Wednesday, October 13, 2021
How Do We Walk the Line Between Plagiarism and Direct Inspiration?
nofilmschool.com: Inspiration is one of those buzzwords in all artistry that I think probably gets overused. Nevertheless, I find myself looking to be inspired day in and day out. What material will spark my creative juices and get me excited to chase down the next spec script? What worlds will I find so enthralling they'll lead me to write a new pilot?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
This article brings up an interesting conversation. Like the author said people are still coming up with new ideas, but it does seem like most new media these days is based off of or inspired by something else. I think it is absolutely possible to be inspired by one piece to create something without it being plagiarism. I also think there is an interesting discussion to be had about unintentional plagiarism or being inspired by something and not knowing it. I think plagiarism is plagiarism, but I do think it is possible for someone to do it without realizing it. We experience so much media throughout our lives that sometimes we don’t realize that the story being told is one that was seen before. I love entirely creative work but sometimes I think the most creative things I see are works inspired by something and then done something with it that is so not expected and so original. Inspiration creates beautiful art.
come onto our stages that we view with a feeling of familiarity, because they are in fact familiar. The enemies become best friends and fall in love and a mother is reunited with her daughter through her struggles, all told often. I was just talking to my friend recently about how all of these old songs and pop culture elements are being retold for the new stages, we rarely see something new. Even the infamous Hamilton and Hadestown are literally retellings of stories. I once had an art teacher who told me to “steal like an artist” and by this she meant; grasp elements of a subject for inspiration, but be aware of your level of influence from it and your degree of originality. I think this is something all creators can take into consideration, be aware of the amount of influence something gives you, this way we can avoid just recreation and retelling of common culture and create something new, thought-provoking, and exciting.
*Miscopied this^*
This is a question that a lot of creators struggle with. We often see plays or musicals come onto our stages that we view with a feeling of familiarity, because they are in fact familiar. The enemies become best friends and fall in love and a mother is reunited with her daughter through her struggles, all told often. I was just talking to my friend recently about how all of these old songs and pop culture elements are being retold for the new stages, we rarely see something new. Even the infamous Hamilton and Hadestown are literally retellings of stories. I once had an art teacher who told me to “steal like an artist” and by this she meant; grasp elements of a subject for inspiration, but be aware of your level of influence from it and your degree of originality. I think this is something all creators can take into consideration, be aware of the amount of influence something gives you, this way we can avoid just recreation and retelling of common culture and create something new, thought-provoking, and exciting.
This is something that I struggle with a lot as a digital artist. As the article states, “King Solomon once said, "There's nothing new under the sun." I think that this is pretty much true just because humans have been around for so long. The article also says that “plagiarism only happens when you directly steal someone's idea.” While I agree with this idea for the most part I do think that you can get pretty close to someone else’s idea with plagiarism based on the definition of this article so it is hard to say that I would follow this rule completely. I think credit is huge in this concept because as long as you’re crediting someone, like the photographer of a reference for example then you are expressing that this piece is not entirely your own. With this said, if everything has been done before everything would have to be plagiarized somehow so I think that what this article wants to articulate is that you shouldn’t stress out about copying someone else’s idea you should focus on your own ideas and how you want people to feel when witnessing your art.
The line between artistic inspiration and plagiarism seems to thin more and more as we move forward in time. As a student, plagiarism is often a critical factor to consider when completing any sort of academic work, even in a more creative based setting such as the School of Drama. I think creative plagiarism differs from creative inspiration in terms of the amount of content and elements that are identical or paralleled. There is also the important aspect of intention to be discussed; the majority of plagiarism is done with an intention or awareness that one is taking someone else’s work and ideas without credit. On the other hand, it can be said that inspiration is also based on awareness, but it is more so in a less malicious manner of admiration and interest. Additionally, one can observe that inspiration motivates an artist to create while plagiarism is done so with little originality or desire for originality.
I found this article very interesting because it addresses the idea that truly no works of film are completely original from their conception to their production. While plots and storylines are more obvious when they are copied or used as inspiration for films, I find that copying within the production of films is also done quite a bit more but it often goes unnoticed. Specifically in the realm of costumes often times color pallets and garment styles are constantly copied. Yet, perhaps the worst realm of copying within costume design is historical film. I cannot list the sheer amount of times I’ve seen the same blatant historical inaccuracies within garments seen on film over and over again, simply because many costume designers get lazy with extras on set and end up sticking them in the same copied styles of other inaccurate historical films. Often times costume designers do not feel the need to do their own research and end up picking the same inaccurate garments from costume houses and replicating the same and blatantly wrong looks of countless time periods. A good example of this is how almost every recent 18th century film portraying British Soldiers from around 1770, from “John Adams” to the “Turn” TV series and even a handful of History Channel Specials, shows them in the exact same Red Coats likely from the very exact same costume house. These coats are painfully ill fitting and the general cut of the coats is completely incorrect as they clasp roughly 4-5 inches bellow where they would’ve on a military uniform from that period. It’s a sad reality that even Mel Gibson’s “The Patriot” did a slightly less horrible job in reproducing the uniforms for the extras portraying British soldiers within the film. Yet sadly, there appears to be an echo chamber of historical inaccuracies with the film industry that only get repeated over and over again as designers refuse to pay attention to better historical sourcing and primary research.
