Copyright Infringement, Plagiarism and Fair Use

Contrary to popular belief, the word plagiarism is not synonymous with copyright infringement. Not every incident of plagiarism is copyright infringement, especially when public domain works are involved. On the flip side, not every incident of copyright infringement is plagiarism, such as the alleged infringements of file sharers.

On a related note, not all reuse of copyrighted material is copyright infringement or plagiarism. Some uses are perfectly legal and ethical, thus getting them dubbed “fair use?.

However, on the Web, these terms are getting thrown around with reckless abandon. People, who often aren’t aware of the subtle nuances that separate the terms, use them in incorrect ways and cause confusion, often turning a legitimate complaint into a questionable matter.

So, given what’s at stake, it’s worth taking a moment to talk about these terms, what they entail and how to use them correctly. After all, if the terms are worth using, they’re worth using correctly.

Copyright Infringement

Copyright Infringement is defined as “the unauthorized use of copyrighted material in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it.”

You can infringe upon a copyright in many different ways. You can duplicate a work, rewrite a piece, perform a written work or do anything that is normally considered to be the exclusive right of the copyright holder. As such, copyright infringement is a very broad term that describes a variety of acts.

Copyright infringement is also against the law. A wide range of civil punishments can be levied against people who infringe upon copyrights and, in some cases, criminal charges can also be filed.

The main thing to remember is that copyright infringement is a broad term used to catch every conceivable way that one can violate another’s copyright.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is defined as “the use of another’s information, language, or writing, when done without proper acknowledgment of the original source.” However, the critical element of it is the final part. The one thing that ties all plagiarism together is going beyond merely duplicating the work, but also not crediting the source and thus taking the material for yourself.

Thus, plagiarism is a very specific act and the term only means one thing. It is also, generally, considered to be a much more morally heinous act as it involves deception (lying to others about the origins of the work) and generally has a much greater impact on the copyright holder.

However, not all incidents of plagiarism are considered copyright infringement. Plagiarizing works in the public domain, though unethical, is not considered copyright infringement. Also, plagiarism, in and of itself, is not illegal. While it can be considered a mitigating factor in the event a legal dispute should arise, it is only considered illegal if it also constitutes copyright infringement.

The important thing to remember, though, is that plagiarism refers to using someone else’s work without providing attribution. Though it’s possible to infringe upon a copyright while attributing a source properly, it is not possible to plagiarize.

Fair Use

Fair use is a legal gray area that refers to exceptions in the rights of copyright holders and allows for limited use of copyrighted material, even without permission. However, the conditions in which fair use can be claimed are not set in stone and depend upon four factors:

  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

In short, using short, attributed snippets of a piece for the purpose of commentary or education is generally considered fair use. However, reprinting an entire work without attribution for the purpose of self-promotion or profit isn’t. The shorter the amount copied and the more it is for the purpose of commentary or education, the more likely it is to be deemed fair use.

One important note about fair use is that all incidents of it involve attribution. An act of plagiarism never falls under fair use. So, if you ever want to claim fair use when copying from someone else’s work, you need to make sure to follow proper attribution procedures, just to be safe.

An Example

As one might imagine, these terms often get thrown around incorrectly a great deal and can add a lot of tension to an already hostile situation.

An example of this recently took place at Babayaga. There, an article on the comic character Wicked Wanda (Note: Link contains an image of drawn nudity) copied and pasted an article from Don Markstein’s Toonopedia.

Though the copied content was definitely sizable, as you can see in this screenshot of the original article, and a definite violation of copyright law and the DMCA (considering it would fail any fair use test), it was not technically plagiarism as the use was credited in the footer. However, Mr. Markstein, when writing to complain about the misuse of the material, used the term to make sure he was clear to someone outside of the publishing fields. Though his reasons were genuine, the use of the term caused the situation to get very far off track (Note: I do not agree with nor condone the content of this link).

For, while Mr. Markstein certainly had a legitimate complaint, it wasn’t a plagiarism one. Though it’s clear he understands more about copyright law than the blogger in question, it was a simple mix up in terminology that caused the whole thing to get out of hand.

That’s why it’s important, when trying to resolve these matters, to use the correct terms and try hard not to unintentionally hurl false accusations. This is an area that brings about enough strong emotions without the aid of miscommunication.

