Is Copyright Needed To Stop Plagiarism?
from the let-the-community-do-its-job dept
Whenever I speak about Free Culture at schools, I'm asked "what about plagiarism?" Copying and plagiarism are two quite different things, and you don't need copyright to deal with plagiarism. To make this clearer, I made a one-minute meme song and video about it:As Mimi demonstrates with the giant Copy Machine, copying a work means copying its attribution too:
just copy the credit along with the work
When people copy songs and movies, they don't change the authors' names. Plagiarism is something else: it's lying. If Copyright has anything to do with plagiarism, it's that it makes it easier to plagiarize (because works and their provenance aren't public and are therefore easier to obscure and lie about) and increases incentive to do so (because copying with attribution is as illegal as copying without, and including attribution makes the infringement more conspicuous). American Copyright law does not protect attribution to begin with; it is concerned only with "ownership," not authorship. Many artists sign their attributions away with the "rights" they sell, which is why it can be difficult to know which artists contributed to corporate works.
I chose Beethoven to illustrate how copyright has nothing to do with preventing plagiarism. All Beethoven's work is in the Public Domain. Legally, you can take Ludwig van Beethoven's songs, Jane Austen's novels, or Eadweard Muybridge's photographs and put any name you want on them. Go ahead! You're at no risk of legal action. Your reputation may suffer, however, and you definitely won't be fooling anyone. If anyone has doubts, they can use that same copy machine - the Internet - to sort out who authored what. Lying is very difficult in a public, transparent system. A good analog to this is public encryption keys: their security comes from their publicity.
The song says "always give credit where credit is due," but in many cases credit is NOT due. For example, how many credits should be at the end of this film? I devoted about two and a half seconds to these credits:
Movie and Song by Nina Paley
Vocals by Bliss Blood
But I could have credited far more. In fact, the credits could take longer than the movie. Here are some more credits:
Ukelele: Bliss Blood
Guitar: Al Street
Recorded by Bliss Blood and Al Street
What about sound effects? Were it not for duration constraints, this would be in the movie:
Sound Effects Design by Greg Sextro
Every single sound effect in the cartoon was made by someone. Should I credit each one? Crash-wobble by (Name of Foley Artist Here). Cartoon zip-run by (Name of Other Foley Artist Here). And so on: dozens of sound effects were used in the cartoon, and each one had an author. What about the little noises Mimi & Eunice make? Not only could the recording engineer be credited, but the voice actor as well (as far as I know, these were both Greg Sextro).
I included a few seconds of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony at the end, which I didn't credit in the movie. Should I have? Why or why not?
I could credit the characters:
Starring:
Mimi
Eunice
& Special Guest Appearance by
Ludwig van Beethoven
I could be more detailed in crediting myself:
Lyrics and Melody by Nina Paley
Character design: Nina Paley
Animation: Nina Paley
Produced by Nina Paley
Directed by Nina Paley
Edited by Nina Paley
Backgrounds by Nina Paley
Color design by Nina Paley
Layout: Nina Paley
Based on the comic strip "Mimi & Eunice" by Nina Paley
And the funder!
This Minute Meme was funded by a generous grant from the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts
I didn't even make a card for the Minute Memes logo. Should that be in there?
I used a Public Domain painting of Beethoven for the Beethoven character, which is by Joseph Karl Stieler. Who photographed the painting? Who digitized the photograph? Is credit due here?
The ass drawing also came from Wikimedia Commons, where it's credited to Pearson Scott Foresman. But who actually drew it? I have no idea. I doubt that Pearson Scott Foresman could even legally claim the copyright on it to "donate" to Wikimedia in the first place, but there they are, getting credit for it instead of an artist. That's because copyright is only concerned with "ownership," not authorship.
Then there's the software I used, good old pre-Adobe Macromedia Flash. Should I credit the software? What about the programmers who contributed to the software?
I also used a Macintosh computer (I know, I know, when Free Software and Open Hardware come close to doing what my old system does, I'll be the first to embrace it) and a Wacom Cintiq pen monitor. How many people deserve credit for these in my movie?
Mimi and Eunice themselves were "inspired" by many historical cartoons. Early Disney and Fleischer animations, the "rubber hose" style, Peanuts, this recent cartoon, and countless other sources I don't even know the names of - but would be compelled to find out, if credit were in fact due. Is it?
