by specifying how we can keep calm. Several websites allow us to create our own t-shirt. The author refers to one particular website which is “Keep Calm-O-Matic”. This website allows you to create your own and unique t-shirt. The idea is to compose a sentence by starting with “Keep calm and …”. The creation stands precisely on the end of the sentence. One will be able to have a t-shirt bearing “Keep calm and eat pizza” and another “Keep calm and drink a beer”, etc. Both copied, but at the end, they have something different and unique.

​Contrarily to the French sentence that’s changing the forms (it can be written on Facebook, on the statue of liberty, etc…), the English sentence is changing the meaning (keep calm I am a doctor; keep calm and party on). With this opposition, we can conclude that « Je suis Charlie » was used in a specific context, of fear and terrorism as « Keep calm and carry on » was used across the times,

– why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain?

​Marcel Duchamp’s urinal is a piece of art in which a real urinal is used as a fountain to create piece of art. This idea brought by the artist was to take an object (manufactured by the J.L. Mott Ironworks) turned on its side and signed it with his name before to present it as a work of art. What is particular with this object is that the artist uses a real common object, but he shows it on a different angle to make it original.​

The reference to Marcel Duchamp’s fountain helps to understand that not only can someone, in certain circumstances, copy parts of other’s work, but the inventor/artist/author himself sometimes copies his/her own work. Hence, we can see a beautiful correlation between an object created by someone and a way an artist uses it to create something totally different even if it is based on the first object. It shows how the DNA of an object can be similar to another but very much different in its identity by the artist’s conception of his peace of art (related to the DNA duplication’s idea by the author).

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

In this video, the authors have decided to get their inspiration from several movies, plays, etc (Star Wars, Disney, Sherlock Holmes, and Hounds of Baskerville). Even though if they did not copy the content of any of these inspirations, they used the idea of a movie and certain famous lines to entertain their audience. A good example of it is the following: “At the end of his message Joseph says: “Please help me Mr Holmes. You’re my last Court of Appeal, my only …“. The text at this point is really an amalgam of Princess Leia’s plea to Ben Kenobi (“Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi. You’re my only hope.“) and Sherlock Holmes’s comment to John Openshaw in The Adventure of the Five Orange Pips: “I am the last court of appeal“ (article, page 14). This is a patchwork.

Nevertheless, there is only one video like this one. Indeed, they copied, took inspiration, etc. But because they used the original ideas in their proper manner, reinterpreting it, they created by copying. We can’t consider this episode as a copy because here again, it’s based on different sources in order to make another one which will be unique. It’s always a remix of sources, works of art.

– Finally, we can find quite strange that they copied on other people’s idea to create an episode regarding the copyright infringement. We could think that the authors used this irony to show within their own episode that you can make something that is not considered to be in violation of copyright while copying on other sources.

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 authors of those documents)

​First giving you the example of the technical and skills of the footballer « Zlatan Ibrahimovic » : Indeed he acquired his skills by watching and inspiring from Ronaldo (the Brazilian) during his childhood. But they don’t ‘ve the same weight, height so of course his technical defers from Ronaldo’s one. Those kinds of dribbles were adapted by Zlatan to himself. In French we even have a verb « Zlataner » which highlights that Zlatan didn’t merely copy the style of Ronaldo but reproduced on his own way.
​Secondly, the well-known serie « Rick and Morty » encapsulated a multitude of references to movies, actualities etc… But the originality of the thing is that this quirky serie often projects directly our two protagonists into the plot of the movie. So you’ve for example Rick and Morty that ‘re personally engaged in a purge of a planet in reference to the movie « American Nightmare » (which is a fiction film about a terrible night that happens once a year in America and in which everything is permitted including killing your neighbor) or in another episode you’ve got a creative parody of Inception.​
Finally, today it’s not uncommon to hear songs that sound a bit similar. The explication is simple: There ‘re so many musicians around the world and for so long that it’s merely impossible to make a tune that doesn’t sound like another for some part at least. But as we saw that doesn’t prevent creativity. Although They inspired from others, their song ‘re never exactly the same because singers have their own voice and can slightly modify the melody. Otherwise it would be a pure copy and that is most of the time forbidden.

