Comments on: Plagiarism 101

By: brukarstwo

brukarstwo — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:47:47 +0000

You got a really useful blog I have been here reading for about half an hour. I am a newbie and your post is valuable for me.

By: Travis

Travis — Thu, 17 May 2007 00:50:01 +0000

I think I shared a link to Rebekka’s photos way back when in the forum. She’s a fantastic photographer and it’s a shame to see her work stolen and Flickr’s response to the debate.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 17 May 2007 00:32:11 +0000

How about this crap?

http://reddit.com/goto?id=1r3ou

By: Chris Sloan

Chris Sloan — Mon, 14 May 2007 17:53:35 +0000

While similar, the commercials are unique enough as to not be considered plagiarism. We have the LevelTen look and content stolen all the time (NoorWebCreation is right in our backyard); here's a blatant LevelTen Ripoff.

By: Peter Clough

Peter Clough — Mon, 14 May 2007 16:22:36 +0000

A week or 2 ago I watched the 50 years of Larry King Special on CNN. Kermit the Frog was dressed in a black shirt with suspenders, and of course had great insight into King’s creer. At the end in a sequence of quick clips of numerous celebs, Kermit explained that his wearing of suspenders was a tribute – “In Hollywood this is called an homage. Everywhere else it’s just copying.”

By: ø

Mon, 14 May 2007 14:29:08 +0000

Poor. Oh my. Poor!

By: Aaron

Aaron — Mon, 14 May 2007 03:39:04 +0000

“Without acknowledgment of the origin of their idea (ie. thanking Apple in their ads) they’ve, by definition, plagiarized Apple’s ad.”

It’s ridiculous to say that just because something is similar it is plagiarism. In literature it is only plagiarism if you quote verbatim or use the entire piece without acknowledging the source. However, if you use something as inspiration you are not required to cite your inspiration, although it would be nice, it is not mandatory.

In fact most of the time it’s obvious and simply left unsaid because everyone already knows from where the inspiration came. Every musician or painter who uses someone else’s piece as inspiration for another doesn’t say at the end of every song that this was inspired by: The Beatles or Led Zeppelin.

You have a point that it is likely unoriginal and lame, but plagiarist, no.

I think everyone who thinks it’s plagiarism is taking it a little too seriously. Isn’t imitation the best form of flattery?

By: Travis

Travis — Mon, 14 May 2007 03:20:47 +0000

There are always instances where one piece of creative inspires another. There’s nothing wrong with that. Many small companies took inspiration from Apple’s first series of ads and used the silhouette styling in their promotions.

It’s tough to enforce anything with the current ad, but the entire industry will somewhat blacklist the agency behind it, if they’re brave enough to share their name.

Dictionary.com says:

Plagiarism: the act of plagiarizing; taking someone’s words or ideas as if they were your own.

When used in the same industry and context, a borrowed style of creative can be used as a complimentary or competitive tool, like all the people that flipped the current Mac ad scenarios for Linux, Windows, etc…

There’s no question in my mind that the people behind the Euro ad set down and said let’s take this Apple ad and add a soccer ball. And I don’t think anyone would disagree with that.

Without acknowledgment of the origin of their idea (ie. thanking Apple in their ads) they’ve, by definition, plagiarized Apple’s ad.

By: letutor

letutor — Mon, 14 May 2007 02:28:48 +0000

I don’t think that just because you imitate someone elses creative style that it constitutes plagiarism. Style is not copyrighted it’s the content involved. I definitely think that it’s inspired by the apple ad and very similar but plagiarism by definition is different.

“Plagiarism (from Latin plagiare “to kidnap”) is the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship or incorporating material from someone else’s written or creative work, in whole or in part, into ones own without adequate acknowledgment.”

Picasso was the father of particular styles of painting but those who imitated him were not plagiriasing his art. Picasso does not own the styles he created nor does it give him the sole write to produce works of that style.

I think you have a point but tend to throw around the word plagiarism a little too easily.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Mon, 14 May 2007 00:43:52 +0000

This is especially disturbing with all the Todd Goldman shit going down.