Author:
Taxonomy upgrade extras:
Plagiarism and Copyright
As an author, one thing I would hate, and so would probably everyone else who writes on here, is someone copying your work. Indeed, I remember before there was a discussion regarding this June 2008.
However, one thing that I've noticed recently is that some people don't seem to think this applies to images. Some people have been good and if they use something under "fair use" they do then acknowledge the copyright owner. Heck, I am aware of one author who went as far as licencing the images they used.
Some people though don't appear to even be abiding by the "fair use" rule, and using complete pictures from other people's websites. Like people on this site spend a lot of time writing stories, some people have spent a lot of time creating images. I personally feel it is double standards to get upset if someone copies somebody elses writing, but then copy other person's imagery work. And to top it all off, even if they thought it was covered under "fair use", there is no acknowledgement of the image owner.
Comments
Credit
You might want to leave a comment or a PM to the people you are speaking of. Whenever I find a pic I look for the original artist and make a note somewhere in the body... like I did with "Transpires". But more often than not the pics are found on generic sites, forums, etc. that don't list who the owner is other than "Look at this cool pic I found!"
What is your suggest in those instances? Maybe a link to the pic where it was found?
But thanks for bringing this up because I didn't mention anything about the image I used for Poseidon Adventure. I do know where that came from. Off to Ninja Edit!
http://lilithlangtree.tglibrary.com/
~Lili
Write the story that you most desperately want to read.
re: Credit
It was deliberate that I didn't mention names. I'm not an admin, but a writer. It is Erin's site and she is responsible for the content. I am merely pointing out what I personally thought was wrong. Hopefully anybody who is using none referenced or "stolen" images will realise theft or plagiarism can impact their own works and will remove the offending items themselves.
Regarding pics that someone has just found, it doesn't mean that those pictures are not copyright. If someone copied my story and put it up on a website, and somebody else then found it and said they found this cool story, it is still stealing my work. Images are harder to trace, but isn't it still the same thing?
As for giving the source url, that doesn't sound a bad idea. At least it is a way of identifying where you got it from, and showing it isn't your work. Just as someone writing an essay etc, would reference the source for their material. It stops accusations of plagiarism, but doesn't remove the potential of breaking copyright.
Free images
I generally use images from sites that are identified as being free for use without license. Either that or I alter the image by drawing over it and I try to leave a note somewhere about where I got it and such. A few of the images I have used have been licensed, some sites a license only costs a dollar or so.
But I can't police this. People who post are on their honor to respect the rights of others and I will not take action to remove images that are otherwise appropriate unless I receive a complaint from the owner or license-holder. I know this is sloppy netiquette but it is the way things work on the net today. Tomorrow may be a different story.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Clarification
Karen, It doesn't take but a few seconds to click the PM button and write, "You might want to credit the pic. I'm sure the owner would appreciated it." Or "You forgot to credit the pic." or something equally as benign. It's much nicer than labeling someone or a number of someones an unknowing or unaware "Plagiarist."
I've forgotten before. I used to write tons of fan fic and innocently forgotten to add the disclaimer to it until someone pointed it out.
Sometimes people don't think it through.
Oh, and this isn't an attack on you. I'm not saying you are pointing the finger and screaming "PLAGIARIST!" I know you aren't, but it's a little over the top for a general warning.
Lili
http://lilithlangtree.tglibrary.com/
~Lili
Write the story that you most desperately want to read.
To what extent
The idea of listing sources references i.e. MLA style to a web site for example only makes sense if you know what the primary source is. But this is the internet, in all likelihood the page your looking at is not the primary source, or even the secondary. Making meaningful accreditation impossible.
This is simple a case where the concept of copyright has reached a technological barrier, ownership of images are simple irreversible lost the moment it joins the information highway. So in a lot of ways if you uploading content to the net, and you don't at least place a water mark signature with your name and website you are implicitly placing your content within the public domain.
