Is the original really all that original?

Yeah, last time I checked Birds sitting in Trees have been around for millions of years. ;) But that does look like a pretty shameless knock off.

Not for nothing, but the orig designers make things soo way expensive to purchase that people do it themselves or look for something similar and less expensive to buy. Why should someone who can't afford the "real" thing be denied of something that they would enjoy!?

A while ago I saw a link to this really awesome laptop decal. I said if and when I get a laptop I'm totally getting it. When I went shopping on etsy for it (the original was on etsy) there were so many people not only selling it, but saying they created it, that I ended up not buying it. I don't want to support some rip off artist!

Huh, when its a dead Eames, nobody cares if it's a knock-off.
But when it's a live crafter... it's all disgust and "thievery."

More importantly, is the knock off you've shown cheaper, and if so, please provide the link.

:P

Yes, it happened a few years ago and it still burns me. The biggest hurt was that it was a close-ish friend that used to support my jewelry business and had now blatantly copied designs I spent years developing. I found out when a mutual friend forwarded the email where she announced her new website.

Imagine my surprise when I saw that designs were not the only things she copied, she also copied whole paragraphs from my 'about us' section. I very quickly sent her an email 'congratulating' her on her new endeavor and explaining the concept of plagiarism.

I couldn't understand how she could be so deceitful and uncaring, especially after I had poured out my heart to her many months before about how starting my own business was a dream of mine and that I appreciated her help in hosting a jewelry party at her house and inviting her friends. And it wasn't about money, she is/was a stay at home wife with a rich, indulgent husband. Grrrrr....

I kind of prefer the thieved version because it has birds in flight. But that is not to say that I disagree with the main point of this post!

i will not even go into the above comment (birds trees? come on!)
the thing is, as a designer, it p¨%%#s me off that people have no respect for other's work. are these the same people who copied school reports and cheated on tests then? and as for those who think that designers charge what they charge "just coz they can"?
design is an intellectual and brutal work, that takes everything you have. to be so contemptuous of someone else's work is, in my opinion (modesty be d¨*d) just another show of ignorance and - dare i say savagery?
let's try a role reversal: spend years of your life honing your craft, learning all you can, so you can make the best possible product. put it out there. wait 5min for some "well-intentioned" diyer to copycat it "coz the real thing's just so expensive" and b(ra)log about it, feel the outrage of having your work basically stolen, and then let's talk.
ok, sorry for the rant, it's just been a long time coming!

It comes down to someone else profiting from your original idea for me. If a homeowner copies an idea for their own home, that seems okay. We all copy ideas from magazines, books, blogs, etc. But when someone faithfully recreates your work and makes money from your ideas, that's stealing.

Holy crap... These are the same people (the ones who copied the birch tree design) who copied OUR 5 paragraph descriptions on Etsy too!! They used word for word FIVE PARAGRAPHS of our description describing OUR decals for their own descriptions.. unbelievable. Write your own description!!! I sent them a very firm and polite email and they have since changed their wording, but STILL... looks like they're trying to make a business out of copying others...

The original just looks like a play on the tree wallpaper we've seen everywhere for a few years. Is there any real evidence that Lara Cameron's was even the first out the two shown? The trouble with having a bland aesthetic is that you can never be sure if you were actually copied.

Unfortunately, creative plagiarism is rampant. I do think that it is okay to "copy" a design idea for a DIY project, but it is wrong to make an exact duplicate and market it with the sole intention of making a profit. And usually, you get what you pay for. The original may cost more than the knockoff, but you are paying for quality, which in my opinion, is worth the extra cost.

Agreed - "original' above looks like Cole & Sons Birch wallpaper, replicated as a wall sticker. Is that "original"?
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ny/good-questions/good-questions-what-is-this-wallpaper-015132

With little birds thrown in like Cavern Home Blackbird wallpaper. http://www.designpublic.com/shop/cavern-home/11957

And actually, I'm not that sure how much/if I object to the copied design aesthetic... Agree there may be issues to discuss, just this is not the wall decal to make a stand with since it so closely resembles the designs mentioned above.

Maybe the 'theived' copy was also inspired by these wall papers, and not the 'original' wall decal shown?

