DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism

[_fetchface]

I'm no lawyer but it is my understanding that fair use permits people to take part of a copyrighted work, copy, and discuss without permission of the copyright holder.

Infoplease may not like it, but I don't think they can do anything if you quote, cite, and discuss parts of their material, even without permission.

However, it appears that Peterson is copying, pasting, and editing, then claiming he got help from Infoplease. Still over the line IMHO and against the express wishes of Infoplease.

[_Lemmie]

I'm no lawyer but it is my understanding that fair use permits people to take part of a copyrighted work, copy, and discuss without permission of the copyright holder.

Infoplease may not like it, but I don't think they can do anything if you quote, cite, and discuss parts of their material, even without permission.

However, it appears that Peterson is copying, pasting, and editing, then claiming he got help from Infoplease. Still over the line IMHO and against the express wishes of Infoplease.

Interesting point, I'll go back and make sure anytime I quote the site, I add the proper citation.

But if there is anything we've learned from LDS lawyers recently, it is that the LDS church feels it is entitled to violate the spirit of the law if they can come up with any loophole possible so that their behavior can be strictly interpreted as "legal.". Not ethical or moral, just strictly legal. Peterson is following his leaders in this one case of adding a partial citation. His habit of plagiarizing until caught remains unresolved.

[_Res Ipsa]

I'm no lawyer but it is my understanding that fair use permits people to take part of a copyrighted work, copy, and discuss without permission of the copyright holder.

Infoplease may not like it, but I don't think they can do anything if you quote, cite, and discuss parts of their material, even without permission.

However, it appears that Peterson is copying, pasting, and editing, then claiming he got help from Infoplease. Still over the line IMHO and against the express wishes of Infoplease.

I’m pretty sure fair use and derivative use cannot be limited by putting limitations on or in the work. I have no idea whether any of the seven versions fall within fair use, but posting the original cut and paste without any attribution was certainly dishonest. And going through the gyrations of seven edits to make just enough changes to be arguably kosher rather than simply adding quote marks and a citation is simply childish. He seems much more interested in jousting with critics than being open and honest with his readership.

[_Physics Guy]

I haven't been trying to defend Peterson, even to play devil's advocate. In the case of the DN article I was trying to play the weary old DA who tells the keen young prosecutor that just because we know what happened doesn't mean we have enough proof to win the case.

In the case of the blog I think we have proof of what happened, but there I'm wondering whether the accused could still get off on a legal technicality.

[_fetchface]

In the case of the blog I think we have proof of what happened, but there I'm wondering whether the accused could still get off on a legal technicality.

Well, It would be nice to have a copyright lawyer weigh in on this but I'd be surprised if copying, modifying, and presenting another's work as one's own qualified as fair use.

Any lawyers out there who know this stuff well?

ETA: My quick Wikipedia education on fair use shows me that it isn't clear-cut and there are lots of factors to consider.

[_MsJack]

Also, according to kiwi, if you notice plagiarism you are an arch-feminist?!!! Is this like Midgley's comment that homosexuality renders one unable to do history?

I may be way off here but I read that initially as a reference to Ms Jack's expose on Schryver. Kiwi probably thinks lumping the two incidents together puts a stain on yours but personally I'd consider you in good company there.

I was wondering why Kiwi was harshing on Lemmie. Ms. Jack would make more sense as his target.

And your suggestion is simply marvelous!

I can provide a bit more context on this.

About a year after l'affaire du Schryver, there was a thread at MADB wherein Pahoran and William kept calling me things like "man-hater" and "feminazi," you know, the kind of things MRA'ers say of women they don't like. I am, of course, rather conservative as feminists go, so the fact that even my pro-life evangelical feminism is enough to elicit such epithets and slurs from them says a lot about their attitude towards women.

Later, on Liz's private forum, Pahoran decided that repeatedly calling me a "man-hater" was a brilliant strategy. I asked him for examples of my loathsome man-hating and the only thing he could pony up was that most of my high-profile conflicts with LDS apologists have been with men (him, Schryver, Dan Peterson, etc.). Because apparently there are binders full of female LDS apologists out there whom I am giving a free pass to on account of their gender, and I've never been critical of Valerie Hudson or Juliann Reynolds or anything like that. (Ironically, I believe this went down on a thread where I had been ever-so-mildly critical of Cassandra Hedelius.)

