I'm a curious, creative, Southern boy working in Anderson, SC. My corner of the internet is brought to life thanks to friendly cowboys at Eleven2 Hosting. If you're new here, you might be interested in the RSS Feed or Archives. You can say hello via .
Here’s the problem with copying: Copying skips understanding. Understanding is how you grow. You have to understand why something works or why something is how it is. When you copy it, you miss that. You just repurpose the last layer instead of understanding all the layers underneath.
— Jason Fried, Why you shouldn’t copy us or anyone else
What if your homebuilder constructed houses based merely on the outward appearance, with no attempts to understand the foundation, infrastructure or load bearing walls? They would have no idea why that one window was off-center, or that specific material was used in the kitchen, or why the porch trim is blue. The exterior may look fine, but the bones are rotten.
Ultimately, copying doesn’t affect the person being ripped nearly as much as the one doing the copying. After all, rarely is the faux as compelling as the original. But when you copy, you do yourself a disservice. You cease to do work. You cease to be inspired. You stop trying.
When you copy, you never learn how to learn.
A friend of mine and I like to refer to copying as “dating your mom”.
It’s kind of lazy and the byproduct is a distorted version of the original.
said neil
at 12:26am on Friday
Actually, I disagree to a certain degree. Artists and writers actually copy very early in their careers in order to bring them to a level where they understand the why and the how and layers underneath. How else do we learn how things work than to copy the greats who have gone before us?
I’ve heard that painters who study in France must paint copies of the great masters before they create their own pieces. Why? To learn the strokes, patterns, and methods so they can go on to create their own masterpieces.
Copying, when used correctly, is on of the greatest educational tools. Especially in our increasingly open-source world.
said Jarrod
at 3:12pm on Friday
Copying isn’t good in any way. I guess there is a good way to take a site apart and try to put back together to see how it works and learn, but don’t publish it on a server. God forbid you sell it to a client. The painters who copy the masters are starting from scratch and these lessons aren’t then being sold or put into galleries. Usually the painter will do his or her lesson and then throw away the canvas or reuse it.
But even clients I have do this. “I want a web 2.0 site that looks like X.” Wow! Thanks for trying to do my job. Why do you want a site that is selling widgets to be the same for your site selling sprockets? Let me do the research and tell you what your site should look like so that it stands out amongst your competitors and says something about your company. Unless your company wants to be a sprocket site that people think you are selling widgets.
said Renaud
at 3:56pm on Friday
How do these concepts work with or against the “…great artists steal” comment from Picasso ? ( http://www.sitepoint.com/article/copy-great-designers-steal/ ).
Moll does mention that one should, “Copy the inspiration, not the outcome.”
said Joshua Blount
at 1:36am on Saturday
Aye, its good advice. Where do you stand with your new project bbbbrands tipping its hat to ffffound, a bit bewildered?
said Wil Freeborn
at 7:20am on Tuesday
Wil,
Great question, and timely/valid. I’d say that this walks the fine line between inspiration (obviously derivative inspiration) and copying, but I’m also admitting it’s a semantic argument in this case.
I know exactly why the bbbbrands name was chosen (an easy to remember/procure domain name) so I’m understanding all of the layers involved in arriving at the final outcome, not just the last layer. But again, it’s a fine line. I was brought on post name creation, so like a typical client interaction, you go with the flow.
said Joshua
thanks for such a well balanced answer.
said Wil Freeborn
at 12:20am on Wednesday