[cc-community] Copyright - Plagiarism

Fred Benenson fred.benenson at gmail.com
Sun May 4 13:30:58 EDT 2008

Hrm, just re-read this and think I should have said "Also note while
sometimes sufficient ... " as opposed to "Also note while sufficient" in the
2nd paragraph.

On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Fred Benenson <fred.benenson at gmail.com>

> Just to clarify -- there's a difference between plagiarism and copyright
> infringement. While plagiarism is largely a socially constructed kind of an
> infringement (and is extra-legal, or even non-legal), copyright is a
> specific kind of legal infringement. Put another way, you're breaking the
> law when you infringe on copyright, whereas you're breaking social norms
> when you engage in plagiarism.
> Also note while sufficient, it is not necessary to commit copyright
> infringement while committing plagiarism -- the academic community is just
> as likely to call you a plagiarist if you copy the ideas of a previous
> author (without attribution) as if you were to copy her text, so determining
> if a particular text was copied directly is really not enough to settle
> whether a particular publishing counts as plagiarism.
> This also works the other way around -- simply copying text does not
> explicitly constitute plagiarism as there is a relatively standard academic
> procedure of using quotation marks and attribution to avoid charges of
> plagiarism.
> So there are really two classes of answers to your question -- one assumes
> that you are only talking about plagiarism (and Matt's answer holds) and
> another set if you're talking about copyright infringement when you say
> plagiarism. Though I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, it would
> seem much more difficult to infringe on copyright that you owned than it
> would be to plagiarize it. Though note that this leaves the very real
> possibility that you can infringe on copyright that you created but don't
> own (see: many musicians getting sued for reworking / performing their own
> work that a record company actually owns the rights to).
> So if you're talking about a manuscript being based off a previously
> published book, the legal question is really who owns the rights to the
> original book (or more specifically, the rights to make derivative works of
> the book) not whether or not its within the constructed notion of plagiarism
> to publish such a similar work.
> Hope that helps,
> F
> On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Bobbie <rkr4cds at comcast.net> wrote:
> >  THX Matt; in this case it would be from one published book into a new
> > manuscript.
> >
> >
> > 2008 (c) RKR4CDS
> > http://www.BeyondBasicBears.com
> > eBay ID ~ rkr4cds
> >
> > "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path
> > and leave a trail."
> >
> >
> > -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-community mailing list
> > cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> >
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20080504/5628c8ce/attachment.html 

More information about the cc-community mailing list