So taking a moment to get terms straight and make sure we understand one another is critical. Perhaps this brief explanation will be able to help out with that.

[tags]Plagiarism, Copyright Infringement, Content Theft, Fair Use, Copyright[/tags]

21 comments
Rachel
Rachel

Mr.Markstein's comments above perfectly illustrate that he approached me with utter contempt and yet he is now surprised that contempt is what he's gotten in return. Had he been a normal, respectful and civilized individual who emailed me privately and kindly addressed the mishap as *possible* copyright violation rather than outright "plagiarism" this entire deal would have had an entirely different outcome. As it stands he falsely and publicly accused me of plagiarism and *continues* to do so in a slanderous manner via this blog. The article you've posted about this incident only further supports (via exposure and legitimization) his efforts to slander me.

And despite the fact that you DO concur that I "technically" did not plagiarize. The manner in which you support Mr.Markstein's claims that I effected an intentional "theft" of his copyrighted material, clearly plays into Mr.Markstein's hands as he continues to harass and publicly slander me. The fact is, there was NEVER an intent to "steal" anything from Mr.Markstein. His so-called "complete" text was rather short and at best a 'quickie' amateur review.

And when you state that what I did was "a definite violation of copyright law" you are labeling me a person who has intentionally violated copyright law. You also do this by saying that Mr.Markstein has a "legitimate claim". Flash forward to the "When All Else Fails" section of this blog and clearly it appears that this blog entry and Mr.Markstein's following comments are targeted towards me in an effort to intimidate, "shame" and harass me in this "war" on copyright violation you both happen to pursue with zealous fervor.

Mr.Markstein if you continue to slander me I will not only take actions against you, I will begin carefully examining the copyright claims YOU make in turn, as well as your "business" practices. Though, I'm certain that the "donations" you receive in compensation for the amateur comic book reviews you publish (along with the thousands of copyrighted quotes and graphics you have full-permission to use) are fully declared as income to the IRS.

This may shock you Mr.Markstein but I have a RIGHT to reject the validity of the DMCA if I wish, and it is slanderous for you to imply that this has anything at all to do with my professional credibility or my character.

Rachel
Rachel

Mr.Markstein's comments above perfectly illustrate that he approached me with utter contempt and yet he is now surprised that contempt is what he's gotten in return. Had he been a normal, respectful and civilized individual who emailed me privately and kindly addressed the mishap as *possible* copyright violation rather than outright "plagiarism" this entire deal would have had an entirely different outcome. As it stands he falsely and publicly accused me of plagiarism and *continues* to do so in a slanderous manner via this blog. The article you've posted about this incident only further supports (via exposure and legitimization) his efforts to slander me.

And despite the fact that you DO concur that I "technically" did not plagiarize. The manner in which you support Mr.Markstein's claims that I effected an intentional "theft" of his copyrighted material, clearly plays into Mr.Markstein's hands as he continues to harass and publicly slander me. The fact is, there was NEVER an intent to "steal" anything from Mr.Markstein. His so-called "complete" text was rather short and at best a 'quickie' amateur review.

And when you state that what I did was "a definite violation of copyright law" you are labeling me a person who has intentionally violated copyright law. You also do this by saying that Mr.Markstein has a "legitimate claim". Flash forward to the "When All Else Fails" section of this blog and clearly it appears that this blog entry and Mr.Markstein's following comments are targeted towards me in an effort to intimidate, "shame" and harass me in this "war" on copyright violation you both happen to pursue with zealous fervor.

Mr.Markstein if you continue to slander me I will not only take actions against you, I will begin carefully examining the copyright claims YOU make in turn, as well as your "business" practices. Though, I'm certain that the "donations" you receive in compensation for the amateur comic book reviews you publish (along with the thousands of copyrighted quotes and graphics you have full-permission to use) are fully declared as income to the IRS.

This may shock you Mr.Markstein but I have a RIGHT to reject the validity of the DMCA if I wish, and it is slanderous for you to imply that this has anything at all to do with my professional credibility or my character.

