A number of posts have appeared on OS concerning plagiarism. On one side, Catherine Forsythe publicly flagged an unattributed copy of an article in the New York Times, an obvious example of plagiarism. On the other side, perhaps, Placebostudman recently wrote, "So, why the flying-fuck-in-hell does it matter who said what first? ... YOU CAN NOT PUT A COPYRIGHT ON LANGUAGE!"
It surprises me that there's so much disagreement (any at all, actually) about this topic. Here's my take.
I'll start with a personal story. A few years ago I was reading a Ph.D. dissertation that I'd found in the online archives of another university's library. It was interesting--especially the couple of pages that were plagiarized from an earlier paper that a student and I had published. There was no mention of our names or our work. This is a no-no in the academic world, so I worked my way through that university's bureacracy to try to put things straight. It didn't play out entirely to my satisfaction, but I gave it my best shot.
Why would I care? Formal academic rules aside, my student and I had put a lot of work into that paper; he deserved credit for his share. (I was less concerned about credit for myself, being pretty well established already.) When you're starting up an academic career, having good ideas and executing them well are the whole game. The plagiarist was riding on our coattails, to whatever extent that the dissertation was read by others, and this diluted the potential impact and influence of my student's work. It felt as if we were the victims of theft.
But what was really stolen from us? You might think that it was nothing at all--after all, we weren't deprived of any physical property. Further, you might think that this is an issue only relevant to those who make money or build a career around words. To see why this issue is more general and more important, let's pull back to look at the bigger picture. The concept of intellectual property has been recognized for the past several centuries. In the U.S. Constitution, for example, Article 1 includes this text:
The Congress shall have power... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
This passage is commonly viewed as the basis for our laws concerning patents and copyrights. The underlying idea is that creative people should be encouraged in their work. Even if they gain no monetary advantage (artists and writers are notorious for leading impoverished lives), they should at least be able to claim authorship of their work, possibly control how their work appears to the public, and accrue some sort of reputation, whatever is appropriate. This may not seem like much, but consider--it may be all there is.
If we, as a society or a community, let these protections fall by the wayside, then creative people will be less inclined to contribute than they might otherwise be. In other words, it's in the interest of all of us to pay attention to who claims credit for what. Not only because an individual author or artist might give up, thinking that there's no point to producing work that others will implicitly claim as their own, but because of the danger that a lot of people will give up, and we'll be left in a Harrison Bergeron world of mediocrity.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Chicken Mãâàn
Tinkerertink69
Alan Milner
skypixie0
Con Chapman
just phyllis for now
Salon.com
Comments
Kathy, it's a funny feeling, isn't it? "Hey, that's mine!"
I would like to know who PM'ed Catherine, because I find it hard to believe.
I am all in favor of giving people the benefit of the doubt, etc. but this wasn't close to a 'grey area' or a foot fault.
*note the careful use of a period instead of a comma after the first "Here"
@Nick: I believe that Catherine received the PMs she speaks of because I received similar ones when I spoke out against plagiarism.
God, Kanuk, dealing with my own students' plagiarism, in my own university, is so painful... I feel for you.
Algis, I've only been thinking of very clear-cut cases, which are of the sort that involve presenting others' work entirely without attribution. It's harder for me to judge what you describe--and in fact, though I may have come across as being quite judgmental in this post, I do think there are lots of gray areas. There's such a thing as fair use, for example. Personally, I ask myself the following: "Is it clear that I'm giving credit where credit is due, such that if the original author were to read what I've put up, they'd be okay with it?" and "If readers like what I've posted, will they be able to find the original source?" and "Have I added something of value on my own, as part of publicizing the work of others?" But that's just me. So, for example, I include links on all the images I put in posts, and I try to be careful about quoting too much.
uhm, I think I'm saying I disagree, but since many people feel very specific and ardent about this issue I'm tempted to just hit cancel. *waffle, waffle* post, cancel, post...
I have contacted Marik to ask directly. Since some posters here do use photographs of other (sometimes famous) people in their avatars, anything's possible.