And so on. It is possible to attribute ad absurdum. So where is credit due? It's complicated, the rules are changing, and standards are determined organically by communities, not laws. I had to edit the song for brevity, but I kind of wish I hadn't excised this line:
A citation shows us where we can get more
of all the good culture that Free Culture's for
Attribution is a way to help your neighbor. You share not only the work, but information about the work that helps them pursue their own research and maybe find more works to enjoy. How much one is expected to help their neighbor is determined by (often unspoken) community standards. People who don't help their neighbors tend to be disliked. And those who go out of their way to deceive and defraud their neighbors - i.e. plagiarists - are hated and shunned. Plagiarism doesn't affect works - works don't have feelings, and what is done to one copy has no effect on other copies. Plagiarism affects communities, and it is consideration for such that determines where attribution is appropriate.
At least that's the best I can come up with right now. Attribution is actually a very complicated concept; if you have more ideas about it, please share.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: attribution, copying, copyright, credit, plagiarism
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
She has demonstrated the logical and visible result of the absurdity of trying to monetize every single step of the creative process. Should I, writing a blues tune, give attribution to every single blues musician I have ever heard? How about rock, all based on the blues? Should I credit Gibson for the guitar, Ernie Ball for the strings, the MCI recording console, the Neve mixing board, the audience members?
Your post, sir, reads like the grousings of an autobot programmed for Contrarianism, and I suggest you take a pill. Midol maybe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing HTML tag
The last lines of non-quoted text are appearing italicized, along with everything else after this article on the front page.
Just FYI.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing HTML tag
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Missing HTML tag
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fixed
Now you can all comment on the actual content of the post, rather than the annoying formatting error.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fixed
I also think if you spent all this time thinking this thing into a corner, you have wasted a bunch of time trying to create an issue where one really doesn't exist.
Tempest in a teapot, and you are the only one looking in that teapot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fixed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fixed
Ah someday desperate AC will gain understanding, but not today it seems"
This is true for yourself, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fixed
I mean not some Photoshop touchup guy; what's your experience in these things?
I'd like to match my observations over 22 years in the music business from retail on up through Contracts at a major studio label, along with hundreds of hours of live performance and sound mixing and reinforcement.
I'd also throw in over 20 years of sculpture and painting gallery experience, various recording engineering credits on several singles and LPs and having a pretty good experiential overview of two major creative fields.
If you show me your creds, maybe there'd be some basis to even listen to your pointedly-contrarianist whining. Until then... go start a 'bitch-blog'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fixed
Alright, genius. What's the difference?
Inspiration to draw an anime character for funzies could also be duplicating a copyrighted work.
How about learning Newton's second law of motion? Did you know he was "inspired" by Galileo?
Oh, here's another option. HTML code used on this site for a grammatical formatting error. It sure takes a lot of duplication to sit here and talk about html errors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fixed
Nina has proven - many times over - that she understands the difference, whereas you have not..
Obviously if you actually understood this difference, you would have included it in your post. The fact that you didn't proves that you are wrong and she is right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fixed
I know where Nina gets her fan club members, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*sigh*
We need more sunblock on TD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fixed
So, you think you know how to debate. Then why do you fail to support you're argument (at all)?
"I also think if you spent all this time thinking this thing into a corner, you have wasted a bunch of time trying to create an issue where one really doesn't exist."
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Care to support it (again)?
At least the opinions expressed by the likes of MM and Nina are supported with facts. You didn't even try.
Fail troll fails, as always. Care to try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fixed
Nina is off on a jackalope hunt with this post, because it is all fairly meaningless. Deep attribution isn't a requirement, it is a nicety. Unless the source of the image requires attribute, none need be given. If you feel the urge, do it.
What Nina tries to do is make it look like we are drowning in attribution, that there is so much required and needed. That isn't supported by all the facts, is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fixed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fixed
If that was all there was to art, then you losers would be creating something worthwhile yourselves, instead of ripping it off.
This blog is seriously full of some of the biggest mental knuckledraggers the earth has ever known. While I'm happy that it has jumped the shark and turned itself into a well known joke- thanks to the inane rantings of its registered members and owner, it is still painfully and sadly clear that the only logic and sanity getting introduced into the conversation here is done by anonymous posters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fixed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fixed
Just because someithing was duplicated, doesn't mean it wasn't also inspiring.
Duplication: identical copy.