Rachel
Rachel

Mr.Markstein's comments above perfectly illustrate that he approached me with utter contempt and yet he is now surprised that contempt is what he's gotten in return. Had he been a normal, respectful and civilized individual who emailed me privately and kindly addressed the mishap as *possible* copyright violation rather than outright "plagiarism" this entire deal would have had an entirely different outcome. As it stands he falsely and publicly accused me of plagiarism and *continues* to do so in a slanderous manner via this blog. The article you've posted about this incident only further supports (via exposure and legitimization) his efforts to slander me.And despite the fact that you DO concur that I "technically" did not plagiarize. The manner in which you support Mr.Markstein's claims that I effected an intentional "theft" of his copyrighted material, clearly plays into Mr.Markstein's hands as he continues to harass and publicly slander me. The fact is, there was NEVER an intent to "steal" anything from Mr.Markstein. His so-called "complete" text was rather short and at best a 'quickie' amateur review.And when you state that what I did was "a definite violation of copyright law" you are labeling me a person who has intentionally violated copyright law. You also do this by saying that Mr.Markstein has a "legitimate claim". Flash forward to the "When All Else Fails" section of this blog and clearly it appears that this blog entry and Mr.Markstein's following comments are targeted towards me in an effort to intimidate, "shame" and harass me in this "war" on copyright violation you both happen to pursue with zealous fervor.Mr.Markstein if you continue to slander me I will not only take actions against you, I will begin carefully examining the copyright claims YOU make in turn, as well as your "business" practices. Though, I'm certain that the "donations" you receive in compensation for the amateur comic book reviews you publish (along with the thousands of copyrighted quotes and graphics you have full-permission to use) are fully declared as income to the IRS.This may shock you Mr.Markstein but I have a RIGHT to reject the validity of the DMCA if I wish, and it is slanderous for you to imply that this has anything at all to do with my professional credibility or my character.

colten
colten

You're both insane. I read the article when it was published and was never under any impression she wrote it herself. Shit, it was in BOLD while the rest was in regular font weight. It was also completely separated from the rest of the text and quoted "-DDM" (both things your screenshot shows). She also linked to your site at the bottom, - what more did you want? Also, I had every indication as a reader that she was praising your work and expressing an enthusiastic and heartfelt common interest. If you weren't so busy being a jackass and jumping on someone for piracy and theft, you might have made a friend. and you CAN quote me on that.

(Editor's Note: I never said that the reuse was plagiarism, I wholeheartedly agree that it wasn't and provided screenshots proving as such. The point of the article was to clarify what the term plagiarism really means and prove that this wasn't.)

colten
colten

You're both insane. I read the article when it was published and was never under any impression she wrote it herself. Shit, it was in BOLD while the rest was in regular font weight. It was also completely separated from the rest of the text and quoted "-DDM" (both things your screenshot shows). She also linked to your site at the bottom, - what more did you want? Also, I had every indication as a reader that she was praising your work and expressing an enthusiastic and heartfelt common interest. If you weren't so busy being a jackass and jumping on someone for piracy and theft, you might have made a friend. and you CAN quote me on that.

(Editor's Note: I never said that the reuse was plagiarism, I wholeheartedly agree that it wasn't and provided screenshots proving as such. The point of the article was to clarify what the term plagiarism really means and prove that this wasn't.)

colten
colten

You're both insane. I read the article when it was published and was never under any impression she wrote it herself. Shit, it was in BOLD while the rest was in regular font weight. It was also completely separated from the rest of the text and quoted "-DDM" (both things your screenshot shows). She also linked to your site at the bottom, - what more did you want? Also, I had every indication as a reader that she was praising your work and expressing an enthusiastic and heartfelt common interest. If you weren't so busy being a jackass and jumping on someone for piracy and theft, you might have made a friend. and you CAN quote me on that.(Editor's Note: I never said that the reuse was plagiarism, I wholeheartedly agree that it wasn't and provided screenshots proving as such. The point of the article was to clarify what the term plagiarism really means and prove that this wasn't.)

Rachel
Rachel

Mr.Markstein's comments above perfectly illustrate that he approached me with utter contempt and yet he is now surprised that contempt is what he's gotten in return. Had he been a normal, respectful and civilized individual who emailed me privately and kindly addressed the mishap as *possible* copyright violation rather than outright "plagiarism" this entire deal would have had an entirely different outcome. As it stands he falsely and publicly accused me of plagiarism and *continues* to do so in a slanderous manner via this blog. The article you've posted about this incident only further supports (via exposure and legitimization) his efforts to slander me.

