VoyForums Notice -- Quick Contributions:
Donate $10 to the Red Cross: Text the word REDCROSS to 90999
Donate $10 to the Salvation Army: Text the word STORM to 80888
* The charge will appear on your cellphone bill.
Date Posted:14:15:41 10/19/01 Fri Author: Maude Author Host/IP: dhcp-073-171.ellis.ohiou.edu / 132.235.73.171 Subject: Re: which def? In reply to:
Buddy
's message, "which def?" on 13:43:28 10/19/01 Fri
>Who's definition of plagiarism are you using? My
>personal definition of plagiarism is posting ANYTHING
>with out permission of the author.
Hmmm, sounds like fanfiction. Plagiarist! You're taking characters from an author without his or her persmission!
>Seriously, I think INTENT is just a cop out by idiots
>in the Harry Potter fan fiction to get around
>unethical and nasty practice of plagiarism and to make
>themselves feel better about their unscrupulous
>activities.
Nope, intent must be proven to convict someone of plagiarism in a court of law. Most plagiarism is accidental, and therefore only under the discretion of universities who can't punish people by sending them to jail. In addition, these matters are kept confidential.
Fanfiction.net broke this rule by publishing a record of her crimes and not including any proof.
>
>>Who's definition of plagiarism are you using? My
>>personal definition of plagiarism is posting ANYTHING
>>with out permission of the author.
>
>Hmmm, sounds like fanfiction. Plagiarist! You're
>taking characters from an author without his or her
>persmission!
You're assuming that I write fan fiction (you know what they say, when you practice to assume u make an ASS out u and me.), that I don't properly disclaim the ownership of the series that I'm writing, that derivatives are plagiarism and that I'm taking only ideas and words written by characters...
Ooops, sorry. Fan fiction generally disclaims and for the most part uses original ideas for those characters, doesn't steal pages of stories from other words and is, for the most part, legal because derivative works are legal.
Posting some one's essay in its entirety with out permission is a special pet peeve of mine and deals with the ethics of fandom (which your support of a plagiarist and thief indicates you're... well, there I go assuming...)and not legal things. (Though people having done just that have been busted. You can get massively fined for doing that. Whoops, it is illegal.)
>>Seriously, I think INTENT is just a cop out by idiots
>>in the Harry Potter fan fiction to get around
>>unethical and nasty practice of plagiarism and to make
>>themselves feel better about their unscrupulous
>>activities.
>
>Nope, intent must be proven to convict someone of
>plagiarism in a court of law. Most plagiarism is
>accidental, and therefore only under the discretion of
>universities who can't punish people by sending them
>to jail. In addition, these matters are kept
>confidential.
>Fanfiction.net broke this rule by publishing a record
>of her crimes and not including any proof.
FanFiction.Net has to prove nothing. Seriously, private web sites have the right to remove anything from their sites that they chose to. It's their sites and if they saw it as plagiarism, than they can remove it.
They had prove, more than sufficient proof.
Plagiarism is using others' ideas and words without clearly acknowledging
the source of that information.
-- Plagiarism: What It is and How to Recognize and Avoid It
( http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/wts/plagiarism.html )
Plagiarism occurs when the student submitting a paper for a course:
1. Does not properly attribute words or ideas to a source. That is,
even if you're not quoting directly from a book you've read on "Macbeth" - a
book that's helped you formulate ideas for your paper - you should
nevertheless footnote that book at the point in the text where that other
author's ideas helped shape your own essay.
…
2. Quotes from another author's writing without citing that author's work.
This, of course, includes failing to cite material you take from the World
Wide Web, as well as copying material from library books or your peer's
papers.
3. Cites, with quotation marks, portions of another author's work, but
uses more of that work without quotation marks and without attribution.