Inspiration: being built on (which may include duplication).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fixed
So, you think you know how to debate. Then why do you fail to support you're argument (at all)?
"I also think if you spent all this time thinking this thing into a corner, you have wasted a bunch of time trying to create an issue where one really doesn't exist."
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Care to support it (again)?
At least the opinions expressed by the likes of MM and Nina are supported with facts. You didn't even try.
Fail troll fails, as always. Care to try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fixed
again, No U
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't forget...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't forget...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't forget...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, it's not going to happen with *that* attitude! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Synfing is available to Lin, Win and Mac(OSX)
Synfig tutorials on Youtube All that I know about Synfig I got from following those tutorials.
Also you can try:
Animata (open source, never tested)
Pencil (open source never tested>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good Post
The only other issue I have though is that I don't quite agree with the share-alike license. I have no problem with it, but I'm of the opinion that if others use my work and make it their own, then they should be free to use it and license it how they see fit. It just feels pretentious for me to take that right away from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It just sits there, ignoring me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Attribution is not a "right" of authors; it's a right of the public. The public deserves to know where a work came from, within reason anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Interesting take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand, if it really means so much to you to credit every single molecule you've inhaled and every blade of grass you've ever stepped on, you could always write an overly pedantic blog post that fully attributes every waking second of your life that led to this moment. A lot of art is pointless that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No right to attribution
The natural right is to truth, not to attribution, thus a right to accuracy in attribution, but not a right to be attributed. Thus there is a right against misattribution, which includes the circumstance where misattribution occurs by implication, e.g. through omission and context. A gallery of my unattributed drawings in which one was drawn by someone else, may imply my authorship. The remedy is clarification, e.g. “Not all by me” or attribution “This one by Fred”.
As long as they remain honest and truthful, it is up to the individual whether they give credit – where and when they feel it is necessary and appropriate.
Lastly, as you observe, it is copyright that disincentivises attribution because of the FUD and ever increasing jeopardy for admitting uncleared/unlicensed works as inspiration or source material. Without copyright, people can once again take pride in building upon published works and crediting those they feel should be credited, without the copyright inculcated stigma and risk against it.
One day people will once again no longer ask permission to build upon other artists’ work, and no longer fear to admit they were inspired by others’ works, or that they incorporated any in theirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Self-plagiarism
So I can't use a paper from one class in another class because I can't get credit for the same work twice? But you're the ones that made two courses so similar that the same paper could reasonably be submitted. Furthermore, professors reuse lecture notes/slides/tests year after year, and I'm pretty sure they get paid each time they use them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Self-plagiarism
Seriously, though, think about it: you're asking for MORE credits in exchange for taking that second (third, fourth) class, right? So doesn't it make sense that you have to do MORE work to get those credits? Professors only rarely assign papers for their own reading pleasure--it's to get you to work for credits (and show your proficiency in a particular area). If you want to rehash portions of your previous scholarship, that's not verboten--but don't expect something for nothing in academia...despite what you said about professors re-using lesson plans and materials year after year. They're only there for the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um...just thought I'd pipe in here and say that (a) you shouldn't actually do that, (b) you may be at risk for legal action if you do that, depending on what you do with the mislabeled works, and (c) it's a pretty bad idea to tell people to do something and that there will be no legal consequences, if you don't really know that much about the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course, it depends on what you do with the work. If you slap your own name on some Beathoven sheet music and stick it in your drawer, that's probably not a violation of any law.
If you sell copies, for example, as your original work, you may be in violation of several laws. Basically, there are lots of state and federal laws prohibiting deceptive commercial activities of all sorts, as well as claims your competitors can bring against you.
It has nothing to do with copyright, and everytying to do with deception/public confusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The music was written by Patty and Mildred J. Hill. The song was "Good Morning to All" and was first published in 1893, in "Song Stories for the Kindergarten".
Very rapidly, other words were applied by many others, as the tune was very catchy. One of the most popular (but far from singular) variations was the "Happy Birthday" words we are all familiar with. The "Happy Birthday" words were published several times with the tune in the following years (in 1918, 1924, and 1933, all without copyright notices).
In 1935 "Happy Birthday to You" was published with a copyright attributed to Preston Ware Orem. This version is identical to those published in 1918, 1924, and 1933 with the exception of the split note for the extra symbol in "Happy Birthday" vs "Good Morning", and the added copyright.
