As designers we stand on the shoulders people who have been creating messages for hundreds of years. We borrow, we reference, we are influenced, and we outright copy. I honestly think that true originality is hard, if not impossible, to come by.

That said, it seems to me that this technique of copying, repeating or referencing visual culture from the past (recent or distant) is an important technique. We live in an increasingly visual culture, and the repetition of visual elements build our sense of community and identity. In the short term they build familiarity; in the long term, nostalgia.

However, as designers, it is our responsibility to fully understand the visual references we are making. We play a key role in contributing to our culture. We should contribute clarity, not confusion and mixed messages to the world that has to look at everything we make.

Dan said that well.

Felix...I liked your Olympic ideas, but note that you would have had a much tougher time clearning those with the Olympic committee that Milton ;o)

> parodying? Or is it stealing?

Well, parody is legal. Defining parody, like any copyright issue, is, of course, much more of a muddy-grey area best resolved through highly paid intellectual property rights lawyers.

I try not to worry about it too much. I certainly try to avoid any direct 'lifting' of others' implementations, but to each their own.

I agree with your post, but disagree that "originality is hard/ impossible to come by".

copying is not a technique- its a decision.

you can decide to copy something, or you can referrence something to illuminate an original idea. in this particular case, Craig's work was scanned and piggybacked with mixed metaphors- and without clear permission.

it deserves mention that the person copying the work declined to insert her name as co- author.

I honestly think that true originality is hard, if not impossible, to come by.

I know this sounds really harsh to designers, because we try really hard to come up with original concepts, ideas, and fresh ways of looking at the same old problem.

What I mean when I say this is that we basically reuse the same elements when we design (typefaces, words, images, etc.) over and over. Viewers know what to do with it because it fits into the very broad category of "visual information." If something was truly original, I don't think people would recognize it or know what to do with it.

To the original question of protocol, I think Felix and Posterbomber both did the right thing by contacting the originator of the designs. It's unfortunate that Posterbomber's work has caused inconvenience/hassle for Craig, but at least she stepped up and admitted to it.

pnk,

youve misread the story- she failed to admit to anything. therein lies the debocle.

as to dan's "If something was truly original, I don't think people would recognize it or know what to do with it." well, youre on your own.

the golden rule (as i know it) is give your audience some credit. surely they understand and/or appreciate original works.

One of the main issues in this "parody" is that there is little to no originality. The shopping bag and the font are taken verbatim with an added bomb. That is not parodying. The other two samples that Felix showed are parodies especially the one with the tank bursting through the shopping bag. You look at it and you know where it came from and you appreciate the cleverness. If you are not adding anything valuable to the original piece don't even bother, because nobody will remember it and you will just create confusion as to what the original idea was.

Another point that Felix made was "If it was good design would it be proper? Or, if admittedly bad should the designer then be forced to own up?" I think this is a good point, everybody can obviously do what they wish with their career and aesthetics, but if you are a crappy designer (of which there are many) stay away from parodies and leave good designers' work alone. Snobby as hell. I know.

>what (if there exists) is the proper protocol for parodying?

I'm not sure if this is covered in the AIGA ethics and guidelines thingie, but there is common decency and ethics. I think it would be a lack of respect to do it without the original authors permission. Most of them would probably be cool with it and even flattered.

>I honestly think that true originality is hard, if not impossible, to come by.

>>we basically reuse the same elements when we design (typefaces, words, images, etc.) over and over.

That's our challenge and I think there are a lot of people who are original using the same resources that everybody else has, that's what separates the good designers from the bad ones. How do you take this 'everyday items' and create something original, unique and surprising? That's what we do, and I for one, always strive to be original, even with clients' limitations (or possibilities) but it's important to understand that you are not expected to reinvent the wheel, because the wheel is already there. Shit... I forgot what my point was, anyway... copying somebody's work and using "oh, it's a parody" as an excuse will definitely not make your work original.

In many cases, the intent of a parody is to completely change the original message or intent. Think Saturday Night Live skits. Or Adbusters. Or Weird Al. Or those skateboard companies remaking corporate logos into their own. It seemed like Craig Frazier was trying to make this point when he protested that the message of the "parody" wasn't clearly differentiating itself from the original.

I think that if you are going to reference another designer's work, like Felix's Glaser take-off, getting their blessing is great. Remember what trouble Paula Scher got into with her Herbert Matter-esque Swatch poster.