Ideas are the domain of patents.
Original ideas are the domain of copyright.
(Which is how I interpret the the Constitution's division of writings and discoveries.)
West Side Story was not a copyright violation of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet for any number of reasons. One of which is the same story idea expressed in such an original way that it was made like new, to say nothing about WS' works being in the public domain now anyway.
I continue to be profoundly stunned by current trends.
When I was getting my book out last year, I had to consult with a copyright and patent lawyer on several issues. He's also been a long time friend and continues to advise me on various issues. Much of my understanding about © and patents and intellectual property comes from his guidance. I showed him placebo's post, and he too was stunned.
I apologize for going on and on. I have nothing personal against placebo, and he has done many marvelous things on OS to help many of us understand a host of issues, but I think he's profoundly mistaken on this issue.
Interesting, Kathy. I have no idea what's going on with that situation.
Hi, Scanner. My understanding is that you were involved in discussions of plagiarism a while ago, but this post isn't meant to open any old wounds, if such exist. I wanted to raise some broader issues, to see if it could clarify things for both sides (if there are two sides, which seems that way to me, though I could be wrong).
Hey, Barry! I know you've mentioned copyright issues in the past, related to your book. Thanks for your perspective. Photographers have it very rough these days, and I have nothing more than an inkling about how it all works in that realm. Now that I'm writing, I'm also thinking seriously about this point. "Hmm, I'd like to quote a few sentences from a trade magazine--how much are the permissions going to cost me?" Gah.
I'd be even more excited to see the managing staff here make a statement and start doing something about it. If this is to be a place for writers of all calibers, then the common rules of consideration and decency need to be applied and enforced.
That said, it is always a pleasure to encounter a man of your standing, Mr. St. Amant. As a member of this strange and varied club, I thank you.
The bottom line, though, is that representing (implicitly or explicitly) someone else's work as your own is wrong. It is theft. I have yet to hear an argument in favor of plagiarism that had any merit. The "pro plagiarism" arguments presented here (and elsewhere) are merely justifications and rationalizations for reprehensible behavior.
A trend in art that has its roots in the beginnings of Post-Modernism of the 80's involved what came to be known as Appropriation. There was an artist, Sherrie Levine, who photographed images by Walker Evans, a famous 20th century photographer. Levine's images were called, "After Walker Evans."
In these cases, where many artists were to find expression in the theme of Appropriation, the origin of the artist's inspiration was usually cited.
I find using text without attribution to be unprofessional and wrong in every way. I am grateful to you Rob, for putting things in perspective with clarity and fairness.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1287/4602418253_809179364f_b.jpg
Since the sculpture installation was on private property and the rights to make money off of it assigned by the artist to a management group, we sent a letter of request to use it in the book. (As we did with other venues where public and private sculpture was located). They wrote back that we could use it and one other image for $2,000. We declined, but then Eve negotiated with them that in exchange for a box of books that could be distributed among their board of directors we could have the rights to those images. The framed horse in the picture above is now hanging in the local horse racing track and is for sale by commission for a tidy sum.
But we had to go through the process and acquire permission to use the image.
You have to do it the right way, or pay the penalty big time.
Susan, you and I are on the same page. Thanks for reminding me about publishing dissertations. Somehow I'd completely forgotten about that angle.
What a beautiful photo, Barry. Thanks for putting it up on flickr. But $2,000 for the rights?! Wow. Eve sounds like a great negotiator; I'd have said, "Oh, well..." :-)
I wrote to him (we had a passing acquaintance) and he replied, "Eff you." I wrote to the magazine, and a clerk replied, "You're not an attorney; we aren't going to bother with you." I wrote my own publisher, who replied, "We'll send a letter, but imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."
I still admire his books. I wonder who wrote them.
And yet, as a person who makes her living writing, I'm also a little disturbed at readers who spend their time feeding snippets into anti-plagiarism programs. I fear that suspicion will obscure substance. Once I've passed, I hope you'll read what I've written.
What I love here, Rob, is a beautiful discussion of the rights and wrongs. Thanks for bringing a salon to open salon.
