“Take this plagiarism down!”

It was the end of March of 2025 and the shortlist of the Golden Egg contest, Estonia’s biggest creativity competition, was just revealed. As per usual, we took the moment to introduce nominated works and clients on our social media channels for a wider audience. Only this time, the usual, calm appreciative nod was peppered by something more heated. “Take this plagiarism down” was a public comment left under one of our case studies.

Today, when Estonian design landscape is on shaky grounds altogether, it’s natural to keenly observe what the competition is doing. It tends to be perceived that one’s win equates others’ loss. Plagiarism claims after the Golden Egg nominations reveal are not unusual – there’s even a designated contact form on the homepage to tip off possible thefts.

Though intellectual theft is not something to be taken lightly, what raises the topic as tricky, is that originality is relative in the context of copyright and there is no one concrete percentage that you can judge upon. In other words, we don’t have an unambiguous metric to rely on, and the proportion of borrowing is based on the moral sense or ethics of the author or agency.

The project at hand around which the plagiarism controversy arouse was a seasonal identity created for Velvet Eurovision “Untitled ’25”, an internal communication event for our design agency. It was the first event in a series designed to collectively identify the most promising work from the past year and then refine it with a larger team to make it even stronger and more impressive.

The design drew inspiration from Doppler-effect graphic patterns and Velvet’s signature yellow. As mentioned, since this was an internal event, the focus was indeed on the visual effect rather than comprehensive conceptual depth.

The “Eurovision” text, which the commenter cited as part of the alleged plagiarism, is actually a free font called Picnic, created by Velvetyne Type Foundry. The heart in the letter V was hand-drawn by us, following the rest of the font in the style of the Velvet logo. The poster being referenced is the work of Dylan Nowak (2023), whose composition may in turn have drawn inspiration from Diatomic Studio’s graphic posters featured in Print Magazine (2022). Dylan’s gray-yellow poster was part of the Velvet Eurovision moodboard, but we approached the identity as a whole, using a variety of visual expressions. The “Untitled ’25” set features a range of compositional variations across stickers, cover photos, video backgrounds, and other media.

While we used various references in developing the previously mentioned “Untitled ‘25”, in the following example we saw a similar visual after the work was completed.

Due to the shared information space, it is possible to find matches to almost any graphic expression through a quick Google Image, Behance, or Pinterest search. There is nothing unusual in this, as we all work with the same basic elements: square, circle, rectangle, triangle, and other shapes. Even with the greatest effort, it is impossible to invent entirely unprecedented shapes, styles, or new colors. What we can do, however, is work with unique creative narratives and combinations of elements, always taking into account the context in which they are expressed.

For example, when rebranding Balmec, a forestry machinery company, we aimed to modernize their existing logo. Creating an entirely new logo was not sensible, as the B-shaped cutout with these specific parameters is an important and distinctive feature on Balmec’s products, and altering it would have been unnecessary. The Balmec brand is already highly recognizable within its sector, and updating the logo was intended as an evolution of the existing design.

We therefore flattened and simplified the previous logo to a single color, removed the small dots that could appear messy, and paired it with a stronger typeface.

After the project was made public, we received a tip that the logo created for Balmeci is very similar to the one used in the Brooklyn Museum identity. The essence of the referenced museum identity lies in its variable logo, and indeed, one of its variants resembles the shape of the Balmec logo. We, for our part, only saw this for the first time after the Balmec project was published, which means that the similarity is entirely coincidental.

Does this make us worried? Well, no.

One brand is an art museum based in New York, while the other is a manufacturer of harvester parts. Although the Brooklyn Museum now actually uses a completely new identity, such a similarity in a single element is not an obstacle for brands operating in entirely different sectors. After all, how else could the name Snickers belong both to a chocolate brand in the U.S. and a workwear manufacturer in Sweden? Both are well-known and respected.

We believe that anyone who has chosen a career in the creative field values their personal creative contribution.

Since accusations of plagiarism strike at a designer’s personal integrity, there is a conscious effort to avoid them. Truly unprecedented originality is, however, not always possible, as the internet is saturated with examples of graphic design, among which any attentive observer can often find a similar reference with little effort.

Of course, it is important to identify unfair practices in the interests of honest authors, but often the “ghost” is seen where it does not exist. And even if something appears questionable, it can be discussed in an open and professional manner. We do not deny that this is a global issue that could be endlessly analyzed, but here we are primarily talking about our small design and marketing scene and the work created for its clients.

We believe that, especially in challenging times, mutual support within the community and celebrating each other’s successes is far more important than looking for mistakes. For this reason, we encourage designers to share words of encouragement with one another.

---

Comment by Estonian Marketing Association CEO Anniken Haldna:

“It is true that during the Golden Egg competition, the issue of plagiarism inevitably arises, and this is also a complex matter for the organizers.

Accusations of plagiarism are always serious, and it must be considered that, in the worst case, they can lead to defamation or reputational damage, as lawyers have repeatedly emphasized. Notably, just a few years ago, the plagiarism section in the guidelines consisted of only a single sentence; now, it has a more thorough and clearer treatment.

A clear set of rules has been established for handling plagiarism cases in the competition, leaving as little room as possible for anonymous accusations and rumors, ultimately helping to protect the reputation of the entire creative field and ensure fairer competition conditions.

How does Kuldmuna handle it today?

From the guidelines:
Plagiarized works will be disqualified. After the shortlist is published, a plagiarism suspicion report can be submitted. To do this, a formal report must be completed and sent to us. Plagiarism suspicions cannot be submitted anonymously. The competition organizers have the right to involve an external expert to provide an assessment. This is recommended if, for example, the jury feels additional support is needed. The jury chair will respond as soon as possible regarding the decision of the jury and/or expert.

It is also important to consider how plagiarism is assessed and what criteria are taken into account when identifying it. In cases of plagiarism, the guidelines clearly specify two conditions: first, the work must show little or no originality (either at the idea or execution level). Second, intentional conduct must be proven; here, mere awareness of the existence of a similar creative work is sufficient.

In practice, this means that since one of the evaluation criteria is the originality of creativity, even if the second point (intentionality) cannot be conclusively proven, the jury has in some cases decided to exclude the work and not award it a higher prize.”

---

Find more Keiu’s work here 👀