I love my knock-off Dolce&Banana but our dated copyright laws don’t protect creatives

FROM the Poundland To b l e r o n e k n o c k- o f f to “Eminem Esque”, copyright breaches are in a creative class all of their own. My dream man wears Kelvin Cleins. My dream house is a mock Tudor mansion with an artificial lawn. My favourite song is Cardi B’s Bodak Yellow (inspired by Kodak Black), and all I want for Christmas is one of those Twin Peaks chocolate bars that will soon be available at Poundland, now they’ve reached a deal with Toblerone owners Mondelez. Presumably, the David Lynch suit is pending.

This is the strange appeal of the shameless knock-off. Even as we applaud the justice of Eminem winning his copyright infringement case against New Zealand’s National Party, we can’t help but admire the chutzpah. Not of the National Party, but of whoever sold them a “Lose Yourself ” rip-off titled “Eminem Esque” for use in its election ad. Yes, that’s the actual name of the track. And these jokers still tried to defend a court action.

Sometimes there’s more than sheer cheek to admire. We have a long history of derivative art that’s as good as, or better than, its source. The hip-hop tradition is the most oft-cited example, but the practice goes back way further than Sugarhill Gang sampling Chic’s Good Times. Shakespeare himself was a notorious bootlegger and borrower. Several of his plays bear the traces of early, inferior plays whose authors’ names are either less well known or entirely lost to history.

The most delightful aspect of the contemporary knock-off, however, is that it offers the rare chance to get one over on consumerism. Like a fourth law of motion, this evil force compels us to buy all sorts of tat. Nine times out of 10 we submit and console ourselves with the delusion that discerning between branded goods and the cheap stuff is an achievement, or that the purchase is a creative act. It can never be, no matter how expensive your tastes. Then there’s that one other time, when slipping on a pair of half-price Jimmy Shoos gives us the confidence to strut away from the tills.

Still, the knock-off is a kind of theft, and one that results in lost livelihoods for creative, honest people. Our problem is how to tally up the damage fairly. Thomas Alva Edison had a suggestion. And he’s the American inventor who gave us the emoji — 120 years before the smartphone — so he should know. “Genius,” said Edison, “is one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration.” Shouldn’t we therefore credit and compensate both aspects of creation?

But what if, in the age of information sharing, that ratio isn’t as fixed as Edison thought? We’re in need of a new copyright system — one that incorporates ideas from the free-culture movement, open-source software and remix culture. They’re working on it, and the goal is getting clearer; a future where public good, not private interest determines law. Perhaps then I can wear my Dolce&Banana with pride.

Knock-off is a kind of theft, but shouldn’t we credit and compensate both aspects of creation?