![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fff7dde41-65f5-49e0-b1dc-efc08d093209_750x1000.jpeg)
When we created the thing Magazine around half a year ago, our motivation was to set up an infrastructure for critical journalism on creative topics, which often lack a critical view. At the same time, we needed to find and create formats that we, as editors, were able to handle, meaning that we could regularly fill them with content that met our self-proclaimed marks of quality.
Around that time, I connected with someone on Instagram who was on a similar journey. She was building a community focused on design and craftsmanship, mainly by creating a list of studios and freelancers in that field. Her main channel was Instagram as well. Both of us were at the very beginning of our journeys. the thing Magazine had around 2,000 to 3,000 followers at that time, and her account had even fewer. We had an open chat about how much we appreciated each other’s efforts to broaden the visibility of designers and creatives.
Some weeks later, I started creating a specific kind of Instagram Reels. By carefully analyzing which elements and storytelling moments perform well on social media, I created the thing Magazine Studio Visits. It took some time, trials, and ideas to come up with a format that, on the one hand, expressed us as a brand and, on the other hand, generated reach. Developing these videos was a lot of work, and they are a big part of our success.
Now, why am I telling you this story? Well, just a few days ago, my Instagram algorithm led me to stumble upon a video that looked surprisingly similar to the ones we had created. The studios were a bit more craft-oriented and the style was a little less contemporary (at least if you ask me), but from the opening scene to the subtitles to the voice-over interview, they were an exact copy of our videos – and they were performing well. Now, guess whose account posted the video?
But instead of being mad about someone “stealing” our format, I am using this incident to write this newsletter on a topic that has been circling around in my head for quite a while and is a big one in the creative industries: the art of copying.
Copyright is a human right
If you ask someone working in the creative industries about the morality of copying, the chances are high that they don’t think of copying as something good. But actually, life itself depends on copying (I mean, we even have a digital shortcut for it!). Our reproduction as living beings partly relies on copying genes (from our biological parents) and the behavior and cultural practices of the society we are growing up in. Still, we are never the exact copy of someone else; we are versions of one another. Following evolutionary theory, we are even better versions of our predecessors. “Better” in this case means more optimized for the conditions of life at the time we are living in. So copying could be defined as a mechanism helping us as a society to thrive and develop. If something works in favor of a lot of people (and especially for more than before), why not adopt it?
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F1d131d97-36fd-46a8-89f0-70e66c1910b1_1300x730.png)
I own everything
I think the phenomenon of humans believing they could own things – and even ideas – is closely related to our fear of getting copied. The things we own act as manifestations and supporters of our subjectivity in a dynamic – and let’s face it – super random world. How couldn’t we yearn for anything tangible and try to keep it as close as we can? On top of that, we use the mechanism of owning things and ideas as a measurement of a successful life in a capitalist world. This means our reasoning of why we are in this world is directly linked to our belongings. Take one of these things away or copy them (and by this proof that you never really owned them fully), and your entire world starts shaking.
Creative Copying
In the creative fields, the act of copying is a special case. But let’s have a look at other fields first: if, for example, you invent a specific medical or technical solution, chances are high that your idea a) is so complex that it can be copied by only a few experts, b) will never be entirely visible to the public, and c) is so specific that it’s easy to say: this was my idea.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ffafe49d5-24ae-4ea7-8f3b-564dcfad2fbe_3526x2114.jpeg)
Creative goods usually lack these kinds of very specific criteria. Sure, some manufacturing methods are so distinct and complex that they aren’t easy to copy, but usually, there are different manufacturing methods that are at least good enough to produce a copy of, for example, a chair or vase that looks visually alike. The alternative manufacturing technology and resulting quality might even enable you to sell the copied goods at a better price point.
Protecting design from being copied is very complicated due to its reduction to its visual appearance. Sure, many companies can create chairs that look almost identical to already existing ones. However, it’s a totally different matter to create a product that meets the same quality standards in terms of texture, smell, durability, and finesse, or in short, the entire aesthetic experience. Should we consider an aesthetic copyright?
