Even if the act of imitation/derivation is clearly evident, what is fair for an individual may not be fair to society as a whole. It’s probably not fair to Beethoven that Schubert and Dvo?ák “stole” so much from him, but where would music be without them? And for that matter, where would Beethoven be without the stuff he copied from Mozart? In other arts like film and literature this is even more evident, and I think the same applies to visual arts and design as well. Society benefits when creative new ideas spread with few obstacles.

To be fair, if you’re the first to come up with a design (or a melody, etc.), you should be allowed to capitalize on it without infringement. If you took a great photo of Obama for Reuters and made some money off it, you have already capitalized on it. And then if some designer made your photo into a poster and made some money off it (or not, in this case), what’s wrong with that? Would you have made a poster, and if so, what were you waiting for?

That image has now become a cultural icon, which is an asset to society, as it stands in for a time, a place and a spirit and helps us define who we were then and who we are now. I prefer to see the process of creating such cultural assets as a spontaneous uncoordinated workflow, rather than an unethical act of “theft”. The copyright framework doesn’t fit well with such a model of the process, whereas frameworks such as Creative Commons are probably a better way to acknowledge originality while allowing for further development and improvement of ideas, visuals and other cultural assets. Fair to the artist and to society.