-- University of Michigan, Department of English, Plagiarism
( http://www.lsa.umich.edu/english/undergraduate/plag.htm )
What is plagiarism? In minor cases, it can be the quotation of a
sentence or two, without quotation marks and without a citation (e.g.,
footnote) to the true author. In the most serious cases, a significant fraction
of the entire work was written by someone else: the plagiarist removed the
true author(s) names(s) and substituted the plagiarist's name, perhaps did
some re-formatting of the text, then submitted the work for credit in a class
(e.g., term paper or essay)
-- Plagiarism in Colleges in USA
( http://www.rbs2.com/plag.htm#anchor111111 )
B. Plagiarism: using the ideas, data, or language of another without
specific or proper acknowledgment. Example: copying another person’s
paper, article, or computer work and submitting it for an assignment,
cloning someone else’s ideas without attribution, failing to use quotation
marks where appropriate, etc.
-- University of Pennyslvania, University Honor Council, Code of
Academic Honesty
( http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~honor/ai_code.htm )
Examining those definitions and the policies of those definitions, Cassie was a plagiarist and in the academic world (unless you can find some links to information regarding professional publication's policies of dealing with plagiarists) that means you can be expelled from the university your attending.
So following that line, they acted in perfect accordance with established guidelines for dealing with plagiarists.
But really chica, find other sources...
Harry Potter fans conviently use intent because they don't want to look up the definition of plagiarism...
Oh and to clarify one misconception you have, legally, there are no laws against plagiarism. The laws are against copyright infringement and intent doesn't need to be proven there either. (Uneducated morons, that's what Harry Potter fans are. You sit there shooting off your mouth spouting fact with out bothering to look it up.) Fines, etc. come into play with loss of money from the infringement.
>>
>>>Who's definition of plagiarism are you using? My
>>>personal definition of plagiarism is posting ANYTHING
>>>with out permission of the author.
>>
>>Hmmm, sounds like fanfiction. Plagiarist! You're
>>taking characters from an author without his or her
>>persmission!
>
>You're assuming that I write fan fiction (you know
>what they say, when you practice to assume u make an
>ASS out u and me.), that I don't properly disclaim the
>ownership of the series that I'm writing, that
>derivatives are plagiarism and that I'm taking only
>ideas and words written by characters...
>
>Ooops, sorry. Fan fiction generally disclaims and for
>the most part uses original ideas for those
>characters, doesn't steal pages of stories from other
>words and is, for the most part, legal because
>derivative works are legal.
>
>Posting some one's essay in its entirety with out
>permission is a special pet peeve of mine and deals
>with the ethics of fandom (which your support of a
>plagiarist and thief indicates you're... well, there I
>go assuming...)and not legal things. (Though people
>having done just that have been busted. You can get
>massively fined for doing that. Whoops, it is
>illegal.)
>>>Seriously, I think INTENT is just a cop out by idiots
>>>in the Harry Potter fan fiction to get around
>>>unethical and nasty practice of plagiarism and to
>make
>>>themselves feel better about their unscrupulous
>>>activities.
>>
>>Nope, intent must be proven to convict someone of
>>plagiarism in a court of law. Most plagiarism is
>>accidental, and therefore only under the discretion of
>>universities who can't punish people by sending them
>>to jail. In addition, these matters are kept
>>confidential.
>
>>Fanfiction.net broke this rule by publishing a record
>>of her crimes and not including any proof.
>
>FanFiction.Net has to prove nothing. Seriously,
>private web sites have the right to remove anything
>from their sites that they chose to. It's their sites
>and if they saw it as plagiarism, than they can remove
>it.
>
>They had prove, more than sufficient proof.
>
>Plagiarism is using others' ideas and words without
>clearly acknowledging
>the source of that information.
> -- Plagiarism: What It is and How to Recognize and
>Avoid It
>( http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/wts/plagiarism.html )
>
>
>
>Plagiarism occurs when the student submitting a paper
>for a course:
>1. Does not properly attribute words or ideas to a
>source. That is,
> even if you're not quoting directly from a book
>you've read on "Macbeth" - a
> book that's helped you formulate ideas for your paper
>- you should
>nevertheless footnote that book at the point in the
>text where that other
>author's ideas helped shape your own essay.
>…
>2. Quotes from another author's writing without citing
>that author's work.
>This, of course, includes failing to cite material you
>take from the World
>Wide Web, as well as copying material from library
>books or your peer's
>papers.
