maybe coincidence?, but still I see everyday different pages, different designers, some good, some bad, some inspired on me, some not, but copy it is different! is a big different inspiration to plagiarism! be careful, for me is not a plagiarism.
JFD

I'm not sure about how much you can pin that on plagiarism, though. After all, it is just the top of a Marlboro box. I did an infographic similar to that design two years ago, in black and white, and while I'm sure nobody ever saw it I could claim prior art.

Now, what makes me suspicious (I guess) is that everyone looks at the Virginian-Pilot for design cues. But something as obviously iconic as the top of a pack of the most famous brand of American cigarettes might be pretty easy to pick up on.

This is appalling. When i saw the Pilot page I was impressed by the brilliance of the idea. Now there was a designer who was really thinking. (Full disclosure: I work for the Pilot but first saw the page like everyone else -- on a newsstand) The Indiana designer didn;t think about the story at all and make a connection. It's false brilliance.

And one more thing -- it's not the top of a cigarette pack, it's based on a carton of cigarettes. Google Marlboro and you will see.

Oh, yes, sorry, a carton. I knew that -- see "box," earlier -- but I'm failing at language production today.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that there's no way to know whether the designer at the Journal-Review didn't think this out in much the same way. That's what goes along with my argument about the "iconic" status of the packaging; it's suspicious, but I think you have to at least consider the benefit of the doubt for a symbol as universal as packaging for the U.S.' most famous cigarettes.

While it certainly may only be coincidence that the Journal-Review designer wanted to use the Marlboro imagery, the use of pull quotes in the upper left and right corners -- as seen in the Virginian-Pilot example -- isn't familiar to the Marlboro design. If I'm not mistaken, the only text (or break) in the red top is the circular section. This is something only found in the Virginian-Pilot design. The fact that the same design element that originated with the Virginian-Pilot made its way into the Journal-Review is a bit more conspicuous than the mere use of the Marlboro imagery, which leads me to suspect this may be a case of visual plagiarism.

This might have been a coincidence three or four years ago, before the rise in popularity of sites such as this one, and News page Designer and VizEds where you can troll for "ideas" 'till the cows come home. But this Pilot page was just referenced in a post by Robb Montgomery on VizEds a couple weeks ago. It was a lengthy back and forth, linked from this blog. Hard to miss for any designer with the slightest curiosity about what others are up to.

Interesting debate. My question is this: If a reporter at Newspaper X wrote a story about some issue (let's say, the state of health among women 25-35 years old in their town) and another reporter at Newspaper Z read that story and decided to write about the SAME thing (maybe even used some of the same national/expert sources) in his/her home town hundreds of miles away (with a totally different readership), is that wrong? It happens every day.

Now, I know what the next response will be: If the reporter at Newspaper Z copied the lede verbatum of the story at Newspaper X, then yes, that would be plagiarism. I'm not so sure that's what happened here -- in terms of design.

Then, let's say the reporter at Newspaper Z copied the "structure" of the story. Is that plagiarism? No. Is it original and creative? No. You might want to even go so far as to say it's lazy.

I'm merely playing devil's advocate here. I would never (intentionally) design something that appears so blatant a forgery, but I do question why this instance is an issue.

Any chance someone could, you know, ask the second designer, before condemning him? I understand they do that kind of thing in newspapers. Reporting, I think they call it.

Good idea. Take it as a compliment!

To "Curious": Post under your real name and you'll have a little more credibility. But to address what you say: In a profession that's as networked as we are, and as many ways as there are to see each others' work in real time, it would be impossible for the people in Crawfordsville not to notice the Pilot front. When you discount the difference in the two newspapers' design DNA (type, doglegging), it's clear that one's a rip on the other. It is plagiarism -- journalism is journalism, whether it's words, sentences, photos, shapes, color or type. Doesn't matter. And it doesn't even work on the Crawfordsville front. Putney's right to call it "false brilliance."

So, if I dogleg a story I am ripping the V-P?

You miss my point, Josh -- the dogleg is part of the Pilot's design DNA, as well as its type family and color palette. Other papers may do some of the things the Pilot does, but not in lockstep. Forest and trees, grasshopper. :)

"imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

I respect the comments of everyone on this site, and I don't mean to call anyone out, but the usage of the top of a Marlboro package in the manner in which it was used seems a little more than just coincidence, especially within a timeframe of just over a month.

On another note...I've just stubbled accross this site for the second time in many months and it holds much promise to me. I would prefer information and a communal spirit to the catty aspects though, but they are sometimes justified! :)

oh, c'mon ... the catty stuff is fun!
i'm surprised any paper would make their front page look like a pack of marlboros, but whatever! all in a day's newspapering. don't we have fun jobs?