awesome quote! love it.

I'm not sure how to phrase this without risking a heated debate, but where does the line fall between inspired and plagiarized?

It is something I've always wondered regarding design products, especially when there are blatant copies of other (iconic) pieces.
Would it be considered theft to buy an inspired piece? Why doesn't it hold the same stigma as buying a faux Vuitton or Gucci handbag?
And, on the same token, copying a room the theft of an idea?

These question have been brewing in my mind for quite some time.

Does anyone else see 3D when they look at this for awhile?

A very good quote and I like how it's been represented here.

As for originality, people bitch about people not being original when so many ARE NOT. They can't seem to come up with an original thought or anything so they copy from others, but where I see the line is when they call that idea theirs when it's not. So best to own up and be honest and say, I got that idea from such and such.

That said, I think if we artists didn't use other's works as a jumping board for our own ideas I doubt we'd be able to become inspired as often and nature can only inspire us so much in and of itself and artists really don't work in a vacuum, neither to musicians so some inpsiration is needed to keep us creative types going.

And that could mean seeing a room and liking some element in it and using that element to build upon a room that is uniquely you with ideas that perhaps are original in thought, style or total execution.

i've stolen this image and put it on etsy, so you can now buy a print and hang it in your house for daily inspiration. email me for details... (kidding... maybe).

There is no line between inspired and plagiarized.

Erving Goffman told us 40 years ago that stigma is self-imposed. The problems you cite with copies are purely imaginary, least of all in the shadow of Walter Benjamin.

Don't sweat it, like what you like, and buy what you want. Hopefully it is of high enough quality for you not to regret the purchase.

As an unschooled textile artist, one of my biggest artistic breakthroughs was when an art quilter (Melody Johnson: http://fibermania.blogspot.com/) whose work is fabulous blogged about what Jim J was talking. It was incredibly freeing. I learned that being inspired and using a particular motif from wsomeone elses work is NOT copying, and indeed whe I show people what I was inspired by for a particular piece, they're sometimes hard pressed to see the resemblence.

http://candiedfabrics.wordpress.com/

Plagiarism is being too lazy to acknowledge where the inspiration came from.

Sisero: I see the 3D effect as well. Wierd/Cool...

Yes, the 3D effect is cool. The project is a great color theory exercise. The saturated medium color advances, while the dark chromatic gray color recedes, the light muted color makes adds luminosity.

As to "originality," there are only 26 letters in the english language, 9 musical notes, 10 numbers, 3 primary colors, 4 types of machines and a limited number of geometric shapes. All art and engineering are variations thereof. Manned space travel is basically an extension of the idea of fire. Computers are a variation of the loom. There is perhaps one original idea per generation. I'm still waiting for one from this one.

It's all about money honey. Once anything generates income, the debate begins about who owns and who can benefit from the money. Nobody ever calls it plagarism if their neighbor "steals" their idea about shoveling snow.

I think it's a lovely quote that rings true, but an implicit part of that quote (along side a similar one about stealing by Picasso) is that you have to "make it your own", as a professor once told me, and put your own personal (emphasis on personal) spin on things.

Simple imitation is a form of sheepish, thought-less regurgitation on the part of the re-doer, not flattery.

Maybe there are no original ideas...but there are certainly original perspectives. No one does it like "YOU" (but you do have to think for yourself...which might just be a lost art in the 21st century.)

Copyright law requires a 10% change from the original to make something your own. Just crappy copying probably accounts for that much, usually. The point being that you DO need to make some changes if you want to call it "inspired by" as opposed to "copied from", legally and ethically. (Copyright has nothing to do with money, actually, it has to do with control over the design/composition/image/ whatever. The copyright holder gets to decide what is done with their work, how it is used. A composer might not want to support a political candidate who wants to use their music as background for an ad, for example, regardless if payment were offered.)

Copyright also has a time limitation built in. I personally have no problem with copies of overly expensive furniture where the copyright or trademark have expired, since I can't afford the (presumably higher quality) authorized editions but appreciate the design. By now the original designer of the specific pieces I have bought are dead, and they cannot be harmed. It is an homage, if you like. Reproduction chairs are still well built and comfortable, and I own them to please myself with the look of my place, not to impress anybody or fool them. (I brag about my bargain hunting!)

But fake Rolex watches or whatever are just sleazy, poorly made knockoffs meant to make people think you have something more valuable than it really is. I'd be embarrassed to be caught witih something like that. It seems very superficial. I see a definite difference!