P.S. I am such a nerd - I have actually read some of my Profs dissertations - usually when I should have been writing a paper for them. You know the UMASS library - the tower. All the dissertations are available. Way up on the top floors.
when you're writing for free, as we do here, acknowledgment is even more important, because it's the only payback we get
I'm also a little disturbed at readers who spend their time feeding snippets into anti-plagiarism programs. I fear that suspicion will obscure substance.
This is a danger, true. For me, though, it doesn't happen this way. I read something, and I think, "Something's not quite right here." And so I plug some text into Google to check. Recently I did this and ended up sending a poster a message, complimenting an OS post and observing that it had also appeared, in a slightly different form, on a high-profie political site. It turned out that this poster was the real deal, which made me happy if a touch embarrassed at my suspicion. Oh, well; we smoothed over my minor faux pas.
LuluandPhoebe, I'm surprised, too. I guess publishers think about cost/benefit tradeoffs, though I'd have thought that any publisher would be pretty aggressive.
You and I should have a nerdiness face-off, aim--I'm pretty accomplished. :-) Thanks for the memory of the UMass library, which I saw practically every day for five years. Never got hit by falling tiles, but I always thought about that when I was walking nearby.
Hi, Bonnie. I must have phrased my thoughts poorly. Here's another try: If we as a society believe that creativity is of value, a public good, then it's a poor strategy to just assume that it will come for free. We do this with teaching, to some extent, for examply by underpaying elementary school teachers because we know that there will always be a pool of dedicated people to teach children. A poor strategy, I think.
You make a good point, Roy. That's exactly what I think.
"When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work."
The basic idea behind Intellectual Property protection is to get ideas, designs, concepts, creations, what have you entered into the general populace. For the benefit of society. That's why ideas aren't protected. Ideas need to be expressed in a reproducible medium, so that others can use the ideas for their own work. Intellectual Property protection exists to encourage the author/inventor/designer to put forth his/her work into the general populace.
In most cases one can apply online for copyright registration. $35. Non-refundable. Do it for every post, if you want. Impress your friends with a binder filled with certificates of registration.
In all the examples that have been identified and argued about so far here on OS, the person in question did not reveal where they got their text. Why not do that, if you think what you're doing is just fine and dandy? "Here's an article I copied from..." is all you need to say. Why is it not said?
Julie, there's a difference in copying a technique and copying a creation. Everyone copies techniques (artists and craftspeople and well, anyone who does a job). But copying a finished creation that was made using that technique is entirely different.
Yes, we all use the same words found in the English dictionary. And it's rare for people to have entirely original ideas. But every time we write something -- even this lowly comment I'm making here -- we put words and ideas together in a unique way. Copying a text word for word is just that -- copying, or plagiarism, legally speaking. It's not homage, or re-use, or re-purposing, or any other name people try to put on it to make it seem like something else. You might as well be using a photocopier. If you were doing it with paper money, it would be counterfeiting.
Having ones employers steal your ideas and present them as their own, that one just led me to eventually work on my own.
Most plagiarism is laziness and a kind of impoverishment of the consciousness of the plagiarist. No one steals from another unless they lack confidence in their own ideas. On the other hand, if we are fortunate others will inspire us or contribute to our thinking and it only seems honest and right to thank them and to seek their assent when we wish to incorporate someone else's thinking into our own work.
One scary thing about this is the way you can stumble upon the same idea as someone else and come under suspicion that way. On two occasions I have posted something on OS only to discover that Glenn Greenwald had put up posts based on the exact same idea. We even used some of the same quotes and a similar screenshot. But who is going to believe that I just happened to think the same way as a famous blogger? I ended up feeling queezy about it, not because I had done anything wrong, but because I had to expect that my readers would think so. Innocense is hard to prove.
As a young writer, I was influenced by how many professionals scoffed at the fear that you were going to submit your work and someone was going to steal your idea. "Submit your work and don't worry about it," was the advice. "If it's good enough, someone will buy it."