I agree that the "original" isn't all that fresh. That's not to say I don't like it or think that ripping it off is acceptable, but it looks exactly like the trees-and-birds motif that's all over the place.

Doing a Google image search for "birch tree wall decals" gets ~37,500 that all look like both images above.

OBEY is one of the worst when it comes to shameless copying and he rakes in the dough (and i'm not even referring to the Obama poster) but the rest of his photoshopped prints & shirts. Check art-4-a-change for a great article (w/ pictures).

Dude, the artist isn't called OBEY -his name is Shepard Farey... and I think you are just sort of not getting what he is doing.

Your article on Lara came out Mar 4/2010, and given the description indicating a 2 month selling window only, I presume this article was close to the release date of Lara's design?

The Etsy vendor sold the item pictured above as early as Jan 20/2010. (evidence: http://www.etsy.com/transaction/24416114)

Is there evidence of when Lara's design was released publicly?

The Etsy seller *did* sell similar designs (birch trees, trees with birds, etc.) the year prior, but nothing in that combination and so closely matching.

HeritageWoodworks has a point. "Bland" or not, it's difficult (and pointless) to trace the lineage of basic design motifs like bare trees and bird silhouettes.

Yes, the "copy" is derivative, particularly when applied to wall decals. But derivative of whom? I remember visiting Gwen Frostic's studio as a child in the late seventies, and she most definitely featured a wide range of naked limbs and birdie block prints, reproduced on a holy host of consumer products.

Abstractions of nature, for better or worse, are part of our collective visual vocabulary. Can any designer lay positive claim to a graphic representation of a star or a leaf?

To survive, designers must worry less about copycats and more about the originality and marketability of our own ideas. We must design not just products, but sustainable business models. Counterfeiters will always be with us. Our task is to keep moving and innovating. We must avoid banking our careers on a single, easily reproduced idea.

This example is not merely derivative. There is the issue of intent here, and I think there was intent to copy.

What are those wall stickers made of? If i buy one here in the USA are they shipped from Australia?

The Etsy seller *did* sell similar designs (birch trees, trees with birds, etc.) the year prior, but nothing in that combination and so closely matching.
****************

Maybe Lara copied off of them.

Just not seeing copying. It looks like any other bird(s) on a branch. Sorry.

I dunno...I have a set of tea towels with a similar motif and I think I might have purchased them at Pier One.

On the positive side, nobody's going to copy a bad design, so until you find retribution of some kind, take comfort in that you have made a wonderful thing that other people want as well. Look at all the Eames knock-off's out there.

That said, Banksy, Andy Warhol, Mr. Brainwash, etc, all have copied other people's designs, and then people copy their copies of other people's designs. Nothing is original anymore.

uh...the discussion seems silly. if the artist did not seek to protect his/her work through copywriting or by whatever means, than shame on him/her. we all take advantage of knock-offs in our home design, in the clothes we wear, the music we listen to, the movies we see, etc. if you draw the line with this particular example, you must draw the line with all of them.

I think that it's naive to expect that no-one will copy your designs, though I think copying them so closely _for profit_ is unacceptable. That said, I'm a big fan of DIY and if someone can recreate something themselves for themselves then I have no problem with that.

I agree with the poster above (SanDiegoAT) that the "original" wall decal is already a pretty weakly original design - it doesn't feel new and certainly is pretty close to the wallpapers linked to. In that respect, the "copied" wall decall falls in the same genre.

I think the balance of the first decal is better than the second, with the trees closer together, so I'd probably prefer it anyway. It seems like the Wall Sticker Co have better prices as well, so why be so worried? The copy is $98 USD - no thanks! Though I can't actually find the original on the Wall Sticker site.

It's annoying and frustrating and I don't think total knock offs are on. But it is reality and forces designers to come up with new ideas, lots of options, websites that are easy to navigate and encourage people to purchase (reduced shipping is a biggie - I'd rather pay more but not feel ripped off by a big shipping charge at checkout!). Marketing is also a big factor. All of these things will ultimately dictate who will buy from you and who will not.

I think the anonymity of Etsy enables a lot of this copying, and the website management should be more pro-active about encouraging individual sellers and removing blatant copiers and mass producers (so that it doesn't become like Ebay!!)

Maybe Lara copied off of them.

Just not seeing copying. It looks like any other bird(s) on a branch. Sorry.