Most likely, the 1935 copyright is invalid, for the Hill sisters had copyrighted "Good Morning to all" in 1909, and that copyright was still in effect.
There have been lawsuits over the song through the years. But getting into them here would be tedious at best.
Hope this helps!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"...while in the United States, the song is currently set to pass in to the public domain in 2030."
Yes, it should be in the public domain, but yet it isn't, and won't be unless someone gets the current copyright revoked. There definitely seems to be legal grounds for it too, but they are certainly going to fight to the bitter end over that $2 million/year in royalties that they did absolutely nothing to deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is disputed whether it is or is not in the public domain. Warner claims it is not in the public domain. Others claim that it is. Whether it is or is not does not hinge on the existence of a copyright registration.
So, as a matter of facts and law, Happy Birthday may be in the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is very good to know! I'd like to know more about such anti-deception laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I stated in my earlier post, if you slap your name on a PD work and stick it in your drawer, you're probably fine. If a tree says something misleading in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, it's probably not going to result in a lawsuit.
If you offer the work for sale as your original work, you could be in trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(a) I totally agree, you shouldn't do that.
(b) I would like to know more about these legal consequences. What would happen if I claimed I wrote Hamlet - didn't assert copyright (copyfraud) on it, just claimed I wrote it?
(c) You are correct! I think we agree that copyright law wouldn't govern any consequences - I should have clarified that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
music in tv commercials
Plus, the band in question gets better exposure, for which they might be willing to lower therice of the licensed use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: music in tv commercials
I've actually had to google a few tunes used in ads to find the identity of the musical artists so I can buy a copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Common sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By golly: I have to answer the /question/ as YES.
You're really only making a case that computers currently enable the better detection of plagiarism, and that plays into the hands of the "copyright maximalists"!
I'm not a "copyright maximalist" nor for tossing it entirely. As I've said several times here, I'm firmly against the present unilateral increase of terms and "authority" by the industry, but I regard copyright as /previously/ being about right -- a Constitutional "for a limited time".
Attribution is usually impractical. I specifically do /not/ want it on "small" items because distracts from whatever esthetic value. Nor do I want to be directed to commercial interests. -- Probably Art should be kept away from /money/ but that is a whole 'nother can of worms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: By golly: I have to answer the /question/ as YES.
Art should be kept away from Law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: By golly: I have to answer the /question/ as YES.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: By golly: I have to answer the /question/ as YES.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: By golly: I have to answer the /question/ as YES.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: By golly: I have to answer the /question/ as YES.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: By golly: I have to answer the /question/ as YES.
Most IP lawyers who are of any use hold dual degrees in law and engineering.
or law and an arts degree, specifically for that reason, Let me guess you are neither an Artist, or a creator of IP or a laywer? im I right :)... of course I am..
You see Mike wanted to be an 'artist', and he could not 'cut it', then he wanted to be a laywer but again, could not 'cut it'. So now he has found his rut, and is NEITHER !
Really, the fact is if you have no intellect you have no intellectual property.
You're only available option is to use the intellect of others.
Every is told to learn about the law!!! not just laywers or police, dont you know about the law ?
So you can NOT be a laywer and not be an artist or an engineer and therefore you do not have to know what laws you are supposed to obey?
Really ???? Let me guess Mr AC you are from the US ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: By golly: I have to answer the /question/ as YES.
What I'm getting at is that your generalities are utter shite. Plus, you're functionally illiterate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um, no...does copyright stop plagiarism now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Black box
Treat every clip, work, or sample like a "black box". Attribute that sample to the foremost person (or, as in many cases, people) responsible for its existence. If it's something like a particular recording of a Beethoven symphony, attribute the conductor of that orchestra featured in that recording. That should be sufficient, because implicit in that attribution are the names of the other people involved in the work's existence; if someone was curious enough to further investigate, those people's names would show up in the credits for that particular work. So to summarize, attribute the one or two foremost people responsible for the "black box".
Oh, and I really liked the video! :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To Nina
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To Nina
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great job on making important distinction to help knock down obstacle to getting more authors on board supporting free content
An "extensive" list of credit can be a part of every project. For example, in many open source projects, eg, managed with version control like "git", this already exists, as each precise change is attributable to an author.
We can formalize this mechanism into an XML standard. The XML element entry for an author can have all sorts of things like a link to the home page, to a p2p download, to reviews, background, etc, to a store front (to monetize the work), to date created, date xxxx, and many more things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]