>3. Cites, with quotation marks, portions of another
>author's work, but
>uses more of that work without quotation marks and
>without attribution.
> -- University of Michigan, Department of English,
>Plagiarism
>(
>http://www.lsa.umich.edu/english/undergraduate/plag.htm
> )
>
>
>What is plagiarism? In minor cases, it can be the
>quotation of a
>sentence or two, without quotation marks and without a
>citation (e.g.,
>footnote) to the true author. In the most serious
>cases, a significant fraction
>of the entire work was written by someone else: the
>plagiarist removed the
>true author(s) names(s) and substituted the
>plagiarist's name, perhaps did
>some re-formatting of the text, then submitted the
>work for credit in a class
>(e.g., term paper or essay)
> -- Plagiarism in Colleges in USA
> ( http://www.rbs2.com/plag.htm#anchor111111 )
>
>
>B. Plagiarism: using the ideas, data, or language of
>another without
>specific or proper acknowledgment. Example: copying
>another person’s
>paper, article, or computer work and submitting it for
>an assignment,
>cloning someone else’s ideas without attribution,
>failing to use quotation
>marks where appropriate, etc.
> -- University of Pennyslvania, University Honor
>Council, Code of
> Academic Honesty
> ( http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~honor/ai_code.htm )
>
>Examining those definitions and the policies of those
>definitions, Cassie was a plagiarist and in the
>academic world (unless you can find some links to
>information regarding professional publication's
>policies of dealing with plagiarists) that means you
>can be expelled from the university your attending.
>
>So following that line, they acted in perfect
>accordance with established guidelines for dealing
>with plagiarists.
>
>But really chica, find other sources...
>
>Harry Potter fans conviently use intent because they
>don't want to look up the definition of plagiarism...
>
>Oh and to clarify one misconception you have, legally,
>there are no laws against plagiarism. The laws are
>against copyright infringement and intent doesn't need
>to be proven there either. (Uneducated morons, that's
>what Harry Potter fans are. You sit there shooting
>off your mouth spouting fact with out bothering to
>look it up.) Fines, etc. come into play with loss of
>money from the infringement.
Just to set the record straight - I am a member of the Harry Potter fanfiction community and I just need to say that not ALL of us adore Cassandra Claire and her sycophantic followers. In fact there are quite a few of us that not only revile her past actions, but also take exception to her present behavior. It seems that she is no longer content with lifting others words (which, yes - she still is doing)but goes out of her way to target people in the community that don't agree with her interpretations of the books. She is unrelenting in her zeal to mock, flame and criticize others whether they have sought out her opinions and haunts or not.
There are plenty of us in the Harry Potter fanfiction world that ARE aware of the definition of plagiarism and are very happy that Cassandra Claire was exposed and banished at ff.net.
Thank you for the chance to at least make that minor point. Just pity us for having to put up with the arrogance and smug self-promotion that IS Cassandra Claire and her clueless minions.
[> [> [> [> [>
Derivative works are legal? -- Murata, 05:14:54 05/04/02 Sat(A010-0319.HAWI.splitrock.net/209.253.247.65)
>Ooops, sorry. Fan fiction generally disclaims and for
>the most part uses original ideas for those
>characters, doesn't steal pages of stories from other
>words and is, for the most part, legal because
>derivative works are legal.
They are? I've been poring over various internet messages on this subject, written by lawyers, fan fiction writers, editors and others, and most seemed to agree that derivative works were NOT legal. It's transformative works (e.g. satire) that are legal. Most also agreed that the majority of fan fiction stories wouldn't likely fall into the latter category.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Derivative works are legal? -- Lurker, 08:15:00 05/30/02 Thu(humbug-3.soho.enteract.com/207.229.163.235)
>They are? I've been poring over various internet
>messages on this subject, written by lawyers, fan
>fiction writers, editors and others, and most seemed
>to agree that derivative works were NOT legal. It's
>transformative works (e.g. satire) that are legal.
>Most also agreed that the majority of fan fiction
>stories wouldn't likely fall into the latter category.
But the further question is what falls into the category of derivative works. In the US, written law is defined by case law, and that's what is important in this case.