**************************************

Heh, that was actually my thought. Seems like the "copied" design was available before Lara's was, plus the whole "birch tree and birds" thing is trendy right now.

Are you serious that these two designs do not look, um, IDENTICAL to you? These are not just two examples of "birds on trees."

And, starwxrwx, the trees are different dimensions apart because of application to the wall... not by design.

I think the real point here is the idea of 'design conscience' rather than the specifics of the two examples pictured.

Following on from prettybee's comment, if design is so frigging easy then why the fu*k are there so many copies?! Reproducing an aesthetic, or being influenced by someone else's work is more than acceptable, but changing minor details and then flogging something as your own is fraud as much as it is theft.

If you're a designer, be open about your influences - if you're a consumer, apply the same ethics you use in the rest of your daily life when it comes to dollars and sense.

Ahh well to reply to patrick (the other one) - yes I see you could apply the trees closer. Is that not part of the design/presentation though? Totally changes the aesthetic to me! As do the colour choices, etc.

All in all this post has suddenly inspired me to buy some wall decals from somewhere!

Here's an interesting TED talk which closely relates to this topic: http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html

I agree that almost everything is copied from somewhere or someone else anymore. Also, as a DIY homeowner I appreciate being able to get ideas and create my own decor for my home, and maybe even friends and family, but never to make a profit.

I do think it's pretty ironic that one post would be made regarding "copycats", while another (on the same site), references projects on "hacking" your own Ikea products. Now, I don't see an real issue here, unless it's for profit, but I imagine a designer (like some of those who have chimed in above) would. If that's the sort of "copycatting" we're talking about, then AT has some contradicting going on.

I can go to H.D. Buttercup and by a side table for $2500 or wait six months and buy a knock-off for $450 at Restoration Hardware. In a year they'll be selling them at Target for $100. Same difference.

The look is sort of dead and buried anyway, so, sort of a moot argument anyway, no?

not having originality and plagiarizing is not the same.

with that said the two designs are so close in shapes it does seem plagiarized.

And saying "Why should someone who can't afford the "real" thing be denied of something that they would enjoy!?" is kinda like saying why can't someone enjoy your property when they can't afford it themselves. It like if you're working and someone else is getting all the pay.

Really...

I am totally cutting and pasting some of these responses the next time the "Should I buy a knock-off Egg chair?" comes up.

It is really interesting how we view "ownership" of design socially and legally. I hate monogrammed fabrics and designs, but legally, that is one of the few ways that designers have to legally protect their work.

I have issues with creative/intellectual theft generally and the place I see it the most online actually has to do with food. People steal/copy recipes without acknowledgement freely.

Someone once wrote into thekitchn asking for recipes for a county fair. It was always my understanding that you were supposed to create your OWN recipe and that pilfering a recipe was completely unethical. County fair competitions are not just "who can find and follow a recipe" but about the creative process of creating a recipe. But a lot of posters thought copying a recipe was totally ok.

Well, that's frustrating for the artist. Copyright laws say an offending image has to be at least 20% different if it's generic enough (birds on branches, say) to begin with.

Now, for the life of me, I'm never able to figure out how they calculate the 20% but I sadly know this because I (successfully, yay!) sued someone who copied my jewelry designs.

To me, the knock off bird on trees look 20% different. Sincerest form of flattery...except that you want them to pay you and not the forger.

so, ethically dubious copying == ultimate evil.

But on the same page, breaking fire code to have a charming fire escape == fun?

My niece has been doing birds on branches for a year or so: http://studiobirch.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-03-15T07%3A20%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=7 I'm sure there are other people doing them too, and I don't think she's stealing from anyone.

Also, janetJackaruso, you make a very valid point. & also, fire code, though not decoratively desirable, really may save somebody's life.

Honestly, the first thing I thought was "gee, the one on the left looks just like Cole & Son's birch wallpaper (that I see everywhere)."

I totally agree that reproducing someone's design and selling it for your own profit is wrong. I just think this particular example is weak, since the "original" is already somewhat derivative.