Feels like... but isn't
It may seem that way, but legally that's false. Unless there is a verbal or written release in place (for example, such as the ones in the legal agreement you must make when you post images to facebook), it is a violation of copyright law to use an image without referencing the source as appropriate in fair use conditions. The only thing you do by leaving out a watermark is make it more difficult for other people to know when someone has stolen your property. People get away with it because most of the time it just isn't cost effective to pursue it legally, since most of the burden is on the original artist until such time as a civil case is won in their favor (at which time court costs and so on could be included in reparations). But that doesn't make it legal... or more importantly, right.
not making an argument for the letter of the law ,
Not making an argument for the letter of the law. My argument is more about pointing out how it simple not possible to fallow through on crediting a primary source for an images on the Internet, unless the information has been encoded into the image pointing to the primary source.
The moment you throw something on the net with no identification markers pointing to the primary source it becomes impossible to really find out who created it and give credit. that information simple doesn't propagate. And for the most part this is what happens to good chunk of image content on the web. So you have really two options to simple not use an unsourced material. Or to assume the author of the work knew the moment they uploaded there content unsigned, that the content would be in essence public domain.
Graphic content...
The US government has truckloads of free graphics lying about, including Ansel Adams photographs and thousands of (mostly black and white) images of people and places done through the WPA (Works Progress Administration) during the Great Depression. There's a lot of modern NASA stuff as well, Park Service scenic photos, and goobs of other things. Almost every government agency produces photos, and if it's done by Federal employee, it's usually placed in the public domain automatically.
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Damages...
Unless your images are copyrighted, you can't recover anything other then monetary damages, so if you're not paid for your work, you get nothing.
If you copyright your images, you can receive "statutory damages" (essentially a fine) in addition to monetary damages, even if there are no actual damages.
You can bundle up your images and submit them as a collection, all for the same fee, every quarter.
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
This is being dabated
... here. But on a wider perspective. Some may find it iteresting though; I did. Really the current laws were written for a different reality and need to be changed, but creators do need some sort of protection, not just monetary, but for their vision. If I were a visual artist I'd hate for my works to be distributed in poor quality, much more than I'd hate my actual words to be copied (even if I were a great (or profitable) writer.) That is as wide a straddle as I am capable of.
The Economist is a great site too, btw, for everyone who has to live in this word, or at least in the industrialized part of it. It's not nearly as much fun as BCTS though.
Joy, Jan.
Save yourself potential hassle
You can go to flickr and search for pictures using the advanced search. Got to the bottom of the advanced search screen and check on the appropriate buttons in the Creative Commons License area to refine your search to pictures you can safely use and modify.
Aardvark
"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."
Mahatma Gandhi
"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."
Mahatma Gandhi
There are several other sites with similar offerings
It's not that hard to be respectful.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
If you didn't create it, credit it!
The simple fact remains that if you didn't create something and you put your name on it, you're not being very nice; that's the concept we're talking about & we're not the only ones - it's literally a huge problem from Harvard to the neighborhood classroom. Intellectual property theft is still 'theft', even if we dress it up with the fancy label of 'plagiarism'. The more traditional laws, as someone in this thread mentioned above, haven't caught up with the realities & vagaries of the evolving cyber 'verse and they probably never will, since they are targets moving at hyper speed.
Being on our honor, we can use the MLA or APA or whatever format each of us prefers or are most familiar with as the basis for the documentation of sources, but everyone really should - needs in some way to - inform their audience about what the sources of the ideas are if the ideas/concepts aren't their own. If the origin of the image, article/story, etc. being referenced is unclear, saying so is not a sin; not mentioning where you found it & that it's not your own creation is in many cases, literally, a crime.
Besides, I do like reading a quick comment about the source of an idea or image; so very little of what we do is 100% original that providing the necessary information so that the audience can follow the line of derivation, our influences, is a nice pedigree that provides the author/artist with a nice legal foundation of credibility & provides a basis for further inventive collaboration among honest, supportive peers who do not fear their ideas will be stolen.
YW
He conquers who endures. ~ Persius