I don't think that someone doing a parody needs to ask permission if the point is to present a message that is in opposition to the original. The shock value of a parody is often its outright rejection of the original. The instances where this seems most likely to happen are in political or social protest situations. However, it can also be to simply make fun of something that you don't like.

I don't understand this issue of asking permission. When I was working on college textbooks, we had to have written permission (which we paid money for) to reprint copyrighted material. This is not anything like the issue of parody. A copyright holder has the right (I am assuming Frazier holds the copyright to his poster and perhaps even the line "America: Open for Business", though he certainly does not hold copyrights on the the ideas of a flag, a bag, and the use of Gill Sans)--anyway, the copyright holder has the right to control how his/her work is used. Meaning his/her actual work itself, not the general components. This is not the same kind of usage as parody, satire, homage, or even plain old copying, whichever word you use for what Posterbomber did (it was copying in my book, so be it).

Now, what if Posterbomber had asked permission to parody/imitate/whatever Frazier's poster and Frazier had said no? This would seem like an unjustified limit on Postebomber's freedom of expression. In other words, who is X to say that Y cannot parody or imitate X's work? Y cannot reproduce exactly X's work--and I mean exactly--but there it ends.

Finally, that Craig Frazier is a brilliant and well-respected illustrator and designer does not and should not in any way curtail Posterbomber's--or your, or my--freedom to parody/borrow/pay homage to/imitate/etc. Would it make any difference if Posterbomber turned out to be James Victore, or Suzie down at Kinko's, or me? It would not. And Felix, while I very much respect that you went to Milton Glaser with your ideas based on his logo, how would you feel if he said you couldn't go forward and you lost money on his whim?

Shit, Sam, your comments make more sense than mine. Can I undo one of my comments? Better yet, I think I'll just ban you from Speak Up.

Don't speak too soon, Armin--I was about to praise the advent of drop shadows in the Technology vs. Trends thread. Thought better of it, though...for now.

> copying is not a technique- its a decision.

well said!

I find it interesting as well that this was a "clientless" project that she apparently feels strongly about and she chose to copy instead of create something with clear meaning.

> if you are a crappy designer� leave good designers' work alone.

> original using the same resources that everybody else has, that's what separates the good designers from the bad ones.

> I found this rational for borrowing (or parodying as she states) misinformed, even contemptuous.

These statements can apply to many people I have met who call themselves designers. Good designers are those who don't rely on shortcuts.

The way to learn through others good work is to reason, study and try to understand why that work is good, so you can take that understanding into your work - not steal or copy ideas.

> And Felix, while I very much respect that you went to Milton Glaser with your ideas based on his logo, how would you feel if he said you couldn't go forward and you lost money on his whim?

I don't think it would matter how he felt, since that is the law. And why should anyone make money on someone else's work without permission?

sam,

without saying it, he (Milton) did say it (not to use it)- which is why I retreated. No money was lost. Money wasnt the issue (I assume it had to do with ethics/ spec work, etc). With Craig's post, I wasnt implying we halt the right to parody, yet as you said- this case is about copying not parody. In the end, If you ask for permission - and dont get it, you should be held accountable, right?

note to Dirty Posterbombers : we'll smoke you out here on Speak Up! ... Hyaaah! Bang.

> I don't think it would matter how he felt, since that is the law.

I see its neccessary to state that the "I heart NY" logo has no copyright. No one owns it- which is why it is the most mocked and parodied logo in the history of graphic design.

In terms of actual design, it could also be the most overrated, but thats another can o worms. big ups to Glaser, yo.

I didn't know that "I heart NY" wasn't copyrighted--interesting. I think you did the ethical thing, Felix, though legally you would be within your rights (certainly if it's not copyrighted) to use any of your examples. But word gets around and reputation is currency, after all.

>>And why should anyone make money on someone else's work without permission?

Certainly you don't need permission to use uncopyrighted material. But even in the cases of copyrighted material, again, I don't think permission is needed in the case of parody, imitation, or copying. I see a distinction between reproduction (where the work is unchanged, as in the case of reprinting an essay or reprinting a logo as is) and copying (which is taking the idea and/or elements of a work and making something with different words/elements/fonts/colors/etc.). There is a significant difference there, as I see it.