I can't provide links or exact quotes since I left Liz's forum, but this is all to say, Pahoran (a.k.a. kiwi57) calling women who are critical of LDS apologists "man-haters" and "feminazis" and "arch-feminists" is just par for the course with him. And pretty much a badge of honor for us.

And thank you, I consider it an honor as well to be considered in MsJack's company. I hereby propose the role of Captain Marvel of MD for the venerable MsJack! (Maybe we can coax Cassius U into a showing of the film in her honor at dusk on the Great Lawn...)

You have paid me a great compliment, Lemmie; it is I who consider it an honor to be in your company. I don't often comment on your threads because I take no joy in Dan's ongoing humiliation (it grieves me that he and I could not remain on friendly terms through the years), but I am always amazed by your diligence and attention to detail.

If I am MDB's Captain Marvel, you must be MDB's Wonder Woman!

Incidentally, my book club will be seeing Captain Marvel this Saturday. Chicago-area Cassius faculty, students, and alumni are of course welcome to attend.

https://www.meetup.com/Northwest-Suburb ... 259547176/

[_toon]

I'm no lawyer but it is my understanding that fair use permits people to take part of a copyrighted work, copy, and discuss without permission of the copyright holder.

Infoplease may not like it, but I don't think they can do anything if you quote, cite, and discuss parts of their material, even without permission.

However, it appears that Peterson is copying, pasting, and editing, then claiming he got help from Infoplease. Still over the line IMHO and against the express wishes of Infoplease.

I’m pretty sure fair use and derivative use cannot be limited by putting limitations on or in the work. I have no idea whether any of the seven versions fall within fair use, but posting the original cut and paste without any attribution was certainly dishonest. And going through the gyrations of seven edits to make just enough changes to be arguably kosher rather than simply adding quote marks and a citation is simply childish. He seems much more interested in jousting with critics than being open and honest with his readership.

My understanding is that plagiarism is different than fair use. Fair use is a copyright term, whereas plagiarism is something different. My guess is that if I as a student used something in the public domain that is no longer protected by copyright law and passed it off as my own, I'd still be in trouble with the professor and the school.

Wouldn't it still be plagiarism even if I had permission from the original author to use the work without citations and pass it off as my own? I may not be violating that author's intellectual property rights, but I'd still be behaving dishonestly and fraudulently.

[_Morley]

My understanding is that plagiarism is different than fair use. Fair use is a copyright term, whereas plagiarism is something different. My guess is that if I as a student used something in the public domain that is no longer protected by copyright law and passed it off as my own, I'd still be in trouble with the professor and the school.

Wouldn't it still be plagiarism even if I had permission from the original author to use the work without citations and pass it off as my own? I may not be violating that author's intellectual property rights, but I'd still be behaving dishonestly and fraudulently.

Indeed.

[Guest]

My understanding is that plagiarism is different than fair use. Fair use is a copyright term, whereas plagiarism is something different. My guess is that if I as a student used something in the public domain that is no longer protected by copyright law and passed it off as my own, I'd still be in trouble with the professor and the school.

Wouldn't it still be plagiarism even if I had permission from the original author to use the work without citations and pass it off as my own? I may not be violating that author's intellectual property rights, but I'd still be behaving dishonestly and fraudulently.

That sounds about right, toon. Fair Use normally allows one to directly photocopy, or otherwise reproduce, copyrighted materials, generally in part only, for private use. Such use can include research, comment, parody, etc.

According to https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/

The four factors judges consider in determining Fair Use are:

- the purpose and character of your use
- the nature of the copyrighted work
- the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market.

(If one wished to violate all four criteria in one fell swoop, they might try making unauthorized full color, full size, reproductions of another artist's limited edition prints and selling them.)

Plagiarism, on the other hand, is what DCP does.

Plagiarism in the case above would be signing one's own name to the unauthorized prints and not giving any of the sale proceeds to the original artist.

[_Res Ipsa]

toon, I think that’s a good description of the distinction.