Friday, October 18, 2013
The Difference Between Plagiarism And Copyright Infringement
Techdirt: 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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
So, basically, copyright infringement is all about money, while plagiarism focuses more on intellectual credit being given where it is due. I appreciate this explanation being given in an academic context, because it makes sense to me as a student who has read the university's plagiarism and cheating policy countless times. What I wonder is if (and when) a student is capable of copyright infringement. I know we get away with producing certain shows without paying for the rights to them, cutting scripts, etc. here in the School of Drama because we are under a safety umbrella as a non-profit educational institution. When does that safety umbrella's reach stop protecting a student? Does copyright only apply if the student's work in question is going to be published? I'm not saying that students should go around stealing people's work and ideas, but I do think that it makes sense for students to be protected from facing copyright infringement charges, as I believe they are, for the most part. Perhaps it would be wise, though, for schools to provide their students with a description of what it means to violate a copyright law, in addition to the standard plagiarism policy. I'm sure these sorts of descriptions already exist, but from my experience, they are not being published widely.
This is a very effective article which cleared up some confusion for me regarding plagiarism versus copyright infringement. One thing that really surprised me was that I didn't know that copyright only covered direct quotes, not ideas. This seems odd- so someone can steal your ideas and just put them in different words and there's no way to punish them? It seems like copyright is such a harsh thing- it's not about ethics or respecting other people's work, it's just about who pays for that work. Plagiarism, in contrast is more about respecting the work of others and properly crediting them. I'm glad I understand this better now, since we talk so much about plagiarism here and I know copyrights are a major subject in our field. I wonder, if someone copied someone else's concept for a set, for example, would there be any recourse against them, or does that not fall under any laws?
There are several different kinds of plagiarism--which this article fails to mention. In my mind, plagiarism is taking someone else's work and passing it off as your own. I agree with Shannon. This article seems to imply that plagiarism is more about protecting intellectual integrity and copyright seems to be more targeted toward protected capitalistic venture. And while this article attempts to clearly define the difference, it doesn't discuss how they overlap. It only points out the the source of the content and the owner of the content might not be the same--which is something I feel like we already know.
This article touches on some interesting points, and certainly raises some ethics questions. I'm glad that article was very clear about the difference between copyright infringement and plagiarism. As Shannon mentioned, it seems that one protects people getting their money while the other protects their ideas. To me this seems slightly flawed. The reason I say this is it seems unfair that if someone copies your ideas you may get paid but not necessarily any recognition. On the other side of the debate, it seems unfair your ideas could be used with recognition and without any compensation. This may seem like an invalid point because typically ideas are borrowed for academic writing, but what if an author uses someone else's idea in a bestseller that makes millions? In my humble opinion that person deserves compensation for that idea. That is, if there is monetary gain acquired from it. In other words a college student should not have to pay to cite a quote in their paper.
I find that we run into copyright infringement problems a lot with smaller shows at CMU, for example New Works. Due to the fact some writers have little knowledge about the procedure of using someone's music in their scripts, they write it in without attaining the rights. We let it slip under the mat, because we have the safety net of CMU as Shannon mentioned, or mainly because it is a small show; but what happens to them when they leave CMU? Also in terms of plagiarism, with the internet being so vast and full of material, it is so easy for students to just 'steal' something from online and add it to a paper without mentioning citations. Most people also get away with it because it is impossible to track the number of sources and content available today.
Shannon brings up an interesting point of the "safety net" at CMU. Although the students might be protected a little bit more at CMU, that doesn't necessarily protect the school. One thing that this article talks about is plagiarism as an intellectual infringement and copyright as legal infringement. What I feel this article fails to point out is that even though your might be intellectually infringing upon someones work, you can still get into legal issue even though it might not violate copyright laws. There is also something called intellectual property rights. IP rights can get you too, and you dont even have to copyright work to sue someone over IP. From out theatre management class last year we should know more that you always have to pay for rights, and that you can protect your work even without copyright.
This article does clear some stuff up for me regarding plagiarism and copyright infringement, however fails to give some possible solutions to avoid committing these acts. I believe for this article to be successful in clearing up the problems it has to offer solutions to the issues it presents. Despite this I do believe that it clears up some confusion that many people have between the two. Now I raise the question, is it possible to commit both crimes or is one inclusive to the other? Isn't it possible to steal a paragraph word for word while also stealing their ideas?
Post a Comment