Show less
Reply
Joanne Defer, Madeline de Meester, Eléonore Esgain
PART 1 - ANSWERS TO THE 5 QUESTIONS 1.DNA duplication: why does it appear in the video? DNA duplication appears in the video because it is closely linked to copyright and copying. When our cells divide, exact copying occurs. Each chromosome and its genes are replicated. We can see that our tendency to copy what is around us is in our…
Read more

PART 1 – ANSWERS TO THE 5 QUESTIONS

1.DNA duplication: why does it appear in the video?
DNA duplication appears in the video because it is closely linked to copyright and copying. When our cells divide, exact copying occurs. Each chromosome and its genes are replicated. We can see that our tendency to copy what is around us is in our deepest nature. However, we can notice that our body only copies our DNA and not another individual’s. This is some kind of natural copyright.

2. Je suis Charlie: what is its meaning in the present context?
Je Suis Charlie was a way to show support to the victims of the 2015 attacks against the newspaper and to reaffirm the importance of the freedom of expression. In this context, we can see that no copyright applied. Everyone was free to copy the slogan on social media, t-shirts, newspapers etc.

3. Keep Calm and Carry On series: is it to the point?
Keep Calm and Carry On series: is it to the point ? According to the text, the copying process of this poster of the 1930’s was the beginning of a huge wave of creation. Indeed, this phenomenon of the « Keep Calm » touched nearly everybody and developed itself in every field of our life : school, friendship, love, work, etc. As the text says, the process of creation starts with appropriation. In this case, we can clearly notice that people made their own creations on the basis of this poster.

4. Why to refer to Marcel Duchamp’s Fontain?
Referring to Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain is a way to show that even famous artists and writers do copy their own work to be able to innovate. In fact, this famous work of art could only exist thanks to a kind of copying process. The artist was inspired by an ordinary mass produced object that he took over to make his own creation.

5. Is the process for creating The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair illustrative?
The process of creating “The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair” is illustrative, because, as the text states, the video itself is not a purely original work as it has used different sources and preexisting works. Quotes, books, photographs, Internet culture, famous characters such as Pinocchio and Holmes,… many of these are numbered in the text as having been inspiring or reused as such to create something new: the video.

PART 2 – EXPLANATION OF THE MESSAGE AND ILLUSTRATION BY 3 EXAMPLES

The overall message behind the text and the video breaks the common belief according to which copyright prohibits to steal the ideas of creative minds, whereas copying implies a lack of creativity and moral sense.
Indeed, on the one hand, the text holds that copying is a natural thing, whether it be regarding social interactions, early education or even biological development. Furthermore, it highlights the fact that many artists and famous works of art have been inspired by something or someone that already existed.
On the other hand, “The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair” shows that copyright, instead of putting legal barriers to copying and inspiring, truly aims at giving credit (mostly in an economic way) to the creators of specific works.
To conclude, the answer to the question “Is copyright compatible with copying?” would be yes, as long as the copying does not infringe the substantial limits defined by the corresponding intellectual property law.
By ways of example to illustrate such point, here are three situations:
First, confectionery (patisserie). A recipe as such cannot be protected by copyright, but can the way to present the pastry be protected by copyright ?
Second, the situation where one of all those singers copies very old songs in order to create new ones. We think that this is part of the creative process because very often, the old songs were not known by the new generation; it’s a way to rediscover them. Then, the new songs created on basis of the old ones can maybe constitute a source of inspiration for young singers and musicians. So, at the end of the day, it’s thanks to this copying process that new types of songs can be created.
And finally, clothes. Most of us are influenced by the fashion industry and its hyper-broad advertisement. Consequently, many of us end up having similar dressing. But if someone is wearing the exact same outfit as someone else’s, can we blame them for their lack of originality? And can we consider intellectual property the outfits worn by models and broadcasted by the fashion industry? We think the answer is no, because it would in a way violate the “freedom of speech” that the way we choose to dress expresses.