One thing I saw on Etsy recently was someone selling wall decals and using a photo from an Apartment Therapy contest winner's kitchen as the backdrop. I had a couple of issues with it. One was that the decals didn't look original in any way -- they looked like something mass produced in China that you'd pick up at Target. The other was that the photo was used without crediting the photographer or (probably) getting permission for using it. Since I'm pretty sure it wasn't the seller's photo, there would be no way of knowing if the decal would really look like that on the wall since it was just Photoshopped on.

I see a lot of threadless shirt designs for sale in various markets that are very obviously not threadless shirts :P

I dunno, I don't have any qualms with someone taking inspiration off anothers idea, but I think you cross the line when you try to market that idea and do so without giving any credit or compensation to the original person.

It pisses me off enough when someone copies my homework let alone someone who is encroaching on my livelihood :P

It's birds on birch... you can probably get toilet paper with that same design. Not to mention the "theived" version is executed better... and cheaper?

Sounds like fair competition.

I get confused with AT. One day you're praising places like KnockoffWood and the next telling us these kinds are awful people that would shave kittens.

@boxty i do think that argument is slightly off-topic. you can buy the target $100 table if you just want it to look the same, but in terms of investment/resale etc, the $2500 is the way to go. you couldn't re-sell the target table for more than a fifth or so of it's original price, but in years to come, you might get twice what you paid for the original, and chances are, it will still look good and have stood the test of time.

As far as plagiarism goes, it's unfortunate but a reality you have to accept, in any field. That's why copyright and intellectual property rights law.

Referring to this specific example of the beech/bird decals, birds have been everywhere in design forever, beech trees are trendy at the moment, as are decals. It doesn't take a genius to spot a trend and make a quick buck out of it.

As an artist/designer/maker, if you stick to what inherently comes from within you creatively as an individual, hopefully what you produce will be original (is that why you're doing it anyway?) - you just need to copyright that s*** before you even THINK about putting it in the public domain. Once it's out there, if it's not protected, it's over.

Trees and Birds? come on both of these were stolen from nature. Please folks don't paint a picture of nature and cry fowl when that same picture is copied with a few changes. I've actually seen hand stencil walls that are very similar; and let's be frank, any 3rd or 4th graded has probably produced the same picture in art class. I just don't believe this is an original piece of man, nature yes, but not man.

while this particular example seems to be weak - this is still an interesting and important topic. as someone who makes their living as a designer i have a major problem with design thieves and plagiarism. there are people out there who either don't have the talent, or don't care about the time and skill it takes to create a successful design, and they are just out to make a quick buck...

and i am with SyndeyBristow - i can not tell you how angry shepard fairey makes me!! http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm

I know of one story from Etsy -
A while ago, a vintage seller on Etsy had sold a handbag to someone, and was waiting for payment to come through before shipping. On a whim, she looked on eBay, and found that the buyer had relisted the item, complete with her photography and item description.
The Etsy seller reached out to the community on the forums, and one of the forum posters went out to eBay and tried to purchase the item from the buyer/reseller!

Once the Etsy admins got wind of it, they shut down the forum thread and tossed the buyer/reseller off of Etsy for violating the terms and conditions of the site. And copyright laws (item descriptions and photography are the property of the seller, not the buyer).

It was a fun ride while it lasted, and the original Etsy seller was shocked at the support she got from the Etsy community. But crafters are a back-to-back kind of bunch, even if we occasionally get a little cutthroat.

I'm an artist and I do think that if I felt that someone had flat out copied my work and used it for their own profit without even crediting me so that I could also benefit from publicity at the very least that I'd be upset and would try to take recourse to correct the situation with the company or individuals who were stealing. However, personally I don't think that being vaguely similar or even smoe of the the outline is clearly mine but they changed almost everything else, for me, would count. At the same time as an artist who isn't very established yet, I'm more terrified of someone looking at my original work and thinking somehow my style or idea is too similar to someone else and completely ruining my reputation on the web, than I am about someone copying my work. I can come up with new work, but how do you repair the damage done if someone falsely accuses you of intellectual theft?

I've seen it happen on the web especially because most of the time it's not the artist who posts the "rips" on You Thought We Wouldn't Notice, or starts calling people out on allegedly ripped off designs on blogs like this, and the majority of the time the person claiming that the other individual is a thief hasn't even done leg work to discover much evidence of stealing. We all read and chime in on how horrible a thief the accused party is, but how many of us ever notice the retraction notice once the accused parties find out about it and actually come back and prove that they are infact innocent by having created their work first?

