Students paralysed by the possibility of inadvertently copying another person's work?

John Crace wrote in The Guardian the text: Whereas many students in text-based disciplines seem now to be almost paralysed by the possibility of inadvertently copying another person's work, our students [in visual arts] operate in a relatively pressure-free environment that allows them to develop their creativity without fear. But having said that, I do think students need to understand there are ethical implications for their work.

Also of some note is the text:

Not that there's much reason for Damien Hirst to care one way or the other. Art critics are only interested if he is in or out of fashion - whether his work is heartbreakingly hip or tiresomely last year. A Hirst is a Hirst is a Hirst, even if it looks almost identical to something else. Either way, his bank balance gives him the only reality check he needs. The Humbrol anatomy kit retailed for less than £15; Hymn was valued at about £1m. Dixon made next to nothing for True Daisy; the 500 prints of Valium sold for up to £10,000 each.

Thus one can have situations in which the "copy" is worth more than the original, not unlike themes in the Laurence Tribe plagiarism incident.