Show less
Reply
Megan O'brien, Marie Walckiers, Elieen Surleraux, Lauren Kowalski et Léa Bermudez
Second IPdigIT due the 18th of October 2018 : “Is copyright compatible with copying?” 1. DNA duplication : why does it appear in the video ? In the video, the girl used an expensive blue paint for her street art. Its stem cell can be copied to produce a cheaper one. Then, the only difference between the two variants is…
Read more

Second IPdigIT due the 18th of October 2018 : “Is copyright compatible with copying?”

1. DNA duplication : why does it appear in the video ?
In the video, the girl used an expensive blue paint for her street art. Its stem cell can be copied to produce a cheaper one. Then, the only difference between the two variants is the binder, a component helping the paint to sick on the wall. It appears in the video because it lightens the DNA process which is specifically working by copying itself (it is called the processor of replication). With this process, there is copying but a children never look like exactly the same as their parents. We all have to copy to grow, take a child for example, during the childhood, the child has to copy others, his mother and father or friends, so that he can grow and develop his personality. Even in friendship, we still continue to copy our friends unconsciously. We have to understand by those facts that copying is not always a theft but sometimes it develops creativity.

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

« Je suis Charlie » is a slogan initially created after the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine on the 7th January 2015. Its aim was to commemorate and show solidarity to the victims. Moreover, it became a symbol of freedom of expression. The importance of the message had for results its reproduction in many different forms (t-shirt, posters, etc.). We copy to be solidary with each other. As the text says : it is copying as unity and as opposition. Due to the fact that everybody repost this sentence, we all became involved.

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

Originally it was a propaganda message created during the period ante WW II (1940-1945) by the British Government in 1939. In 2000, a new wave of success led to its commercialization. Industries parodied and personalized the slogan to produce goods used in everyday life (mugs, t-shirts, etc.). This illustrate that copying has not always negative consequences for the author of an original work as it can be a creative activity leading to another original. Another example could be J. M. Coetzee’s adaptation of Robin Crusoe, the story is inspired by Daniel Defoe’s original novel.

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

Marcel Duchamp copied his own art. He used an urinal manufactured by J.L. Mott Ironworks and turned it into piece of art called “Fountain”. Unfortunately, the piece has got lost 1917. Later on, he was ordered to make replications of it and base them on the photograph of the original took by Stieglitz. Using someone else’s product (copying) to create and make replicas of our own new piece shows once again that copying is a consequent part of the artistic creation. It has also been a stepping stone in the arrival of the “original” and “authentic” notions (in Duchamp’s case, the original piece of art got lost but the replicas that he made himself were also authentic but not original since their replicas based on a photograph).
5. Is the process for creating The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair illustrative?

The film in itself shows different aspects of copyright (explanations, for example). But at the same time, the producers of the film used many sources while creating it as we can see in the annotated script of the anime. For example, they used literal copying (with sentences from Arthur Conan Doyle’s books), they borrowed and changed or just took inspiration from existent work.

6. 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).

In general, the exercise show us that copying is inherent of the creative process in biology, art, etc. It is positive if it is an inspiration for something new whether it is done consciously or not (even if it uses forms or words of the original, the basis of creativity). But it can be negative when you appropriate someone else’s work and put your name on it. Copying has its limits.

Copying is often see like a negative thing. For example, we associate this to theft. After reading the paper and seeing the video, we should adopt a more nuanced perspective. Our life itself is full of copying since we born.

Examples : 1. The film Hungover Games (it is a creation on the basis of Hunger Games and Very Bad Trip) ; 2. The Book Ella Enchanted (written by Gail Carson Levine who’s copied classic Fairy tales such as Cinderella); The App Uber Eats (it offers services such as food delivery but took the idea of the original Deliveroo and the borrowed the name of the taxi App Uber).

