The Difference Between Plagiarism And Copyright Infringement
from the not-a-purely-academic-question dept
Plagiarism is a complex and emotive issue, as previous Techdirt posts on the subject have shown. Perhaps because of that complexity, people often seem confused about the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement. The palaeontologist Mike Taylor has put together a short post with this handy explanation of how it works in an academic context:First, plagiarism is a violation of academic norms but not illegal; copyright violation second is illegal, but in truth pretty ubiquitous in academia. (Where did you get that PDF?)The post goes on to present some hypothetical cases that illustrate the concrete differences between plagiarism and copyright infringement, again as far as the academic world is concerned. There's also this handy summary of the central issue:
Second, plagiarism is an offence against the author, while copyright violation is an offence against the copyright holder. In traditional academic publishing, they are usually not the same person, due to the ubiquity of copyright transfer agreements (CTAs).
Third, plagiarism applies when ideas are copied, whereas copyright violation occurs only when a specific fixed expression (e.g. sequence of words) is copied.
Fourth, avoiding plagiarism is about properly apportioning intellectual credit, whereas copyright is about maintaining revenue streams.
Plagiarism is about the failure to properly attribute the authorship of copied material (whether copies of ideas or of text or images). Copyright violation is about failure to pay for the use of the material.Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
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: copyright, infringement, plagiarism
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Copyright violations on a class paper
My comment: you can't be accused of academic theft, plagiarism, or copyright violations for copying your own work verbatim.
Thanks for explaining the difference between the two :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright violations on a class paper
If you had assigned copyright to someone else before submitting the paper again you could well be both accused and guilty of copyright infringement.
The greater accusation though would be of such an individual being an utter moron, why would you take a course you've already aced a second time, especially without wishing to do anything differently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Taylor has good examples
I usually talk about my play, Hamlet, to make the same points. Considering, I think we can assume that the Elsevier lawyer that prompted Taylor's post also knows all these differences, but is intentionally collapsing the categories for "strategic" reasons and thus is pretending that all cases are in the first category, above. You can do a similar list focusing on fair use and quotation, if you so like.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Copyright violations on a class paper
I wouldn't apply it to undergraduate writing, though. And shame on the lazy professor for not varying the essay prompt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
was there really confusion ?
Now tell us if you can tell the difference between Butter and "I can't believe it's not butter"!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: was there really confusion ?
So not only are people confused between copyright and plagiarism, pro-copyright enforcement individuals are known to actively promote this confusion to further their agenda.
The difference between butter and margarine is that one's not vegan.
But obviously you've proven yourself too dumb to tell the differences in either example. This is the sort of jackass Australia allows in solar panel engineering?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: was there really confusion ?
One has more cholesterol...oops words ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: was there really confusion ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It seems to me the only "real" difference is between academia and the rest of the universe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You can make a derivative work all you want, you can break copyright all you want, but as long as you properly attribute the original source, it is not plagiarism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
!!!!!
No, it is not copyright infringement just because you don't pay for something. I don't think there's any link between paying and something being copyright infringement. YouTube, Aereo, Grooveshark, Pandora...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: was there really confusion ?
Because TD readers are really stupid, and have to have everything explained to them, as if they have never heard the word "copyright" mentioned here on TD.
Or do you think TD readers would not be able to work out that a copyright hold is not necessarily the author of the works.
But obviously you've proven yourself too dumb to tell the differences in either example. This is the sort of jackass Australia allows in solar panel engineering?
You sir, are a sad and bitter person with a lot a jealously combined, but it's your right to be like that, I hope you enjoy your bitter, twisted, hate filled life.
Lets hope you actually manage to achieve something in your life that is worth wile. Or are you happy to spend the rest of your life being envious of what others have achieved ?
In our labs (here in Australia) where I worked, we developed THE MOST EFFECIENT photovoltaic cell (solar panel for you), IN THE WORLD. INCLUDING THE US..
Not bad for a bunch of jackasses, let me guess, when I was doing that you were bitching on some forum!
So what else have you got ?? As although you appear to have spent your life bitter and trying to insult people, it is clear you are not very good at it !!!
If you want to insult me, you are going to have to try much, much harder.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: was there really confusion ?
Dunno, seems like he wound you up pretty good with what he already said...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: was there really confusion ?
...WORDS MAKE HULK HEAD HURT.
RWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Copyright is about the copyright holder's power to control who can and cannot make copies. The money part is a byproduct of that power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That wasn't the purpose of copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yet another example of how copyright holders are allowed to define crimes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: was there really confusion ?
