Several months ago, STEP was the focus of an article written by William Drenttel on Design Observer. His article, “Bird in Hand: When does a copy become plagiarism?” sparked a long—sometimes heated—discussion on the site about copying and plagiarism. Drenttel wrote about the similarities between our January/February 2005 cover photograph (shown below) by Marcie Jan Bronstein to images by Victor Schrager: “… I have lived with the work of Victor Schrager for years and I am saddened by the fact that a leading design magazine would publish photographs that seem suspiciously similar. ... Shouldn’t a magazine about creativity respect creative ideas? Moreover, in a world where creative ideas are published and processed into our culture as quickly as bread rises, shouldn’t magazine editors, not lawyers, share in the responsibility for protecting original creative work by not publishing what looks like a copy of another’s well known work?”

Bronstein and I both took issue with Drenttel’s comments, but it nevertheless provoked a lively discussion on the site, prompting more than 70 posts. I’m glad Drenttel opened the discussion, but using our cover image as the example upon which to base his argument may have backfired on him. First of all, I am very aware of Victor Schrager’s work. I own a copy of The Bird Hand Book, featuring Schrager’s captivating images of—you guessed it—birds in hands. However, when it was time to choose the cover image for STEP, art director Mike Ulrich and I selected Bronstein’s image because we felt it beautifully and instantly conveyed the theme of the issue—The Field Guide to Design’s Best of Breed. We weren’t seeking out a “Schrager-like photo.” Fact is, “bird in hand” is such a common theme that no one artist can claim exclusivity. A Google search of “bird in hand images” yielded over 9 million results.

As for Bronstein, she aptly defended herself on the site, saying, “The fact that one artist (Mr. Schrager) is very well known, and the other (me) less so, does not a priori demonstrate a lack of ethic on my part. ... the two photographs are not similar in any way other than their subject matter. They share no compositional similarities, nor do they share the same color palette. … Mr. Schrager’s photograph is taken from a bird’s-eye view, while my photograph was shot at eye level. The photograph on the cover of STEP has the following history: It was taken in April 1998. My husband had found the sparrow after it had flown into our kitchen window. I took the photograph in an impromptu manner, the manner in which I take most of my photographs. I then printed my image on silver gelatin paper, split toned it, and hand painted it with watercolors. … my image, chosen by STEP, has been severely cropped and inverted. Nonetheless, I am pleased that they chose to use it.”

I invited Gunnar Swanson, one of the more vocal and intelligent bloggers involved in the online discussion, to write an article on the topic of copying and plagiarism. He reluctantly agreed, and after some investigating, he admitted, “The more I get into [this topic] the more interesting questions I find myself bumping into.” Swanson’s article on page 56 analyzes the language surrounding copying in graphic design and points out how often the language is misused. It’s a great primer for those who are confused by the legal jargon (myself included).

Certainly, we can’t debate this issue’s cover, designed by Paul Sahre and photographed by Michael Northrup. You can read all about Paul’s agonizing cover assignment on page 42. I’ll admit I wasn’t an ideal client. I basically said, “There’s no theme for this issue. Here’s the editorial line up, come up with a concept.” Given those parameters (or non-parameters), Paul ultimately delivered a great image. Thanks, Paul.

By the way, William Drenttel and I have no ill feelings toward each other. His article started a great debate and I was happy to be a part of it. We all need our feathers ruffled once in a while.