Show less
Reply
Lucie Decock, Rémy Demoutiez, Vassilia Kamitatu, Nathalia Miranda, Gloria Niyitegeka
Copyright and copying are often presented as opposite notions. Indeed, copyright is seen as protecting the rights of artistic authors over their creation, while copying is seen as a breach, an infringement of the copyright. Copying is commonly seen as an immoral activity, although it is actually part, and even essential, of our learning process. And this starts with our…
Read more

Copyright and copying are often presented as opposite notions. Indeed, copyright is seen as protecting the rights of artistic authors over their creation, while copying is seen as a breach, an infringement of the copyright. Copying is commonly seen as an immoral activity, although it is actually part, and even essential, of our learning process. And this starts with our genes that are passed from our generation to the next and continues as adults, when we create an intimate relation with others. We, as human beings, are growing according to what we see and hear, we are an adaptation of what surrounds us, we are the mirror image of all the things we copied in our lives. And from that we are all unique.
The real issue concerning the relationship between copying and copyright as to do with the concept of creativity. Is copying an obstacle to creativity, are they opposite notions? Should all the creative works have an exclusive copyright, forbidding anyone to copy any substantial or insubstantial component of their work?
What the authors Ronan DEAZLEY and Bartolomeo MELETTI showed us in their video, The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair, is that to create something original, we sometimes must depart from previous models. Moreover, they also proved that copyright does not categorically forbid copying.
In fact, lots of work can appears to be copies of previous ones. The importance is to copy without infringing anyone’s copyright, because contrary to what we think, copyright encourages innovative work and art, just as copying. Copying is isn’t therefore a negative concept, it is essential to human creativity and communication.
Other examples of “positive copying” would be the learning process of students in school. In a way, they copy what their teacher gives them, and then they reappropriate it to create new kinds of thoughts. In law studies more specifically, students spend their time juggling between copying previous authors, and, using what they have learned, trying to develop new ideas. In general, law authors do that too.
We can also mention the movement #metoo: an incredible number of women copied it, resulting in a true large-scale feminist protest which created a lot of solidarity between women.
As a final example, one could mention the classical music industry, where artists have for generations replayed the same pieces but adapting them to their own taste with slight modifications.
In conclusion, we need both of copyright and copying to have new production of art and create a legal guarantee to authors.

Show less
Reply
Elodie Vernieuwe, Alexia Campo, Héloïse Van Houtte, Marie Fanara, Anouchka Bosserez
Copyright is a legal right that gives to the creator a right on his work for not be used by others in a non appropriate way. It’s important to protect copyright because it’s how people who create earn their life. That’s why copying can be seen as something negative. there are so many elements that gives such a bad reputation…
Read more

Copyright is a legal right that gives to the creator a right on his work for not be used by others in a non appropriate way. It’s important to protect copyright because it’s how people who create earn their life. That’s why copying can be seen as something negative. there are so many elements that gives such a bad reputation to copying. Indeed, it’s in our DNA, since our childhood, to know that copying is bad.
But we are going to try to proof the opposite.

Copying can seem to be something positive sometimes, and not always negative. First and foremost, it is useful for the evolution, like most things we use on a daily basis come from something that already exists. Our first example is the ecological cars. At the beginning, someone had the idea of a coach being pulled by horses. And then someone had the idea of a coach with a motor, and the car was born. And recently, someone else had something more ecological in mind, that is why we can see more and more hybrid cars, and even electronic cars.

Another way to illustrate it : we could see in the text that the author used the illustration of the movement « Je suis Charlie ». It made us think of another one, called « Me too », in which some women decided to reveal the fact they had been sexually assaulted. Many people used it and copied it but it was a positive copying process because it made it easier for some women to reveal what happened to them.

Finally, let’s talk about The Little Mermaid. This well known tale was firstly written by Hans Christian Andersen, but then was reused by Disney, without copying the whole story as it was. They used the « background » but many elements were changed. Actually, Disney had a good motive for it: it was in order to add a child touch to the basis story so that children could watch it peacefully and learn that they have to fight for what they want, take risks and know that love will always win. It proves us that Disney got inspired by Andersen but sill used it in a positive way.

As a way to conclude, even though some elements are showing us that it’s obvious that it’s a bad thing, as we saw in those illustrations, we can see that nowadays it’s even necessary. It is imperative for the evolution to occur. It became almost impossible to create something completely new, and therefore without copying what has already been made, especially in our society, in which publicity has such an important place.