Although the Supreme Court has not considered fan fiction, it has considered other forms of derivative works. Unfortunately, I investigated this a while back and no longer have access to Lexis-Nexus so I don't have case names/numbers.
Whether something is a derivative work is considered on a scale of creativity and originality. How much work is original, and how much is inherited? The case that stuck in my mind was a quiz/quote book based on Seinfield. Although the book was almost completely inherited work, several lower courts ruled it not derivative, while the Supreme Court, in the end, ruled it derivative.
I think that the fact that there was a question over the above (to my mind, absolutely derivative) work is what protects fan fiction. Most fan fiction tends towards the side of originality--although we use characters from another work, the words, thoughts and situations are normally of our own device. The more out-of-character we take them, the more true that is (since the characters are not even behaving as the "inherited" characters.) Strangely enough, non-canon slash may have greater protection than canon het.
It was once explained to me by a professional graphic designer that a certain number of major changes to a graphical work takes it out of derivative status. Reinterpreting the meaning of the work may do so as well. I don't know if this was just her understanding of something "known" but not laid forth in case law, or a reference to specific case law, but it brings up interesting questions in relation to fan fiction. In her explanation to me, she used a pub photo which she ran through some PhotoShop filters and played with a bit. The pub photo was identifiable as the source of the finished product, but she claimed that she felt it was safe to use her creation (without worries of copyright infringment) and that these were the standards she had been taught to abide by.
The question is, what can be considered major changes when taking something from the screen to written work (and also, from written work to written work.) And I think that's the paradox that some of these copyright holders are facing. The stuff they'd like to "get off the streets"--the slash, the BDSM--in its reinterpretation of the characters and their relationships, may be the most able to withstand a challenge.
The question is whether that challenge will ever come. A couple of years ago, I would have said probably not. But with the change in the copyright environment over the past two years and the attempts of the media monsters to legally eliminate all types of fair use, now I said possibly. There is a disturbing trend in the US right now--the media monsters believe that *all* forms of entertainment need to come through them and be strictly controlled (and paid for)on a use-to-use basis. They are using the "nightmare" of digital piracy to push overreaching laws that are designed to eliminate fair use. A couple of years back I was looking forward to e-books, to the ability to load up a bunch of books on a little device and take it around with me. But since e-books are a digital format, they are already governed by a different set of laws than paper books. I can't make a copy of a page from a e-book reference without breaking the DMCA (legal under fair use with the paper copy). If e-books are the future, they may destroy libraries and probably will destroy the used book marketplace. Think of having to pay a fee every time you want to read a particular book! That is the future the publishing industry wants, and their representatives have come out and admitted it (it was at a conference about a year or so back; the Chicago Trib covered the conference, and CNN might have as well.)
Fan fiction is threatening simply because it is a form of entertainment outside their control. It is a form of entertainment that will not confine itself to the new limitations they want to put in place. And that, more than copyright infringement, is the problem.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Derivative works are legal? -- Murata, 03:57:33 12/11/02 Wed(dialup-67.30.171.35.Dial1.Honolulu1.Level3.net/67.30.171.35)
>But the further question is what falls into the
>category of derivative works. In the US, written law
>is defined by case law, and that's what is important
>in this case.
(snip well-presented points)
I don't necessarily disagree with your admittedly intelligent argument. Just quibbling over terms.
>Nope, intent must be proven to convict someone of
>plagiarism in a court of law.
Plagiarism is not a criminal offense. Should you get hauled into court, it would be for copyright infringement.
> Most plagiarism is
>accidental, and therefore only under the discretion of
>universities who can't punish people by sending them
>to jail. In addition, these matters are kept
>confidential.
Hah.
Within the past 3 years, the Boston Globe fired one high-profile columnist and suspended a second for failure to cite sources. Both men claimed that they hadn't *meant* to copy anyone else's work. Their employers did not find that a compelling argument. Further, far from being confidential, the stories about the disciplinary action were front-page news for several days.
Re: prove it -- Susan, 18:19:38 12/02/01 Sun (NoHost/65.42.48.50)