I've read Holly's DIY is not Duplicate it yourself, and while I agreed with part of it, I felt that that article was also saying basically that DIY is a crime because if someone created something and instead of paying the creator for it, you make it yourself you are robbing the creator, while people in the comments make the distinction between personal use and for-profit use, I don't feel that the author of the article (who I think wasn't Holly, but a guest blogger) made that distinction, because DIY or bought from a knock off the original artist didn't get your money. I remember one of the very first posts I read on AT was someone who loved a wall paper, but couldn't afford it, so he essentially stole the design in paint. If you agree that DIY is not Duplicate it Yourself, is he not guilty of stealing money for the hardwork of that pattern designer?

"uh...the discussion seems silly. if the artist did not seek to protect his/her work through copywriting or by whatever means, than shame on him/her. ...."
posted by kahlil19107

"copywriting or whatever that means" is COPYRIGHT, and it is now automatically applied to a work of art (photo, video, etc) at the moment of its creation. No one needs to put C symbols next to things for copyright to be in effect. The C symbols just come from an age when in the USA people actually had to register for copyright. They no longer need to do so, protection is automatic. They can register it, but only if they want to.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

True story:

I worked in a commercial art gallery, and we had a painting of an artist we were representing near our entrance, to show off his work. It was a gorgeous $3,000 painting. The artist had a full-time job in a framing and printing shop to pay the bills. That painting took him weeks to do, because he had so little time to concentrate on his art.

Someone must have taken a photo of his painting from outside the gallery, and wanted to make a cheap print of it, probably because they couldn't afford paying $3,000 for it... They actually walked right into the print shop where the artist stood behind the counter, handing him a CD asking him to make a reproduction print of his own painting!!! The artist called the gallery and told me this.

So yes, people absolutely do find out.

I can see both sides of the argument really. I'm trying to imagine how I would feel if I made something and had the idea ripped off, but I think it's sort of... all's fair in love and art. The nature of the beast. You can't walk into a furniture showroom without seeing something that has clearly been derived from something else, either blatantly or as a basis for an improved or re-imagined version. The design above was very on trend when it was created and was bound to be boldly recreated, perhaps situations like these will push the original artists to keep creating new designs and work outside of the box? I have been inspired in the past by pieces in high end furniture lines and had them recreated at a fraction of the cost, usually with a few tweaks to the proportions or materials, by LOCAL artisans who ultimately do a better job and frankly, they're becoming a dying breed and need the business.

These are all ripooffs of Cavern's Blackbird Print!
http://www.cavernhome.com/wallpaper-blackbird-white

I think AT is shooting themselves in the foot with this article. AT provides great inspiration to their readers, many who are on a budget or are money-savy consumers. With that inspiration, comes a strong need to do it yourself. And by doing it yourself, you sometimes duplicate. It's a little late to play ethics police to a community that you've help grow.

Do it yourself is Duplicate it yourself. When a website gives you instructions on making curtains and says “Do It Yourself” you follow the directions and make yourself some curtains. When a blog shows you pictures of a home or something inspiring. I see comments of “Oh, I’ll try that at home.” and it gets duplicated.

Why did you buy a sewing machine and a glue gun? What about that printing press or silk screen? So you can do it yourself. Look around your home, at what you are wearing, the robin’s egg colored kitchen walls and “spa” bathrooms. You all have been inspired by someone else and then decided to duplicate it yourself.

I think that if you are against DIY then you are a hypocrite. Everything has been copied and brought to a price point you can afford from an object that was once not so affordable.Do you have Ikea or Design Within Reach furniture? You supported a “Duplicate It Yourself” company. They are “inspired” by more expensive designers for less money. In this budget minded economy, to duplicate is to get more bang for your buck. Should I buy the $80 designer couch pillow or copy the design, make it at home for $10, and have money in the bank?

Simple designs breed reproductions. If you don’t like to be copied then create a product that cannot be reproduced without being noticed. A good example the FENDI spy bag. Karl Lagerfeld designed the spy bag with hopes that knock-offs would not be created. Well knock-offs were made (and sold on Canal Street in NY). Then he took it up a level and made it in velvet with insane embroidery and in denim with embroidery and sequins. Those versions were never reproduced. They were too intricate and expensive to copy.