Show less
Reply
Isabelle Jacques, Lauro Cavallo, Salomé Gaillet, Valentine Leclercq, Isabel Nauwelaers
Is copyright compatible with copying? To a certain extent, copyright is not compatible with copying. When an artist creates an artwork, he doesn’t want someone to steal his idea. His invention came from his mind and not from someone else’s. Therefore, he has the right over his invention and thus, he is the only one able to use it. It’s considered…
Read more

Is copyright compatible with copying?
To a certain extent, copyright is not compatible with copying. When an artist creates an artwork, he doesn’t want someone to steal his idea. His invention came from his mind and not from someone else’s. Therefore, he has the right over his invention and thus, he is the only one able to use it. It’s considered illegal to copy someone else’s creation.
We can take as an example the issue related to the brand Zara and the illustrator Tuesday Bassen. The facts are that Bassen is an independent artist that created pins and patches with a specific design and Zara copied her idea by taking the exact design of her creations and put it on t-shirts. The similarity is really striking and totally inacceptable. Being a multinational company, Zara took the advantage of the situation and Tuesday Bassen is left with nothing except anger. There is clearly plagiarism from Zara.

Sometimes, copyright can be compatible with copying. Copying can be creative only if there are some changes in final work in comparison to the original creation where the inspiration came from.
For example, during the 17th century, the painting style that emerged at that time was the genre painting. Vermeer is a very famous Dutch painter from this time who used this kind of painting. We can define the genre painting as the art of painting various scenes that occur every day in our daily life, such as playing an instrument for example. Every painting of Vermeer is a copy of other paintings from his time. There is a series of paintings illustrating exactly the same scene. However, Vermeer always painted the scene inside the house and in each of his paintings, you will never see a glimpse of the outside world. Moreover, silence reigns in all of his paintings which is not the case with other artists’ paintings of his time. Therefore, as the final creation is not the exact copy of the creation that gave inspiration to the artist, we cannot mention plagiarism. Yes, we can say there is a copying but not exactly at the same time. There is place for a debate over this subject.

Copying can also be a good thing for the inventor. For example, Elon Musk allowed other car companies to use his motor plans with the condition that if something that makes the motor better is discovered, the company will have to share it with him. There is a form of collaboration between these actors and this collaboration benefits to everyone. It helps other companies to develop new technologies and to sell more products with a superior quality. Next to that, Elon Musk benefits from all of this.

DNA duplication: DNA duplication can be seen as copying. If you copy a picture exactly as it is, you can define it as a duplication. Your “creation” is exactly the same as the original. But on the other hand, as the text says, when a couple of two individuals with a DNA completely unique conceive a child, the DNA of the child will be also unique even so he has some similarities with the DNA of his parents.

Je Suis Charlie: in this context, we can say that this phrase became a powerful symbol of compassion and courage, but also a sign of “anti-war”. Since the terrorist attack in Paris in 2015, this phrase is used each time there is a terrorist attack somewhere in the world. For example, it was used for the Brussels’ terrorist attack in 2016. Since then, the message was copied for the public interest. Copying can be positive. In this context, Je Suis Charlie was used to show how freedom of expression is important in the society of nowadays.

Keep Calm and Carry On series: you can see this phrase everywhere. On Facebook, you find this phrase a little bit modified. Since a few years ago, it became a merchandise where you can find it everywhere. Originally, it was produced during the Second World War in the United Kingdom by the British government in 1939.

Marcel Duchamp’s fountain: it shows us that everything can be considered as an art. Marcel Duchamp used a basic urinal to create a “masterpiece” only by putting it in an unusual place. He didn’t create anything but changed the purpose of the object.

In The Adventure of the Girl with the light blue hair, we can see many references to other creations such as Pinocchio, Sherlock Holmes, Jaws, Magritte, Matrix, Anonymous and many more. This short-film shows us that copyright is compatible with copying.

Show less
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use simple HTML tags to add links or lists to your comment:
<a href="url">link</a> <ul><li>list item 1</li><li>list item2</li></ul> <em>italic</em> <strong>bold</strong>