We all joke about it, however, plagiarism is not something to be taken lightly. In the age of technology, where copy-pasting something is as easy as [command] [c], [command] [v] learning to develop original ideas is oftentimes easier said than done. That is, especially once we consider the saturation of media where databases of “inspiration” can be found at the simple click of a button. All these sites: Instagram, YouTube, Pinterest, Facebook, etc, blur the line between plagiarism and direct inspiration. Now, I acknowledge this is not an easy conversation to have. For one, no one wants to be called out on their “lack of originality.” Just like no one wants to be the dude who exposed a productions “stealing” of others’ ideas. That doesn’t, however, mean there aren’t serious circumstances. Yet rather than discuss the ethical / legal implications of plagiarism, this article points out a simple solution: find something unique to share. Borrow from others’ ideas but produce an original piece.
The line between plagiarism and inspiration is something I have thought about often, especially when it comes to things like adaptions from books to screen. I am sure we have all heard the quote that, “ there are only so many original stories in the world, eventually we are bound to keep repeating each other.” To some extent I agree with this statement, but I think in a world where we have so many diverse people from an extensive amount of backgrounds that all have different stories and dreams that there will always be new, fresh material for stage and screen. I think in today’s day and age we are obsessed with making re-makes, which is such a shame because they are taking tickets, time, and material away from new screenwriters or playwrights that have fresh ideas that studios are cautious to take a chance on. I hope more independent studios pop up that pledge to create new work instead of just making re-makes like the big named studios are.
While it's definitely annoying that we have to hear about plagiarism constantly, it's something we should all be thinking about as we do our work. For starters, you simply can't get away with it in the age of information, if your work catches attention, the audience will eventually figure out of you are just ripping ideas off from someone else. But more importantly, I am of the opinion that creative works can't be very valuable if the artist isn't vulnerable while they make it. It can be good but I think the works of art that I have held dearest to me are ones where you can tell the artist imprinted something of themselves into the work.
I think my main point is that we can synthesize the ides of others with our own. But we need to be sure we are including our own and bringing something new to the table when we create. Because as the author of the article said, what's the point in creating a piece of media if it's already out there copy-pasted a hundred times over and your version hasn't added anything new?
I'd say in creative works, the line between plagiarism and inspiration is the self.
I think in the creative process, it’s almost impossible to avoid researching and taking inspiration from what’s already out there. And sometimes what we see in the process of finding inspiration can resonate with us so much that it’s hard to get it out of our minds. As an artist, I always try to push further in the idea development process, as further from the original idea as possible, so that I’m not just trapped in the same thoughts. But much like the article has said, it doesn’t matter as much as long as the outcome delivers a different idea and statement. The main focus, I guess, would be ‘what do you want to tell the audience?’ because from there, you begin to see a distinction between the original work and your work.
"There is nothing new under the sun" applies but you have to define what new means. Similarities can always be drawn from one thing to another, but I suppose what matters is how far those similarities go. Just to spice things up a bit, I feel compelled to toss "homage" into the plagiarism-inspiration mix. When is something an homage to something else yet still not plagiarism? Can homage and inspiration be the same? (the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the author here, disclaimer) For example, is Inception an homage to Paprika? Was Paprika the inspiration? Did Nolan rip off Paprika from Satoshi Kon? Many say Paprika is the inspiration, though I don't believe Nolan has ever expressed this. However, there are several shots in Inception that were basically lifted frame for frame from the animation. Is that an homage? Who's to say? Maybe it's an "I'll know it when I see it" situation.
I think the most important lesson of this article is the idea that you shouldn't copy something from another work of art that you like--instead, you should work to understand why you like it. Once you understand why it works so well, and what it achieves, you can implement your own version of it that will work even better for your art, precisely because it isn't simply copy-pasted but instead specifically designed to fit into your art. This method draws from inspiration, and can allude to past films and works of art, but in a respectful way that understands and appreciates that art instead of cannibalizing it. When we copy without understanding, we do a disservice. When we understand and use that understanding to teach ourselves and learn more about art, we improve ourselves and the art that we create. This should be the baseline when taking inspiration from other artists.
I wholly agree with this article. I think that it is difficult to write a completely unique story because every idea we have will have spring boarded off of something else, but that is not a detriment. I think it is a strength of the human experience and we should lean into it. A unique story should not really be about how unheard of the world or concept is, but rather what the author is trying to say, which will always be unique. This is why I am so often frustrated by copyright laws and how long they last for. Recently, Olivia Rodrigo had to defend herself against people claiming that she copied Paramore with her hit Good For You. I find these claims to be silly. I was so happy to hear her album which reminded me so much of Paramore and Avril Lavigne, but I did not feel it was at all copying. Paramore did not invent pop punk. I think people forget how far back “copying” goes.
Post a Comment