Sheep and copyright

I was recently at The Yorkshire Sculpture Park, where me and those roaming with me came across a sheep with the word 'Orary' spray painted on. Confused, we began hatching theories about over-possessive farmers etcetera. Most of these fell to dust however when we encountered another sheep with 'Mystery' written on it's side, and a rather mardy looking one with 'Me' stencilled on. It took an embarrassingly long time before someone suggested asking at the information desk, but by that time everything was closed, so we comforted ourselves with the knowledge the enigma could be googled at home.
Once at home we found it was the work of one Alison Cooper, a link can be found here to see the official part of the Yorkshire Sculpture Park website. But something else emerged, it appears that those sheep were at the heart of an artistic scandal waiting to kick off. Poet Valerie Laws, self professed 'sheep woman', said that the Sculpture Park sheep were a direct rip off of her Haiku, or “haik-ewe”, printed on 15 sheep. You can have a better look at the story here. The gist of it is 'don't go stealing my claim to fame be-atch'. Alison Cooper and the Yorkshire Sculpture Park both claim they had no consciousness of Laws's work. Despite this, can we still say that Cooper and the Park have infringed on Laws's work and right to remain original?
Well, I'm sure the artistic dispute will be sorted out in its own time. But the concept of an idea belonging to someone is relatively new. Dickens was fighting for copyright laws to be brought in most of his life. Even to the point of alienation at a point from the free and unbound American public. But his income and lifestyle depended on his work being fully credited and not copied or stolen. You can understand his distress at various money makers publishing they're own made up endings to his newspaper chronicles for the eager public, and plays being made of his writings without his approval, or even knowledge. But a couple of hundred years earlier thievery was common practise. Shakespeare has been often accused of stealing plots for his famous plays, such as Othello, from earlier literature. His contemporaries used to carry about note books where they could take down turns of phrases and concepts they liked to use in they're own literature, taken from other plays and books as often as not. So have we evolved to value our individuality more? Has our concept of ownership consumed us in an increasingly materialistic world?
However, can it be said that there is no such thing as originality any more? Some great works of art have sprung from earlier art, Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys, based on Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte, is now seen as great literature. Another popular novel, 50 Shades of Grey is based on Twilight. So how much can the original owners really claim ownership of they're grandchildren. Should we discredit Rhys and James because they're simply copying other authors? Well, within the fields of art forms, isn't everybody trapped within what is pre-existing? Can you think of an alternative way of writing a novel that doesn't already somewhere is exist? To be honest, actual originality might be impossible these days.
So the real question is, where does something start infringing on somebody else's work to the point where they can get upset about it? It has to be acknowledged that for artists such as Dickens copyright was seen as vital, and continues to be today, especially when their livelihood is dependent on it. But McDonald's has tried to trademark the prefix 'Mc', and Facebook owns the word 'face'. Most would see this as ridiculous, and worrying for the hoards of Scots with 'Mc' on the front of their surname. So we have to acknowledge this is a difficult, delicate business where the copyrighter is not always right.
So, returning to the Poet Valerie Laws, on the scale from McDonald's to Dickens, I would put her plight somewhere in the middle. Granted, her profession and her livelihood is at stake, and she would benefit from real appreciation, but at the same time the art of spraying sheep is not new. Most farmers mark their sheep to recognise them, and show ownership. So if two artists should happen to reach the same point should it really end in tears? I have to be honest, I can see why Laws might be upset, but we can hardly move for pre-existing forms. Maybe we should evaluate how original our idea could possibly be, and how likely it is someone else has the same idea, before causing a fuss. Anyway, Sheep have been around for a very long time, and have been used as canvases before, for adverts and suchlike. And I'm pretty sure they don't give a damn.