Design and business are cyclical. You create a design. The market gets flooded with that design. Then it starts all over again.Karl did what all you designers should do: Move on and create better things. Wait, or would that be duplicating it yourself?

Do you not understand the difference between being inspired by something that exists, and then DIYing for your own personal enjoyment, versus copying an existing product (in form AND function) and selling the copy as your own, for profit?

Seriously, you don't see the difference?

I am a seller on Etsy and I see rip-offs all the time! So many people copy each other it's hard to decide who to buy from when you don't know where the original idea came from. One artist I see getting ripped off is AshleyG. So many copy cats!

http://www.spittingimage.etsy.com

FYI: I'm copying all these replies and turning them into a wall decal, look for it on Etsy.

The comments in support of DIY are probably related to the article linked, which actually condemns DIY, rather than people confusing DIY with copying and selling for profit.

"Holly at Decor 8 wrote a brilliant article about how DIY isn't Duplicate It Yourself"

The linked article actually condemns DIY when you replicate a designers idea, even if done only for yourself... which I don't really agree with. The article seems to think you can be inspired by and do something different, but if you copy exactly, even if only for yourself and your own enjoyment, you are stealing from the original designer... or that was my take away from the article. (I don't exactly agree with this, but pretty sure this is what's prompting the DIY comments.)

I think the thieved is way cuter, and as long as you aren't trying to sell it, see no problem.

If a "design" can be easily replicated, it deserves to be easily replicated. Why aren't there a world of exact iPhone or Android phone replicas? Because they're expensive to make, and took years of development... in other words... NOT EASILY REPLICATED... something like that wall-sticker, (or any sticker for that matter) that they wanted to make millions off from, is ludicrous that they'd make a big deal about it.

Oh, and before anyone bitches about it... Cole and Son's Contemporary I & II Woods. 'Nuff said.

Here here! @Djlucky

What a hilarious post at AT! This site has advised readers how to copy an artist's work, how to duplicate a designer's look, etc., etc..

Now this is a tough one, I'm an art student and avid design fan, so I'm broke, have some talent and have way too expensive taste. But even though I can copy other artists/designers I usually chose not too. I have done a couple of Alto inspired side tables, and some studies of Picasso, things I have sold, but sold as reinterpretations of the originals. They are obviously different from the muses, but I was still capitalizing on someone else originality. I will continue to make stuff inspired by the greats, but I would/could never take from a fellow artist struggling and trying to be unique. It's just not right.
Patrick (the other one) Put it the best!!! Great discussion AT.

This discussion says it all;

http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html

Copying "benefits in both innovation and sales". There are reasons these things arent illegal.

All I got to say is that anybody with a problem with "copying" should be wearing all designer clothes all the time, and not have ANY pop music in their iPods!

I'm an artist, too. And a librarian, "to pay the bills." So I know about copyright from both sides, as well as from my partner who is very opposed to DRM on music and video disks... (Ever copied a movie or cd that you didn't personally buy and pay for???)

I've come to the conclusion that the only way for working artists to protect their work is to constantly evolve so those who copy can't keep up.

And I have concluded that in the contemporary world there is a huge majority of people who are just not interested in the ethics of copyright or ownership of intellectual property -- they dont see any problem, they don't understand how using someone else's design might be immoral, they think all that matters is that they cleverly figured out how to do it too -- so the genie won't ever go back into the bottle.

Is any of that Good or Bad? -- I don't know. But what is, is.

For those saying that the Etsy store was selling Lara's design before she was - her birch design was originally created by her to be printed on fabric as part of her company Ink and Spindle. Her design therefore has been around for a lot longer than it seems, just on a different medium. The wallpaper collaboration came later.

Sure, birch trees may not be an 'original idea' as some have put it. But Lara would have spent quite some time getting the pattern right and looking balanced. And it's her aesthetic take on how she sees birch trees which does make it original and hers.

The rip-off company did an unrefined direct tracing of her work. That is the real issue here. That someone took what was not theirs and are profiting from it. And the danger of Lara's work being confused with the knock off.