Then I had an awful thing happen: a book proposal submitted by my agent was praised but rejected by an editor at a big house. Two years later, that house put out essentially the same book--by a well-known author in the field. It was purchased by the same editor who rejected me.
I was told, essentially, that there was nothing to be done about it. But I decided that this was, indeed, a different day. It's so easy to steal someone's idea--and someone's words--that we all have to be more vigilant.
I have tried to teach the rules as writing etiquette by which we honor by attribution the work of someone else.
I could go on at length, but I know I am not the only one here to have taught the research paper on one level or another. I have taught it to middle school, high school and college students.
In days of old, when books were the main source used for research, the rules were pretty clear. Now with the internet allowing so much to be available at our fingertips, some of the rules have needed time to keep up or catch up. I am thinking of MLA. I have often had their student handbook as a required text for my students as reference. MLA has a website to help them keep current. With MLA, the golden rule has always been that if you can't find the correct rule, then use common sense as you attribute someone else's work. The one non-negotiable element has been not to attribute. That is plagiarism and as I always point out to my kids, especially seniors, look at the academic policies of the schools to which you are applying. See what their policy is about plagiarism. I am not the queen of torture making this up just for you. You may fail the paper or the course or be asked to leave if you are found guilty of plagiarism.
I am a believer in grey areas, but plagiarism is pretty straightforward. It is simply not on.
I wonder if some antagonism about this area comes from the fact that often we do not remember rules that did not seem important to us when we learned them. I know I have had to reteach all the material to students I had already brought through the research paper in an earlier grade.
Perhaps one of the unspoken terms of writing here on OS is that plagiarism is simply understood and will not be tolerated. Perhaps the reality is that without the words being spoken, they can be forgotten, put away, pushed away. What is gospel for some is unimportant to others.
So much writing is done here. So much of it is exquisite whether creative or personal or observational or researched. Is there a way for writers here to simply agree to acknowledge the importance of attribution and agree to cite a source if one is used?
I would propose that. So much anger seems to have risen from this issue. I simply offer this idea in peace and hope that it will be seen as such.
Good points, Silkstone, especially the idea that expressions have value to the people who produce them.
Wow, Susanne. One of the skills everyone should learn in college is how to attribute ideas properly. Would it have been so hard to credit you?
Sometimes there are converging opinions, Norwonk. I have very occasionally had the same thing happen to me. I once put up an OS post on FAIL, and a couple of weeks later a New York Times piece appeared on the same topic, covering some of the same ground. I think that was pure coincidence, but it gave me a start.
"Submit your work and don't worry about it," was the advice. "If it's good enough, someone will buy it." I've heard this, too, Frank. I'm surprised, outraged even, that this resulted in your losing a book. That's underhanded. I've read many of your posts (though not commented, sorry) and I'd have thought a publishing house would be keen to pick up a writer of your caliber.
Thanks for your as-always thoughtful comment, anna1liese. Is there a way for writers here to simply agree to acknowledge the importance of attribution and agree to cite a source if one is used? This is a worthwhile proposal.
The platform problem has totally infested children's books. Madonna can sell a bazillion copies of whatever she "writes."
Meanwhile: we writers have to work, right? So we keep trying. Sometimes, the things we believe in really do work out in the end.
I'd better get to work...
In the summer of 2001, the liberal organization FAIR published a report about what they perceived to be a conservative bias at Fox News Channel. In "The Most Biased Name in News," FAIR's Seth Ackerman wrote:
Even Fox's "left-right" debate show, Hannity & Colmes--whose Crossfire-style format virtually imposes numerical equality between conservatives and "liberals"--can't shake the impression of resembling a Harlem Globetrotters game ...
Now check this out. Two years later, Al Franken published a bestselling book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. On page 63 (first edition, hardcover), Franken wrote,
For those of you unfamiliar with the Hannity and Colmes dynamic, it's a conservative-versus-liberal talking head show, kind of a combination between Crossfire and a Harlem Globetrotters game.