And despite the fact that you DO concur that I "technically" did not plagiarize. The manner in which you support Mr.Markstein's claims that I effected an intentional "theft" of his copyrighted material, clearly plays into Mr.Markstein's hands as he continues to harass and publicly slander me. The fact is, there was NEVER an intent to "steal" anything from Mr.Markstein. His so-called "complete" text was rather short and at best a 'quickie' amateur review.

And when you state that what I did was "a definite violation of copyright law" you are labeling me a person who has intentionally violated copyright law. You also do this by saying that Mr.Markstein has a "legitimate claim". Flash forward to the "When All Else Fails" section of this blog and clearly it appears that this blog entry and Mr.Markstein's following comments are targeted towards me in an effort to intimidate, "shame" and harass me in this "war" on copyright violation you both happen to pursue with zealous fervor.

Mr.Markstein if you continue to slander me I will not only take actions against you, I will begin carefully examining the copyright claims YOU make in turn, as well as your "business" practices. Though, I'm certain that the "donations" you receive in compensation for the amateur comic book reviews you publish (along with the thousands of copyrighted quotes and graphics you have full-permission to use) are fully declared as income to the IRS.

This may shock you Mr.Markstein but I have a RIGHT to reject the validity of the DMCA if I wish, and it is slanderous for you to imply that this has anything at all to do with my professional credibility or my character.

Rachel
Rachel

Mr.Markstein's comments above perfectly illustrate that he approached me with utter contempt and yet he is now surprised that contempt is what he's gotten in return. Had he been a normal, respectful and civilized individual who emailed me privately and kindly addressed the mishap as *possible* copyright violation rather than outright "plagiarism" this entire deal would have had an entirely different outcome. As it stands he falsely and publicly accused me of plagiarism and *continues* to do so in a slanderous manner via this blog. The article you've posted about this incident only further supports (via exposure and legitimization) his efforts to slander me.
And despite the fact that you DO concur that I "technically" did not plagiarize. The manner in which you support Mr.Markstein's claims that I effected an intentional "theft" of his copyrighted material, clearly plays into Mr.Markstein's hands as he continues to harass and publicly slander me. The fact is, there was NEVER an intent to "steal" anything from Mr.Markstein. His so-called "complete" text was rather short and at best a 'quickie' amateur review.
And when you state that what I did was "a definite violation of copyright law" you are labeling me a person who has intentionally violated copyright law. You also do this by saying that Mr.Markstein has a "legitimate claim". Flash forward to the "When All Else Fails" section of this blog and clearly it appears that this blog entry and Mr.Markstein's following comments are targeted towards me in an effort to intimidate, "shame" and harass me in this "war" on copyright violation you both happen to pursue with zealous fervor.
Mr.Markstein if you continue to slander me I will not only take actions against you, I will begin carefully examining the copyright claims YOU make in turn, as well as your "business" practices. Though, I'm certain that the "donations" you receive in compensation for the amateur comic book reviews you publish (along with the thousands of copyrighted quotes and graphics you have full-permission to use) are fully declared as income to the IRS.
This may shock you Mr.Markstein but I have a RIGHT to reject the validity of the DMCA if I wish, and it is slanderous for you to imply that this has anything at all to do with my professional credibility or my character.

Rachel
Rachel

Mr.Markstein's comments above perfectly illustrate that he approached me with utter contempt and yet he is now surprised that contempt is what he's gotten in return. Had he been a normal, respectful and civilized individual who emailed me privately and kindly addressed the mishap as *possible* copyright violation rather than outright "plagiarism" this entire deal would have had an entirely different outcome. As it stands he falsely and publicly accused me of plagiarism and *continues* to do so in a slanderous manner via this blog. The article you've posted about this incident only further supports (via exposure and legitimization) his efforts to slander me. And despite the fact that you DO concur that I "technically" did not plagiarize. The manner in which you support Mr.Markstein's claims that I effected an intentional "theft" of his copyrighted material, clearly plays into Mr.Markstein's hands as he continues to harass and publicly slander me. The fact is, there was NEVER an intent to "steal" anything from Mr.Markstein. His so-called "complete" text was rather short and at best a 'quickie' amateur review. And when you state that what I did was "a definite violation of copyright law" you are labeling me a person who has intentionally violated copyright law. You also do this by saying that Mr.Markstein has a "legitimate claim". Flash forward to the "When All Else Fails" section of this blog and clearly it appears that this blog entry and Mr.Markstein's following comments are targeted towards me in an effort to intimidate, "shame" and harass me in this "war" on copyright violation you both happen to pursue with zealous fervor. Mr.Markstein if you continue to slander me I will not only take actions against you, I will begin carefully examining the copyright claims YOU make in turn, as well as your "business" practices. Though, I'm certain that the "donations" you receive in compensation for the amateur comic book reviews you publish (along with the thousands of copyrighted quotes and graphics you have full-permission to use) are fully declared as income to the IRS. This may shock you Mr.Markstein but I have a RIGHT to reject the validity of the DMCA if I wish, and it is slanderous for you to imply that this has anything at all to do with my professional credibility or my character.