Who owns the right to not getting copied?
In a capitalist society, getting copied can feel very threatening, especially for young creatives who depend on selling their ideas. The fashion industry, in particular, is caught in this never-ending cycle of production and accusations of plagiarism. For example, consider the story of Balenciaga copying the works of the Berlin art student Tra My Nguyen or Inditex’s Zara and Bershka copying illustrations of various creatives.
But the big fear of being copied is not limited to a specific field of design. Just recently, we met a person telling us that a famous Swiss design school cultivated an internal atmosphere of dread, fueled by the fear of being copied by fellow students and even professors. Allegedly, people are sitting at their desks, covering them with their arms to avoid insights. And I get it. In a capitalist and competitive world, being copied can be very harmful. Not only to your ego and perspective on the world but also to your bank account. And this is where copying really gets interesting.
Since copying is an existential part of humanity, we could just say: Let everyone copy whatever they want! But it’s the same with, let’s say, violence. We as humans are distancing ourselves from practices that used to be natural to us in order to cultivate them. That is why laws were created. They are meant to be a neutral base for judging falsehood and truth, good and bad. But like any human-created system, it has its weaknesses. In the case of copying, it is usually very costly to protect ideas that you think are yours (first gate). Then it is even more expensive to fight for your right once this protection is breached (second gate). In a capitalist world, this leads to this dilemma where big players can afford to protect and even claim ideas as products of their own creativity, when in fact, there’s just no one big enough to compete or question this claim. The whole idea of owning things and ideas is based on a foundation that is structurally rotten.
Inspired by
Today, a common “creative practice” is to scroll through the internet and social media to find some inspiration for a project. This is not a bad thing. As we’ve already learned, copying means growing and can be an act of collective learning. If we didn’t search the internet for inspo, we would search our head, our memories, our ideas, our library. All of these containers of potential inspiration are referenced to something we already know and learned from others. No matter which subject (science, design or humanities), good ideas always rely on the work of others (which is another argument for why linking the protection of ideas to money is a bit absurd). Perhaps the sometimes vague term of appropriation might even help to navigate this messiness. One of the definitions I heard of appropriation which made the most sense to me so far was, that it turns bad as soon as a person starts earning money with an idea/cultural practice that didn’t originally belong to them.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F1f56b0bd-1fd2-4994-9f68-06bed09c1876_1400x1000.jpeg)
Command+Ciao
To conclude: Copying is really not an easy topic. On one hand, it’s a very common and even natural thing. On the other hand, since owning something became the modus operandi of many global societies, copying became a threat that needed to be regulated legally. Both of these versions exist alongside each other. However, some points seem worth mentioning:
Copyright is a right for and of the privileged: Protecting and filing for your right to own an idea is always related to a certain level of power and wealth.
Owning a copyright doesn’t make you the sole originator of an idea. Even if you are one of the privileged people who can afford to pay for the legal protection of ideas, be aware that every idea is linked to humanity itself and to collective knowledge. You might legally own it, but this doesn’t detach the idea from its cultural context.
Today, copyright is more of an instrument for controlling markets than for protecting good and innovative ideas.
Being copied is not the end. Copying is a practice that can only replicate aspects, never an entire experience. Or, as they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. So, thank you to the person who copied my Instagram reel format; I really appreciate it.
Okay, bye,
Anton
PS: We’ve asked you for any critical Milan coverage in our latest newsletter. You have sent us this piece by Max Fraser for Dezeen, which we highly recommend reading!
Really appreciate this perspective, especially the conclusion. I’ve been collecting perspectives/dialogues on copying for years now (https://www.are.na/mallo-cup/design-authenticity-copying-knock-offs-replicas-reproductions-re-issues-bootlegs-counterfeits-dupes) and this is definitely my new favorite high-level thought piece. Will be sharing far & wide :)