That's ok, I under how underachievers could feel like that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
the price split between buying a COPY of a work and buying the COPYRIGHT is huge.
yes, correct you are infringing copyright if you make a copy with the right, that what copyright is.
When you purchase a book or movie, you purchase a COPY, not the right to copy, that is a right reserved for the owner of the right to copy it, the copyright owner.
See how simple it is when you think about it !!
Also, I am not pro or anti copyright, nor do I believe that if it's easy to commit a crime then it's not a crime. I just care about the facts.
I just thought a web site like TD would not allow such a simple confusion to exist here, that owning a copy of a work is somehow equivalent to owning the copyright of that work. No matter how easy it is for you to copy, simply the law says you purchased a copy of the work, and not the copyright of the work.
Huge difference, why is that never clarified here on TD? I would of thought Masnick legal skills would be able to understand that. In fact I am sure he does. But facts like that are clearly not you want to hear.
After all, it's so much better to provide justification after justification to do something you are not legally allowed to do. No matter how easy it is to do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright violations on a class paper
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: was there really confusion ?
Lad, it doesn't matter how high you go; make a mistake and if your credentials are high enough, you will be and deserve to have people leaping down your throat. "EFFECIENT"? Really? Can't spell "efficient"? Put that in your research papers and they'll look like they were made in China.
It's rich that you're claiming that others insult people, because every single post you make has been nothing but insults. You can't even link to your products - well, no surprise. You haven't proven a single shred of credibility and publicly refuse to.
Insults fly over your head and your best response is a big fat "neener", so I'm not expecting to get anywhere. Can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. But hey, if you want to continue acting like making a few panels entitles you to be a royal douchebag, by all means go ahead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A list of facts??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A list of facts??
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: A list of facts??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Feel free to answer in whatever tone you prefer, I got thick skin. I just want to better understand how the terms of service effect the legality of using, sharing, selling the "copy" I bought.
And what if instead of sharing or selling the book to a friend I just verbally told the person the contents of the book but never did mention to that person that I had got the information I was verbally communicating to them that it had came from a published work with copyright protection, would that be copyright infringement/violation?
Then say that person published the information I had verbally told to them in their own book, while never knowing it had already been published with copyright protection, would they then be in violation of copyright or would I be?
Thanks for the clarifications!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stealing of song lyrics
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The difference
The damages also differ as plagiarism not only affects the creator for not giving them proper credit, it also affects the audience.
More about copyrights here http://copyrightcollectionsltd.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
afvidauvib
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: was there really confusion ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
difference btwn copyright and plagiarism
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BMI collects licensing fees and keeps them!
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE MUSIC AND ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY
John Bowe’s past article about BMI (Broadcast Music Incorporated) in the SUNDAY NEW YORK TIMES Magazine Section seemed disingenuous to me and a number of my friends who compose and publish music. His comprehensive report on licensing establishments, utilizing BMI music, failed to address the many thousands of composers and publishers who share very little in royalties, especially when millions of dollars are dispersed by what seems to be a closely guarded secret magic formula, protected and hidden by BMI.
I have been a member of BMI as both a writer and publisher for more than five decades. The early years were remunerative, especially with a novelty song I wrote for Art Carney (“The Honeymooners”) recorded on Columbia Records, and featured by Julie Harris in June Havoc’s Broadway play, “Marathon 33.”
My disappointment with BMI concerns the past ten years when an
award-winning documentary, “Abel Raises Cain,” for which I wrote and published all the music through BMI, has continued to be cleared for network performances and played worldwide in theaters, cafes, on radio, television (BBC-TV), cable TV and over the internet.
Unbelievably, I have received less than $200 in total royalties! And an investigation by BMI remains unresolved. I wonder why?
Sincerely,
AA:ej Alan Abel
cc BMI SAG- AFTRA (abelalan2000@yahoo.com)
ASCAP SESAC
Associated Press
Huffington Report
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Great Read
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Though plagiarism is not referred to crimes, it is closely connected with copyright and may result in the same lawsuits. Both plagiarism and copyright have many ethical issues. In any case, if you try to use one’s work, idea or statement and avoid citing it is considered a literary theft. So when we speak about ethics of these, both avoiding copyright and plagiarism is stealing. Each original work is protected by copyright laws and violating intellectual property you commit a crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Plagiarism
[ link to this | view in thread ]