colten
colten

You're both insane. I read the article when it was published and was never under any impression she wrote it herself. Shit, it was in BOLD while the rest was in regular font weight. It was also completely separated from the rest of the text and quoted "-DDM" (both things your screenshot shows). She also linked to your site at the bottom, - what more did you want? Also, I had every indication as a reader that she was praising your work and expressing an enthusiastic and heartfelt common interest. If you weren't so busy being a jackass and jumping on someone for piracy and theft, you might have made a friend. and you CAN quote me on that.

(Editor's Note: I never said that the reuse was plagiarism, I wholeheartedly agree that it wasn't and provided screenshots proving as such. The point of the article was to clarify what the term plagiarism really means and prove that this wasn't.)

colten
colten

You're both insane. I read the article when it was published and was never under any impression she wrote it herself. Shit, it was in BOLD while the rest was in regular font weight. It was also completely separated from the rest of the text and quoted "-DDM" (both things your screenshot shows). She also linked to your site at the bottom, - what more did you want? Also, I had every indication as a reader that she was praising your work and expressing an enthusiastic and heartfelt common interest. If you weren't so busy being a jackass and jumping on someone for piracy and theft, you might have made a friend. and you CAN quote me on that.
(Editor's Note: I never said that the reuse was plagiarism, I wholeheartedly agree that it wasn't and provided screenshots proving as such. The point of the article was to clarify what the term plagiarism really means and prove that this wasn't.)

colten
colten

You're both insane. I read the article when it was published and was never under any impression she wrote it herself. Shit, it was in BOLD while the rest was in regular font weight. It was also completely separated from the rest of the text and quoted "-DDM" (both things your screenshot shows). She also linked to your site at the bottom, - what more did you want? Also, I had every indication as a reader that she was praising your work and expressing an enthusiastic and heartfelt common interest. If you weren't so busy being a jackass and jumping on someone for piracy and theft, you might have made a friend. and you CAN quote me on that. (Editor's Note: I never said that the reuse was plagiarism, I wholeheartedly agree that it wasn't and provided screenshots proving as such. The point of the article was to clarify what the term plagiarism really means and prove that this wasn't.)

Don Markstein
Don Markstein

With all due respect, Jonathan, you're delusional if you think that little hissy-fit had anything to do with imprecise terminology. It was sheer rage at the thwarting of her will. Note how she calls the Digital Millennium Copyright Act "inane" -- she has nothing but contempt for the notion that anyone can tell her what not to put on her site, even if it's clearly owned by someone else.

I know very well there's a difference between plagiarism and piracy, and that particular theft was the latter. But then, I've been in the publishing industry for more than 35 years, so I'm familiar with the jargon. To most people, the taxonomy of copyright violation is meaningless babble -- accuse them of piracy, and they think you've made a flamboyant but meaningless insult, kind of like calling a political opponent a fascist. He may fit the exact definition of the Italian fascisti of World War II, but all he hears is what's become a meaningless insult.

That's why I use the word "plagiarism" with people outside the industry. They may not know its precise definition, but they certainly know what you're talking about.

Of course, I'm all for educating people on the fine points of content theft. But I don't think this case is a good illustration of it, because the thief's response would have been the same no matter what it was called. For the reasons stated above, I flatly deny it was a mix-up in terminology that caused things to "get out of hand". She flew off the handle in response to a simple, blandly-stated, 24-word cease-and-desist order. It doesn't matter what words I used -- she gives no evidence of knowing the meaning of them anyway. It was the order to cease-and-desist (which constitutes the entirety of my communication in her direction, before or after) that put her into flame mode.

