Artists need copyright law because it gives their creative work a basic layer of protection, dignity, and sustainability.
First, it recognizes authorship. Copyright law legally links a work to its creator. This matters because art is not just an object, it is an extension of thought, experience, and time. Without that recognition, anyone could claim or reuse the work as if it had no origin.
Second, it prevents unauthorized copying and exploitation. Copyright gives artists control over how their work is reproduced, sold, modified, or distributed. Without it, others could profit from an artist’s labor while the artist receives nothing in return.
Third, it allows artists to earn a living. Many artists rely on licensing, commissions, prints, publishing, or royalties. Copyright makes these systems possible by defining who has the right to monetize a work and under what terms.
Fourth, it protects creative integrity. Artists can object to distortions, misuse, or contexts that misrepresent their work or intent. This is especially important when art carries personal, cultural, or political meaning.
Fifth, it encourages continued creation. When artists know their work will not be freely taken or erased, they are more likely to keep creating and sharing. A system with no protection often favors those with money and platforms, not creators.
At a global level, frameworks like the Berne Convention ensure that artists’ rights are respected across borders, while tools such as Creative Commons allow artists to intentionally share their work on their own terms.
In short, copyright law is not about limiting creativity. It exists to make sure creativity can survive without being taken advantage of.
“Big fish eat little fish” is an classical proverb that indicates the predatory nature of humans and the vicious cycle of exploitation that exists in the business world; where rich and powerful people or organisations will exploit, swallow up or destroy those who are weaker, poorer and less powerful, and in turn those who are exploited, accordingly, follow the example of those who exploit them.
Steve Jobs had a famously strong stance against copycats, especially when it came to Apple’s products. Here’s how he dealt with them, both publicly and behind the scenes:
1. Public Condemnation
Steve Jobs didn’t hold back when criticizing companies he felt copied Apple.
Android: He was particularly angry with Google. In a 2011 biography by Walter Isaacson, Jobs is quoted saying: “I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”
Samsung: Jobs and Apple executives were very vocal about Samsung copying the iPhone and iPad designs. This led to high-profile lawsuits.
2. Legal Action
Apple, under Jobs, aggressively used intellectual property (IP) laws to protect its designs and innovations.
Lawsuits: Apple sued Samsung, HTC, and other manufacturers for patent infringement. The case against Samsung became one of the biggest tech lawsuits of the 2010s and led to years of courtroom battles.
Design and Utility Patents: Apple patented everything from the iPhone’s rounded corners to multitouch gestures. Jobs believed deeply in the value of protecting design as much as function.
3. Doubling Down on Innovation
Rather than just reacting, Jobs pushed Apple to stay ahead:
He believed design, integration, and user experience could not be easily copied.
Apple consistently released refined and breakthrough products, making competitors look outdated.
4. Controlling the Ecosystem
Jobs understood that software and hardware integration was a competitive advantage.
Apple kept iOS closed and tightly integrated with its devices.
This “walled garden” approach made it harder for competitors to replicate the full experience.
5. Internal Philosophy
Jobs believed in being first and best, not just different. He once said:
“Good artists copy; great artists steal,” quoting Picasso — but he meant it more as “absorb and innovate,” not imitate.
Summary
Steve Jobs responded to copycats through:
Public shaming
Aggressive litigation
Relentless innovation
Strategic control of Apple’s ecosystem
He was fiercely protective of Apple’s originality, and made it clear that copying Apple wasn’t just unfair — it was a personal offense.
When Bankei held his seclusion-weeks of meditation, pupils from many parts of Japan came to attend. During one of these gatherings a pupil was caught stealing. The matter was reported to Bankei with the request that the culprit be expelled. Bankei ignored the case.
Later the pupil was caught in a similar act, and again Bankei disregarded the matter. This angered the other pupils, who drew up a petition asking for the dismissal of the thief, stating that otherwise they would leave in a body.
When Bankei had read the petition he called everyone before him. “You are wise brothers,” he told them. “You know what is right and what is not right. You may go somewhere else to study if you wish, but this poor brother does not even know right from wrong. Who will teach him if I do not? I am going to keep him here even if all the rest of you leave.”
A torrent of tears cleansed the face of the brother who had stolen. All desire to steal had vanished.