Lara's birch design on fabric was first being sold by her back in 2007, I don't think she copied anybody :-)

Some of these comments make it sound as if the people being ripped off are paranoid or naive. The first page alone includes a photographer whose image was used on a retail chain's mass-produced t-shirts. Was she being naive for having a photo online and NOT thinking it would be copied and printed onto thousands of t-shirts?

And when Etsy vendors are stealing complete descriptions and photos... I don't see a grey area.

Plagiarism for profit is always prety skeazy. But consider this scenario. The original is, let's say, $500. Ten people like it and buy it. Many others like it but can't afford the hefty price tag. A knock off comes out for $40. The people who would never have bought the original, due to the outrageous price, now buy the knock off. So, technically, the original artist is not losing any money. You can't count monetary loses that would never have existed. And the plagirist provided beauty for those who would normally not have been able to aquire it.
Not that plagiarists are Robin Hoodesque figures, they are usually just trying to make a quick buck.
And if you're talking about birds in trees, I was drawing designs like that in third grade. Did the artist steal my designs?

It seems like everyone is talking about the decals only, even suggesting that the etsy (rip off) decals were released before Lara Cameron's. Does anyone actually realise that Lara's design has been aroun for years, just on fabric, before it got released on decals.

I'm a designer who has worked closely with Lara and can guarantee that it his her original and copyrighted design. It was originally designed for screenprinting and even though it was only around on fabric, it doesn't give anyone using another media the right to blatantly copy it!

Lara designed hers in 2007 http://kirinote.blogspot.com/2007/06/birch-forest.html

Very interesting discussion. Could have said a lot on this topic but will shorten it to this:

1. Plagiarism and inspiration are two different things.
2. The Cole and Son Contemporary II (birch pattern) wallpaper design existed in 2004 (probably even earlier).

This is Lara's original design which has been blatantly copied by this faceless Etsy seller. It is unfortunate that this kind of crap happens to designers who work hard to come up with original designs.
Lara's design does not look like Cole and Son's wallpaper, they both contain birds and trees but that's where the similarity ends, they are different in style.
Think about how you'd feel if it were you having your work copied in such a way and profited from.

"You're nothing until you've been bootlegged." - Robert Plant

Ah the burn of hitting the design world's funny bone!!!

I, that is me the designer, made this thing once (I say thing because at the time it had no proper name, yet).
It had four legs and a vertical support for my back-THEN SOMEONE STOLE MY DESIGN!!!!
Now you all call them CHAIRS! That's not what I wanted them to be called!!
Then someone made the seat really long and called it a bench.
Then someone made it taller and called it a barstool

(WHERE IS ALL THIS CRAZINESS COMING FROM !!)

Then someone took off the vertical support made it a bit taller and made the seat area WAY too big and then called it a table!!!!
Do you what this has led too??? Insanity and the creation of creativity!
Shame on all you for changing my "original"!

In all seriousness I've ripped off and been ripped off. It is human nature to do/want better. Greed perhaps. It is knowing where to draw the line, give credit for inspiration, and being just plain original that defines what kind of person we are.

i remember seeing this design from lara last year i think... it's been around a while, as textile prints...

I'm astounded at how many people think this kind of blatant rip-off is okay!!

...and username25 - are you sure your mom's pillows aren't made from Lara's hand-printed Birch Forest fabric of the same design???

This happened to me a few years ago. I decorated a backstage room for a certain band playing at the Big Day Out. I created a silhouette that I spray painted on fabric to look like a wallpaper fabric. The band were so pleased that they took the fabric after the show. I was a fan of the band so I was quite flattered. I went on their website and found that they used the design on a t shirt....without getting my permission. I was pretty pissed off but reluctant to do anything about it because it seemed like an uphill battle. Then I thought of all the t shirts they were selling. This band did a lot of festivals and having worked on a merchandise stand at gig myself, I know tshirts sell extremely well. When I got a call from a friend in the U.K telling my design was on a tshirt, and there were about 5 variations of it ( different colours etc) I decided to do something about it. I saw a copyright lawyer and my lawyer wrote a letter to their management which we sent via registered post, we payed extra for the the document to be signed off once it was received and that is what saved me. They tried to claim they didn't receive the letter but they had signed for it. I had the promoters of the BDO trying to persuade me not make a fuss and trying to pay me off with a pittance. In the end I 'settled' with the band and received a nice sum.
If anyone else is in a similar situation it is worth the effort to contact a copyright lawyer about it. Your art/ ideas/designs are worth fighting for. The more creatives speak up about this and try to do something about it the better. It's the best thing I ever did ( to stand up for my work).