By the way, another quibble on terminology. You say the theft was "definitely sizable". I would say it was "absolutely complete". She stole every single word of my copyrighted article.

Don Markstein
Don Markstein

With all due respect, Jonathan, you're delusional if you think that little hissy-fit had anything to do with imprecise terminology. It was sheer rage at the thwarting of her will. Note how she calls the Digital Millennium Copyright Act "inane" -- she has nothing but contempt for the notion that anyone can tell her what not to put on her site, even if it's clearly owned by someone else.

I know very well there's a difference between plagiarism and piracy, and that particular theft was the latter. But then, I've been in the publishing industry for more than 35 years, so I'm familiar with the jargon. To most people, the taxonomy of copyright violation is meaningless babble -- accuse them of piracy, and they think you've made a flamboyant but meaningless insult, kind of like calling a political opponent a fascist. He may fit the exact definition of the Italian fascisti of World War II, but all he hears is what's become a meaningless insult.

That's why I use the word "plagiarism" with people outside the industry. They may not know its precise definition, but they certainly know what you're talking about.

Of course, I'm all for educating people on the fine points of content theft. But I don't think this case is a good illustration of it, because the thief's response would have been the same no matter what it was called. For the reasons stated above, I flatly deny it was a mix-up in terminology that caused things to "get out of hand". She flew off the handle in response to a simple, blandly-stated, 24-word cease-and-desist order. It doesn't matter what words I used -- she gives no evidence of knowing the meaning of them anyway. It was the order to cease-and-desist (which constitutes the entirety of my communication in her direction, before or after) that put her into flame mode.

By the way, another quibble on terminology. You say the theft was "definitely sizable". I would say it was "absolutely complete". She stole every single word of my copyrighted article.

Don Markstein
Don Markstein

With all due respect, Jonathan, you're delusional if you think that little hissy-fit had anything to do with imprecise terminology. It was sheer rage at the thwarting of her will. Note how she calls the Digital Millennium Copyright Act "inane" -- she has nothing but contempt for the notion that anyone can tell her what not to put on her site, even if it's clearly owned by someone else.I know very well there's a difference between plagiarism and piracy, and that particular theft was the latter. But then, I've been in the publishing industry for more than 35 years, so I'm familiar with the jargon. To most people, the taxonomy of copyright violation is meaningless babble -- accuse them of piracy, and they think you've made a flamboyant but meaningless insult, kind of like calling a political opponent a fascist. He may fit the exact definition of the Italian fascisti of World War II, but all he hears is what's become a meaningless insult.That's why I use the word "plagiarism" with people outside the industry. They may not know its precise definition, but they certainly know what you're talking about.Of course, I'm all for educating people on the fine points of content theft. But I don't think this case is a good illustration of it, because the thief's response would have been the same no matter what it was called. For the reasons stated above, I flatly deny it was a mix-up in terminology that caused things to "get out of hand". She flew off the handle in response to a simple, blandly-stated, 24-word cease-and-desist order. It doesn't matter what words I used -- she gives no evidence of knowing the meaning of them anyway. It was the order to cease-and-desist (which constitutes the entirety of my communication in her direction, before or after) that put her into flame mode.By the way, another quibble on terminology. You say the theft was "definitely sizable". I would say it was "absolutely complete". She stole every single word of my copyrighted article.

Don Markstein
Don Markstein

With all due respect, Jonathan, you're delusional if you think that little hissy-fit had anything to do with imprecise terminology. It was sheer rage at the thwarting of her will. Note how she calls the Digital Millennium Copyright Act "inane" -- she has nothing but contempt for the notion that anyone can tell her what not to put on her site, even if it's clearly owned by someone else.

I know very well there's a difference between plagiarism and piracy, and that particular theft was the latter. But then, I've been in the publishing industry for more than 35 years, so I'm familiar with the jargon. To most people, the taxonomy of copyright violation is meaningless babble -- accuse them of piracy, and they think you've made a flamboyant but meaningless insult, kind of like calling a political opponent a fascist. He may fit the exact definition of the Italian fascisti of World War II, but all he hears is what's become a meaningless insult.

That's why I use the word "plagiarism" with people outside the industry. They may not know its precise definition, but they certainly know what you're talking about.