I think it's entirely possible that someone can get an idea in his head--something as colorful as the notion of a mix of Crossfire and the Globetrotters--and "use" it every time he talks about that thing and then eventually, when he goes to write a book about that thing, just naturally write it as though it's his own without realizing it wasn't.
I remember back around 10 years ago when the concept of school vouchers first came up, telling my conservative brother, "Well, what about the police departments--should we privatize them? I could see a scenario where people convinced government that they should get a voucher and hire their own security. But what would that do to the existing police departments? It would impoverish the existing public safety services," or something like that. Rather than responding to the substance, he said, "Where'd you get that?" I said, "What do you mean? I just made it up." To which he said, "Yeah, right," suggesting I'd heard it from some talking head and was just mimicking what I'd heard. I've certainly heard that argument since then, because of subsequent public debates about charter schools, privatizing social security, and reforming health care, but at the time I sincerely originated the idea in my own head. But it's an obvious argument, and it's probable that many people thought it up at the same time. It's also probable that it was used in writing often before that, just not anywhere that I've read it. So if I were to write a book using that argument, would I be plagiarizing?
There's another truth I've come to understand in my research on charter schools. They are vastly different from each other, something just about every researcher notices right away. I have been known to say, when people ask me if I think charter schools are good or bad, that they are like restaurants; some are good and some are bad. One tends not to hear "I'm against restaurants," which is the point I'm making. But you know what? I don't know anymore if that came out of my own head or not. I say it all the time. I'm currently writing something about charter schools. Am I plagiarizing if I include that idea? What if I actually read that somewhere eight years ago?
I think we are all in agreement with the obvious cases. I do think there is room for legitimate question.
Shakespeare (about Helen of Troy): She is a pearl, whose price hath launched above a thousand ships
Christopher Marlowe (about Helen of Troy): Was this the face that launched a thousand ships?
****
Shakespeare: And hollow pampered jades of Asia, which cannot go but 30 miles a day.
Marlowe: Holla, ye pampered jades of Asia. What, can ye draw but 20 miles a day?
I got that from this interesting but decidedly un-definitive account of plagiarism from NPR's On the Media, Cribbing Through the Ages.
They produced another good one about how newspapers handle, or don't, the problem of plagiarism: To Catch a Thief.
Some actually think they were the same person, but this radio program says it's more likely that Shakespeare plagiarized.
I think that sensibility has grown to some kind of cultural normalcy, which decimated the music industry and hurt, primarily, musicians and songwriters, who historically earned the lion's share of their incomes from their publishing.
The idea that no one owns words, or notes, is not the point, and never was. It is the original combinations of those words, or notes, or both, that constitutes an original work. Writers are at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to wealth and recognition, yet some feel free to steal their essential contributions. It says a lot about who we are as a culture.
This is exactly why I do not have a blog any more and why I am very careful about how, where and to whom I present my work. I produce things but I don't share except with those I trust. So, no, they don't get their "results in any case." They get me, and others, who don't freely share ideas anymore. Historically, the art we see today was always supported by a patron, always paid for. Seriously, Shakespeare wrote for a living. During his time, plagiarism was rife, so he never printed his plays because he didn't want them stolen. They were appropriated: people would try to memorize his plays and then put on their own, cheaper versions of his plays, but he did his best to prevent that. A few years after his death, his friends realized that if they didn't publish his works, then they would become lost, so they went to work and produced the first folio 7 years after he died. If not for them, we wouldn't have his work today.
If we begin to say that it's ok to filch a paragraph here or "appropriate" an image here, then how long before we say that all intellectual rights are up for grabs? It starts with words and images, next thing you know countries like China will be stealing our technology and cloning it and selling it back to us at slave rates and undermining our economy...oh, wait, that's today...
While I didn't appreciate it much in that instance, I'm still hungry enough to be flattered when someone steals my work. Okay, not really.
I think ultimately that context and respect matter in regard to music and lyrics. Does the art form matter? It seems like music is a little more “squishy.”
Interesting discussion Rob.
As a teacher I find younger students have a hard time understanding why this is incorrect. The idea of "owning ideas" is foreign to their concrete way of thinking. Even parents, when confronted by this, ask me, but why make such a fuss about it? Argh.