In my limited legal sense, copying and parody are equivalent--that is, not bound by the same restriction of copyright as reproduction. I think. Straight reproduction is different. This is why books say that reproduction by various means is prohibited, but they can't say that parody or copying (or even plagiarism, interestingly) are prohibited. Just reproduction.

I meant even though PBer copied, it's still okay to do without permission. Legally. But I ain't no lawyer (legal disclaimer). I'm in favor of more freedom of expression, in the hopes (naive maybe) that the best work will rise like delicious cream to the top and crappy work will sink like the stinky turd it is.

Felix, this is what I meant when i said she admitted it:

I am writing to you out of respect to let you know that I have done this, so that if you happen to see it around, you will know who did it, and the spirit in which it was intended.

I think this is appropriately respectful. I am not defending her design or backing up her other, clearly flimsy, justifications. She didn't have to do this at all, but she did and I think that is worth something.

> it could also be the most overrated

I thought the "Armin has a posse" was the most overrated?

> the "I heart NY" logo has no copyright

point taken, but where work has copyright protection, is there, as Sam stated "freedom to parody/borrow/pay homage to/imitate/etc." without permission? That really is a question, I don't suggest to know the answers.

The apparent flip-flop of political support was what made this new poster intriguing. It was so similar that I assumed it had come from Craig's hand. The lack of credit was suspicious though, especially since all the other posters were credited appropriately.

Given the initial confusion over whether Craig Frazier created or authorized this, it's deceptive design. If Posterbomber (now there's a way to gain legitimacy) had included a credit outright instead of hiding a throwaway cya on the PDF, I'd have less of an issue with it.

You can use someone else's artwork to make a counter-statement, but you have to be clear that it's YOUR statement, not theirs.

It seems as if we are debating intellectual property right laws. Which is fine. But note that I don't think any of us have a law degree.

> I don't think any of us have a law degree.

That's all right, some of us don't have design degrees!

Youre exactly right Jeff.

90% of the poster was scanned from Craig's original, so you'd have to assume its his!

/* waves hands */

Will design authentic-looking J.D. diploma CHEAP!

So realistic your mom can show the neighbors!

Printed on computer, so you know it's one-hunnert percent gen-u-ine!

Just send $50, your name, and law school of choice to the address below.

>I thought the "Armin has a posse" was the most overrated?

It is being replaced by an actual posse now (sorry guys, insider joke.)

>Would it make any difference if Posterbomber turned out to be James Victore, or Suzie down at Kinko's, or me? It would not.

I meant to answer this before but I forgot. In theory it shouldn't matter. But c'mon, if James Victore makes a parody it is sure to be good, if Suzie does one it is bound to suck. So in practice yes, it would make a difference. To extend on this thought, let's say (theoritically) Victore decides to do a parody of a poster I did, he calls me up or he doesn't - doesn't really matter - and goes ahead and does it, I would be flattered because it is somebody I respect, if Suzie Q calls me up and says she wants to do a parody to promote their copier machine I would definitley say no. Why? 'cause like Sam said word gets around and reputation is currency, after all. Good or bad.

Wow, take a day off from reading the site and massive threads explode around you... Many good points have been raised here about the validity of parody as a conceptual direction. (I agree it is a decision to parody, the technique involved is merely the application of such.)

Frazier states that it is a bit dangerous to trade on the awareness of a previous image, simply because we are never sure exactly what the image means to people. Paula Scher, of the Herbert Matter parody, has written that parody works because one is supposed to remember the original and get the joke. Obviously, some of you remembered the original. I never saw it, rendering her parody rather toothless to me. Also, I just didn't fully get the intended message. (Craig's critique said it all, so I won't go further into it.)

Aside from whether she was right to parody the poster, how many of you actually got that it was a parody and not an original concept? Did you learn that it was a parody only after downloading it? Does a "with apologies to ARTIST NAME" line make the intentions clear and, therefore, valid, even if the original is not recalled?

I don't know why but I'm really worked up about this. I have a burning need to defend Suzie Photoshop's right to do anything James Victore can do. It's not a question of quality, or even reputation. James Victore rips off Paul Rand and Mad Magazine (practically by his own admission)--you don't get to be James Victore by sheepishly groveling for permission to do what you want. Down with the design aristocracy!!!

However, Armin, it's true what you say about flattery. Who is immune? No one. It may be more flattering to have a famous designer copy you than a design hack, but that's just ego. And being copied by a hack wouldn't tarnish one's reputation--take Milton's NYC logo as an obvious example. Imitation as a form of flattery, etc etc. Okay, I'm chillin now.