I have to say a lot of these comments really disappoint me although I many of them are made based on judgement made from this one blog post alone, which is a little unfair.

Lara designed the birch design back in 2007 and I do not doubt Lara would have spent a long time making sure the design was perfect. I know a simple design can often appear to be something people think is easy to create but to get those elements to work is not easy and takes time and skill. The second design, although not identical, has so many elements of Lara’s design that creating it wouldn't have been hard as the work was already done. I understand the whole ‘nothing is original’ and that people are inspired by other people’s work, but when someone makes something that is similar enough to someone else’s work that you get confused between the two then there is an issue. I don’t think there is a positive to being copied like this because if people think you are this other person it creates confusion.

I also do not see the similarity between the Cole & Sons Birch wallpaper and Lara’s work other than the subject matter is the same. There is no confusing the two and they both have a very different feel to them design wise.

Lara is someone who has a high level of integrity, works very hard at her business and is an inspiration to people who both design and run small businesses. Those of you who have made quick judgements should spend some time reading Lara’s blog http://kirinote.blogspot.com/ to see that she is honest, hardworking and had a bucket load of talent.

I have a lot of hard working artist friends, and some of them have told me that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but imitation is not the same as reproduction. I've attempted to create things similar to what they've made, but I am no where near as talented to be able to recreate their work.

Those two are unsettlingly similar, but it's not like the fake is an exact duplicate. I'm not trying to justify the copycat. I'm just saying they should give credit where credit is due.

Well, it seems that even the designer had doubts about her own originality too:

http://kirinote.blogspot.com/2007/06/birch-forest.html

xena--

Thanks for that link! Interesting insight!

It proves, though, that this designer was sensitive to, and aware of, her virtual workspace, and sensitive to the issues of treading on other's design toes. Yet, ironically, her design is NOWHERE near the infringement territory the samples above demonstrate.

For all those saying "Birds and trees, how different can it get? What's the big whoop?" go look at the samples on the link xena posted. Then look at the samples here.

Then get back to us.

I agree, the Lisa Congdon sample that the link directed to wasn't the best example to support my point - which was to give credit where credit is due. That is, I am quite a fan of Lisa Congdon and her birch series and remember instantly thinking of her when I first saw "Birds and trees" print

This link is a better example of the similarity I was referring to:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/birdinthehand/4372676463/
http://kirinote.blogspot.com/2007/06/birch-forest.html
even in colours.

I'm not denying that the above is a direct rip-off, especially because it is the same medium. But is it really any different when it is a screen print copied from a painting?

This is a pretty hypocritical article from a site which is constantly offering ideas and tutorials on how to duplicate ikea products, designer furniture, and worst of all, the art of famous artists.

kdka, you said it perfectly. Being that we as artists and designers are inspired by all things visual, we often see something that inspires us to create something ourselves. I will indulge in a little DIY with clothing and items for personal use but WILL NOT copy to sell anything even close to what someone else is making. I often find myself thinking, ahhh what a great idea, now I can't make it!

On the other side, I can look at someone elses creation and it will spark something in my mind that is totally different. I could see a Zac Posen dress and think of a new bag design for example. I've gotten inspiration for a clutch from a picture of a model with a newspaper folded under her arm.

We all will look at something and think of something to create, it is up to us to use descretion and NOT take someone elses great idea no matter how great that idea may be!

In light of the topic above I would have to say that as i work very close to one ot the country's top mid-century retro finishing patio specialist when you live in the very pulse of some thing. Ideas re thought are not steeling I can reprodce as good or better than the top mfg.always using the identical materials I challenage to tell the diifferance some times better i.e. powder coating over aluminum.my method s are very solid as for exampel i have re-thought the brown & jordan Wave for longer life at an original price of $2300,00 I help to place the same chaise in somones back yard for $1200.00 and I can't tell wich is wich at times moving away from the mesh and into cording find it easy to keep clean,stack and use cord seems stronger to use also I;ll fab any thing you can find as long as there is not much cast invoved and its all work /art /re- thought more later rtcass.aol.com/