Of course, I'm all for educating people on the fine points of content theft. But I don't think this case is a good illustration of it, because the thief's response would have been the same no matter what it was called. For the reasons stated above, I flatly deny it was a mix-up in terminology that caused things to "get out of hand". She flew off the handle in response to a simple, blandly-stated, 24-word cease-and-desist order. It doesn't matter what words I used -- she gives no evidence of knowing the meaning of them anyway. It was the order to cease-and-desist (which constitutes the entirety of my communication in her direction, before or after) that put her into flame mode.

By the way, another quibble on terminology. You say the theft was "definitely sizable". I would say it was "absolutely complete". She stole every single word of my copyrighted article.

Don Markstein
Don Markstein

With all due respect, Jonathan, you're delusional if you think that little hissy-fit had anything to do with imprecise terminology. It was sheer rage at the thwarting of her will. Note how she calls the Digital Millennium Copyright Act "inane" -- she has nothing but contempt for the notion that anyone can tell her what not to put on her site, even if it's clearly owned by someone else.
I know very well there's a difference between plagiarism and piracy, and that particular theft was the latter. But then, I've been in the publishing industry for more than 35 years, so I'm familiar with the jargon. To most people, the taxonomy of copyright violation is meaningless babble -- accuse them of piracy, and they think you've made a flamboyant but meaningless insult, kind of like calling a political opponent a fascist. He may fit the exact definition of the Italian fascisti of World War II, but all he hears is what's become a meaningless insult.
That's why I use the word "plagiarism" with people outside the industry. They may not know its precise definition, but they certainly know what you're talking about.
Of course, I'm all for educating people on the fine points of content theft. But I don't think this case is a good illustration of it, because the thief's response would have been the same no matter what it was called. For the reasons stated above, I flatly deny it was a mix-up in terminology that caused things to "get out of hand". She flew off the handle in response to a simple, blandly-stated, 24-word cease-and-desist order. It doesn't matter what words I used -- she gives no evidence of knowing the meaning of them anyway. It was the order to cease-and-desist (which constitutes the entirety of my communication in her direction, before or after) that put her into flame mode.
By the way, another quibble on terminology. You say the theft was "definitely sizable". I would say it was "absolutely complete". She stole every single word of my copyrighted article.

Don Markstein
Don Markstein

With all due respect, Jonathan, you're delusional if you think that little hissy-fit had anything to do with imprecise terminology. It was sheer rage at the thwarting of her will. Note how she calls the Digital Millennium Copyright Act "inane" -- she has nothing but contempt for the notion that anyone can tell her what not to put on her site, even if it's clearly owned by someone else. I know very well there's a difference between plagiarism and piracy, and that particular theft was the latter. But then, I've been in the publishing industry for more than 35 years, so I'm familiar with the jargon. To most people, the taxonomy of copyright violation is meaningless babble -- accuse them of piracy, and they think you've made a flamboyant but meaningless insult, kind of like calling a political opponent a fascist. He may fit the exact definition of the Italian fascisti of World War II, but all he hears is what's become a meaningless insult. That's why I use the word "plagiarism" with people outside the industry. They may not know its precise definition, but they certainly know what you're talking about. Of course, I'm all for educating people on the fine points of content theft. But I don't think this case is a good illustration of it, because the thief's response would have been the same no matter what it was called. For the reasons stated above, I flatly deny it was a mix-up in terminology that caused things to "get out of hand". She flew off the handle in response to a simple, blandly-stated, 24-word cease-and-desist order. It doesn't matter what words I used -- she gives no evidence of knowing the meaning of them anyway. It was the order to cease-and-desist (which constitutes the entirety of my communication in her direction, before or after) that put her into flame mode. By the way, another quibble on terminology. You say the theft was "definitely sizable". I would say it was "absolutely complete". She stole every single word of my copyrighted article.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] What Is The Difference Between Copyright Infringement, Plagiarism and Fair Use? [...]

  2. [...] that doesn’t mean that they can’t quote some portions that are properly attributed. Fair use is an exception to copyright that, among many other things and without getting too technical or [...]

  3. [...] The difference between copyright infringement, plagiarism, and fair use [...]

  4. […] ago (nearly to the day), shortly after the launch of the site, I wrote an article entitled “Copyright Infringement, Plagiarism and Fair Use“. However, the age is beginning to show on the article (both literally and figuratively) and […]