As a writer it scares me senseless. I read about Frank Indiana's experience and I am positively sickened. We have to be extremely careful. And we should take action if necessary.
Food for thought. Thank you.
Even if you can't sell a work, attribution still matters. Perhaps especially in a world where such free content may serve to introduce or advertise you to someone who may want to hire you. When someone usurps your opportunity to get credit, they rob you of the chance to be considered for jobs, so the effect may be economic even if no fee was involved.
Further, if you later go somewhere and claim to be an author, you could be accused of plagiarism yourself and even if not charged with it, it could quietly lose you a job without someone mentioning they did a Google search and giving you an opportunity to answer.
Finally, there is also all kinds of evidence that people do many things just to be thought well of, which is still another reason. Saying “it may be all there is” diminishes the fact that attribution may be a first-class goal of some people. I bet some people, even poor people, given the choice between certain quantities of money and certain quantities of fame would take the fame. I'm not sure where that line would be for different people, but I doubt it's at the $0 line.
Here's the question, given the current discussion: What should have been attributed in the first post (with respect to the photographs), if anything? And, in follow-up: What should have been attributed in the second post?
http://open.salon.com/blog/mishima666/2009/02/10/how_i_gave_god_almighty_his_avatar
Other than that I haven't had much personal experience with plagiarism, except at work, where it seems to be a common practice to take other people's ideas and work products and present them as your own. How many reports are sent out under the department manager's name, while the analyst who did the work and created the information is never mentioned?
yikes
I was gently reminded by a well known poster to properly credit my photo source on a recent post so I'm not pointing fingers but I am going back to check older ones ;-)
what about song lyrics? sometimes I slip em in, with attribution of course. fair use?
And please allow me a few words to Nick Carraway: Nick (or whoever you are since you do not use your real name), question my integrity all you want. Such remarks do not surprise me any longer. Your comments say much more about you than anything else.
I do agree that there are slips that can happen that look like plagiarism but are a lesser sort of mispropriety. If I were Al Franken and had made the Crossfire/Globetrotters comment, I'd have followed up (when called on it) by saying, "Oops," apologizing, and making a proper attribution. As for your discussion with your brother, I think that was about ideas rather than specific expression of ideas. So I don't think plagiarism enters into the picture.
Now, on Shakespeare... That's what I've heard as well, that he lifted lines, even entire plots, from earlier plays. And worse, his writing is nothing more than a bunch of cliches strung together. (This is an old joke, of course, whose origin I don't know.) I do think that standards have changed. Should they have? That's a good question. I don't know.
I don't know if Placebostudman has visited this post; I don't mean for this to be any sort of attack on his writing, of course. This post has been running through my head since I read his thoughts, though, and Catherine's more recent post made me want to put a few words down on the topic.
Finally, some people have a natural tendency to look into the details of an issue and see subtleties. In the end it seems that we share a lot of the same views, though.
Thanks for your thoughts, Steve. I wonder, too, about what this says about our culture, from the books compiled of others' work to (going back a few years) sampling and lip-synching in music. There's artistic appropriation, as Gary describes it, but then there's also just taking stuff that's not really yours.
Hmm, ttfn, your situation sounds like a case study of this issue. As does your, Cap'n Parrotdead.
Thanks for visiting, Saturn, Duane, and MJwycha. I did read your musical post, though I forgot to mention it. And thanks for your kind words, vanessa.
Thanks for the pointer to Reality Hunger: a Manifesto, Stellaa. I saw a review of it on the NYTimes site, and the idea looked interesting, though, as you say, it could lead to problems if everyone does it. "David Shields is a professional artist--please do not attempt this at home."
You raise a good point, Kent, which others have touched on as well. (Good to see that you're back, by the way. We'll have to talk via email.) I didn't mean to downplay the value of non-material benefits of producing and publicizing work. I just did this myself, the other day, writing/editing educational software for others to use, hoping that it brings my department some attention.