>you don't get to be James Victore by sheepishly groveling for permission to do what you want.

I now agree on you about the permission thing. What I would say not to avoid is contacting the original creator. Out of respect. Then if he/she says 'no' whatever you do is your own responsibility and decision.

>Down with the design aristocracy!!!

C'mon now... if the design aristocracy goes down photoshop layering and PowerPoint clipart would be the highest standards for the design profession.

>take Milton's NYC logo as an obvious example. Imitation as a form of flattery, etc etc.

That's just quantity over quality.

>Okay, I'm chillin now.

By Jickity you better.

>you don't get to be James Victore by sheepishly groveling for permission to do what you want.

true, but then again, who wants to be sued by an intellectual property laywer. not me.

if you read Craig's letter, you understand he was very careful to acknowledge her "rights" and appreciates her resolve, even thought he didnt agree with her statement.

the reason you dont see "aristocracy" (Milton and Frazier) copying Suzie's designs is simple: they have original ideas, and can defend them. Suzie PosterBomber is well aware we are debating her plight here on Speak Up yet she wisely decidely to Shut Up.

Interesting debate. I trademarked my poster so that some big enterprize didn't decide to make it their clever corporate campaign. It was never a commercial endeavor for me. It was a response to a horrific time. If it had been commercial, my letter to the posterbomber would have been quite different. Scanning an image and reusing it is wrong and unacceptable by any legal and professional code of ethics, pure and simple. Unfortunately, she did not take my advice and build a better poster. The loss here is to her cause. No one understands what she is trying to say. Designing for public service, especially self-initiated, requires us all to dig down deep and get to the heart of the matter. Failure to do so results in mediocre communication and fails to serve the cause. The only debate over a good poster should be about the message.

I am a fairly new reader here, has this site every posted commentary around the "creative commons" movement? If so, where?

I think this is a great example of why i am not yet to keen on the creative commons idea.

I think every one believes it is cool when people take your work and build something cool from it, but one of the worst feelings in the world is to have your work used in an undesireable way.

I give open usage of my work to those building cool shit, for those who suck, don't touch my work!

indeed a sticky wicket.

>has this site every posted commentary around the "creative commons" movement?

I don't think we have. And honestly, I had never heard of such a thing. I don't like the sound of it though...creative... commons... hmmmmm

>creative commons

This sounds like elimination of copyrights for artists' and designers' work, which is a very bad idea. I guess it's one thing if I design a logo, then someone else designs some great ads around it, but under this notion, I could take someone's illustration and change the color and use it for my logo. Woah... Talk about chaos.

Let's discourage this, please.

a starting point

interesting.

a pipe dream-

but interesting.

>>creative commons

And they sure missed a golden opportunity to make their logo look more like a � symbol.

Sorry, I should have linked the creative commons site in my comment.

An interesting idea that is not fully baked yet. More importantly, I support the debate it has spawned. copyright laws were made with no thought of digital work and the internet. It is a much different world and it needs to be adressed.

Creative Commons is going in the right direction, but obviously the masses have little understanding of current copyright laws and I doubt many will take the time to fully understand the details of creative commons.

i doubt anyone, let alone the "masses", will truly, TRULY understand the genius that is the creative commons.

i do however understand they can score some really kind bud.

> Designing for public service, especially self-initiated, requires us all to dig down deep and get to the heart of the matter. Failure to do so results in mediocre communication and fails to serve the cause. The only debate over a good poster should be about the message.

Wow! This sums up the whole conversation and implements a guideline for effective, original work.

The easy and often taken decision to copy has lead to an accepted environment of medicore or less than mediorce communication to the detriment of our industry. This is probobaly part of the proliferation of clients supposing(with latest software in tow) they can design all they need themselves cause they can just "copy" ideas they have seen somewhere else and apply to their business needs. Seems we might need a "stealing ideas is wrong" public service campaign.

Just one design fool thinking out loud.

>mediocre communication

If Posterbomber had done a good job, would it better validate what she did?

Oh, I forgot to mention as well that it is not just clients but "designers" supposing(with latest software in tow) they can just "copy" ideas they have seen somewhere else.

> If Posterbomber had done a good job, would it better validate what she did?

