Question:
We at basenotes have had many discussions on fragrances which are similar, share notes, or are just plain copies of each other. I had mentioned the need to perhaps have patents issued for fragrance designs (trade secrets?), or atleast committees which look into scent plagiarism. While browsing Turins archive of articles, I came upon this interesting write up:

http://www.nzzfolio.ch/www/d80bd71b-...fe16926c1.aspx

Apparently there was a committee set up to do exactly this, but gave up on the idea once it was discovered that some of the greatest perfumes were copies (albeit superior ones).

Answer:
Interesting read, zztopp. Cheers for that!

Answer:
I don't think it's really plagiarism if there are any changes at all to the original.

I know in literature and music, if enough of a work is "quoted," it legally constitutes plagiarism. I think plagiarism in perfumery must be defined more strictly than that; it should probably refer to exact copies only, because every alteration will make a slightly different scent, but it will be a different scent if even one note is altered.
As long as we're playing "Can you top this?" I guess that's some kind of incentive to do better, isn't it?
The only time I find derivative scents boring is when the copy is dumbing down the original, or when the original itself isn't all that wonderful.
What's really counter-productive is when the inferior products are copied.The truth is there's a lot of pretty dismal stuff out there, and given the taste that the mass-production perfumers seem to be pushing, that's mostly where the knock-offs are. How many scents are there that imitate (forgive me if you love this one) Acqua di Giò? See my point?
Oh, well... It's all a matter of taste anyway.


Answer:
Originally Posted by zztopp Apparently there was a committee set up to do exactly this, but gave up on the idea once it was discovered that some of the greatest perfumes were copies (albeit superior ones). Thank you for reminding me of that article. I have been thinking of "copied" fragrances lately, and I think of it as three different issues.
First, and most praiseworthy, are fragrances that may reference earlier fragrances, or improve them. It does take artistry and creativity to take a familiar theme and make it new. I am thinking of how Bach's Prelude #1 became Gounod's Ave Maria, or how Patou's Joy became Guerlain's Ode.
Second, and most practical, are inexpensive fragrances that simply copy popular ones. I have found a number of under-ten-dollar fragrances copy Cool Water to a greater or lesser extent. These cheap thrills make no pretence of being high art, and if they smell good, why not indulge in a little fragrance slumming?
Third, and most damnable, are expensive fragrances that are simply copies. Phat Farm is despicable for taking Drakkar Noir's juice, putting it into a new bottle, and charging more for it. Of course, I might be taking fragrance a little too seriously.

Answer:
***

Answer:
Very lucid and well-thought-out replies, guys! Thanks!