Reading the materials for our ethics unit made me rethink how I treat other people’s work. The Dr. Seuss v. ComicMix case showed how quickly a project can cross the line from inspiration into infringement. Even when the work seems playful or transformative, the courts can still rule against the artist. Seeing how much detail the lawsuit focused on—composition, lettering style, and visual “feel”—made me more aware of how small choices can become ethical problems. It reminded me that illustration and design are never separate from intellectual property law.
The Scientific American article on digital manipulation also stayed with me. It explained how easily images can be altered and how difficult it is to tell what is real. That raised questions about trust and responsibility. If my work can influence how people understand an event or a person, then I need to be honest about how I construct an image. Even in my own projects, I’ve taken liberties with reference photos in the past without thinking about how those changes affect meaning. The article made me more cautious about the choices I make when I work digitally.
These readings pushed me to look at my own habits. When I was younger, I sometimes used images from online searches without credit. At the time, I saw them as harmless placeholders. After learning more about authorship and ownership, I see how that approach disrespects the original creator. The Fairey “Hope” poster case reinforced that point. Fairey treated a news photo as raw material, but the court saw it as infringement. It forced me to face the fact that intent is not the same as permission. I now understand why clear credit, proper sourcing, and original work matter in a professional setting.