The point is that parody of a work has to be in direct contrast to the meaning of the original work inorder to be a parody, not copying. So if a good job is copying his work better, then the answer is no, it still would not validate the execution. If a good job is picking a totally different work that had a definite pro-war, pro-liberation, pro-support the troops message, then perhaps it would have been a successful parody.

I am so down with the creative commons initiative and agree with everything Sam has said so far.

I actually like Posterbomber's poster. There are a lot of issues to address surrounding the war issue: consumption's role in fueling the "military industrial complex", consumption of "propaganda" selling the war, the economic role of military spending, "shopping" as apathy,the role of design itself in influencing public opinion, the tenuous connection of this war to September 11th etc. I think her poster addresses all these issues through a very simple execution. It may not provide a clear, straight forward message, but does raise a lot of critical questions, something I think has been lacking in the mainstream media landscape.

However, if I were Craig, I probably would have been disappointed too and feel that if she had not gotten his 'approval' there might be an ethical problem. Out of curiosity, I saw the original poster reprinted in an issue of Adbusters, obviously displayed in a negative context. Did they get permission to reprint it or did they steal it like they usually do?

My main problem with Posterbomber's poster is that the bomb looks like a dog to me. Like a terrier with some weird thing sticking out of his head. Anyone else see this?

>I'm saddened that people seem to think it's more important to spend time

complaining about copying than it is trying prevent suffering.

I'm saddened that people think we should all be grieving about the war and felling like shit because of the higher power's personal agendas. Screw that! I want to discuss things that are of interest to me. Are we supposed to put on hold all other thoughts and concentrate on preventing suffering? No, thank you. Life goes on. We need distractions, we help ourselves and whatever country it is anybody wants to help, by going about our business.

Sorry for the snappy commentary, but I'm really tired of people saying that we should be thinking about the war and the suffering and not worrying about petty things like design. That is sad.

>If you don't want your art to feed into other

people's work...

I want my "art" to feed into other people's work, what I don't want is my work, pixel by pixel, in somebody else's claim of "work."

>I'm saddened that people think we should all be grieving about the war and felling like shit because of the higher power's personal agendas.

Right on with this Armin. I don't want to get too political, since this is a design forum, but I'll make my one comment. Too many times, we are asked to do things in the name of patriotism, despite what we know may be right or just. Patriotism means loving your country, warts and all, and being free to agree or disagree with what you are being told. Fundamental to our way of life is the right to exercise free speech. It galls me to no end when this right is abused in an effort to curtail others' use of this right.

So perhaps everyone's points have been made now regarding the parody issue, but simply because we are at war, doesn't mean we should shelve all non-war related discourse. Life goes on, even if CNN doesn't broadcast it.

Something got screwed with the time here. For some reason Hannah's post got stuck at the end. I'll see if I can fix it.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Oh... BTW "Life goes on, even if CNN doesn't broadcast it."... Nice : )

I totally agree with Kevin Lo on this. I couldn't have put it better.

I personally like both posters in their own context. Craig Frazier's poster gave me hope when there was very little. The poster bomber's work brings to light serious issues that no one seems to be addressing, but are nevertheless real. This work makes a good point about using patriotism to sell military action, and it makes it clearly. For that, this person has my support.

You are so worried about people appropriating design, it seems to have blinded you to the point she is making. She clearly isn't doing this for capitalist gains; she's doing it because innocent people are dying right now as a result of this war. The issues of copyright and plagiarism seem petty and in bad taste in the wake of what's going on right now, and I'm saddened that people seem to think it's more important to spend time complaining about copying than it is trying prevent suffering. She hasn't stolen your idea, she has extended it, changing it into something that is powerful and full of meaning. Whether it's an improvement is surely subjective.

An image with a shopping bag with an American flag emblazoned on it is just asking to be parodied. If you don't want your art to feed into other people's work, then don't show your work, and keep in a box under your bed where no one can see it.

Debating the ethical values of 'homage or theft' with regards to something non-profit in the name of an admirable cause is a waste of time. Unity.

I was reading some Argentinian Typography magazine (seriously) and came across this:

You can download, as the author states, the corrected version of Craig's poster from here.

cool. i'll send it his way....

I think if this Person (posterbomber) were doing a parody of Craig's poster it would be one thing to include part of his original image. This person has tried to create an image for another use/idea (unique) and thus is lame/wrong/lazy in using someone else's image to do their dirtywork.