I remember your encounter with the Almighty, mishima. What a strange thing. And you're right, it's not uncommon to find people taking credit for others' work. (Parts of academia have that reputation.)
Ruff Stuff, I wish I knew.
Thanks for visiting, Catherine. I liked your post, and as I said above, it was partly an inspiration for mine. (I'm glad yours still has had more eyeballs.) I took Nick's comment here in a different way, though, and I hope it was meant more kindly: amazement about the messages you received, rather than literal disbelief.
I'm going to pass for now on the question you ask, Kathy. I lead an online life generally free of viral emails, luckily. I'll think about it, though.
Now, Ms. Riordan: Please do not drag me into this.
I clearly stated in my post:
"Now, some facts....I have no idea where these ads came from. I have no idea who put the little comments under the pictures. I do not think they have been photo shopped, at least I did not do that or the person I got it from. This is just one of those things making its way around the web." I do not think, since this email was obviously in the public domain, as both print advertising in the past and on the web now, circulating around the globe that it was plagarized by anyone. Without research no one would be able to identify whose intellectual property this was other than the brand on each of the products, therefore, who owned the advertising product was identified.
Additionally, I clearly identified where I got them and how they came to me. The point of the post was not the stealing intellectual property but sharing old ads that were by todays standards unacceptable or inappropriate. I think that was both Mary Ann's and my same idea. I think that is obvious and those who have seen it recently share that idea.
Plagarism is wrong. I decided that when I joined OS I would not participate in petty conflicts and most people have recognized that I do not participate. However, when you are trying to put me in the same catagory as a plagarist, I do and will state that I am offended and you in no have the right to make me a part of this discussion.
Catch a man a fish; feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish; feed him for a lifetime.
Lots of internet surfers seek to be handed fish, and they do not care from whose net they rob it.
Not a lot of gray area there.
Geoff, you may be right, but we'll keep trying. I like your metaphor of the creators versus the surfers. That's insightful.
You may be right, Doug, though it's really hard to predict the future. But I agree there's a danger, when we all expect to pay for the platform (e.g., an ebook reader or a computer) and get all the content for free.
There was a lot of discussion being thrown around, and I wanted to know the thoughts of others on this specific issue. Some are drawing some very definite lines with respect to images, and I'm trying to find out where those are.
My apologies if you thought I was accusing you of anything; I wasn't.
Silkstone, an artist's signature is their style, sort of like an writer's voice. It's nothing you could copyright, but you know it when you see it. So much so that people now don't know if they are buying a Picasso or one of his student's work. Not sure what my point is. I think just that visual arts seems looser to me, but that could just be the distance of 20 yrs.
I leave it at that. Sorry Rob, know conflict is not your thing, but I'm not a thief, and figured I could sit here all night with my eye twitching or actually just write how I felt.
Catherine, Nick's comment struck me as very supportive of you. I think he just meant, "OMG, that's just unbelievable that anyone would question her post." Nick is a thoughtful guy in my experience.
Sheila, I totally got what Kathy was doing: I do that stuff all the time and then have to walk back from it because people get offended. She was looking for a recent example that we could all talk about so that we could "see" what each of us meant when we talked about where our lines were. You know what I mean? I never thought that she was dragging anyone through the mud but rather trying to find common ground among everybody.
Julie--hee, can't make you feel better b/c I was thinking that Woolly must be talking about me too, since I see the gray in every stinking thing out there. The name of my blog is It's Complicated. I wish I were more parsimonious but I ain't. I also ain't offended by Woolly 'cause I know he likes me anyway. ;)
OK, Rob, any other issues you'd like me to dispense with?
Plagiarizing is for those who can't do, but wish to think they can...and have others think so too.
You agree that you will not use the Service or the Site to post, transmit, or share User Content that you did not create or that you do not have permission to post. You affirm that you own or have all intellectual property rights (including without limitation copyright and trademark rights), licenses, and permissions to the User Content you provide that are needed to use and to authorize Salon to use that User Content in the manner described in these TOS. By submitting or posting User Content, you warrant that it does not infringe any intellectual property rights of another person.