Plagiarism & The Modern Curse

[Georgek]

Plagiarism as I understand is the stealing of another person's work.

When I was at uni back in 1997 I more or less became a potential criminal overnight for doing my course work. With mechanical engineering and perhaps many more disciplines, at university level you do not have to be correct as long as you can validate where you get your information for whatever thesis you may be writing about?

From about 1947, copyright laws came into effect and arguments stemmed on what was and what was not legal?

You had to pray to God that the information that you copied was before 1947 but this was 'old hat' in many Mechatronics latter day technological subjects.

This curse I left behind after I had left uni only to find that it was back again when I started forum writing!!!

It means that you cannot use 'YouTube' or any info on the Internet as long as you either contact the author or use his details to show that it is his/hers' work and not yours.

My understanding of this is completely different. If for example you are forum writing, you are not using someone's work for financial profit and that you are not a company. This makes it legal. There is also a term called 'Public Information like public houses that are an invitation for the public. Meaning that you can take pictures and write articles about the place because they are inviting the general public in and therefore not private.

I may be wondering a bit here, but I am just wondering how management view these things here?

On one or two forums I had been told off..which I see as stupid.
Everyone writes and uses YouTube and there are even invitations here to post videos.

Is it simply a case of 'casting a blind eye' unless someone complains???

Or is it similar to parking in England where everyone parks half on the pavement? It is okay.....but do it in a village and you find that you get a ticket and told taht pavements are for pedestrians!

Okay when it suits I suppose, but there will be loads here from the UK who almost have to run for their lives as cyclists use the pavement to ride at speed...afraid to use the roads.

So what is it???

Carry on if we like you...if we do not...then observe the rules...whatever they may point or apply.

 

[EnolaGaia]

I'm not sure what the thrust of your comments / query may be, but here are some comments ...

Any and all contributions from registered members of this forum are the responsibility of the respective posters. The forum doesn't impose an institutional copyright on the forum's content. Our current Terms & Conditions clearly state 'copyright' (or, more properly, any opportunity for copyright) is vested with the poster him- / herself.

If you post something to which you wish to hold copyright privileges, it's your responsibility to annotate your contribution(s) to that effect. Such annotation must accompany each and every item for which you wish to retain the opportunity for copyright.

We (the staff) have discretionary power over all content on this site. Flagrantly wholesale copying of copyrighted material from elsewhere (without attribution) may be edited or deleted at our discretion.

If you wish to cite someone else's story / documentation / etc., the recommended approach is to:

- contextualize / summarize whatever-it-is in your own words by way of introduction;
- excerpt the key point(s) within your posting; and
- provide a link to the source

Blind (uncontextualized; uncommented) posting of videos and other external media items is not encouraged, and any such blind postings that aren't contextualized so as to make sense in a given thread's flow or theme are subject to deletion.

YouiTube videos are something of a special (and pesky) case, insofar as they get self-embedded here just by posting a link to the associated YouTube webpage.

The current incarnation of this forum is operationally based in the United States, and it's therefore subject to US 'fair use' provisions.

 

[Mythopoeika]

The current incarnation of this forum is operationally based in the United States, and it's therefore subject to US 'fair use' provisions.

Gawd bless America!

 

[Georgek]

I'm not sure what the thrust of your comments / query may be, but here are some comments ...

Any and all contributions from registered members of this forum are the responsibility of the respective posters. The forum doesn't impose an institutional copyright on the forum's content. Our current Terms & Conditions clearly state 'copyright' (or, more properly, any opportunity for copyright) is vested with the poster him- / herself.

If you post something to which you wish to hold copyright privileges, it's your responsibility to annotate your contribution(s) to that effect. Such annotation must accompany each and every item for which you wish to retain the opportunity for copyright.

We (the staff) have discretionary power over all content on this site. Flagrantly wholesale copying of copyrighted material from elsewhere (without attribution) may be edited or deleted at our discretion.

If you wish to cite someone else's story / documentation / etc., the recommended approach is to:

- contextualize / summarize whatever-it-is in your own words by way of introduction;
- excerpt the key point(s) within your posting; and
- provide a link to the source

Blind (uncontextualized; uncommented) posting of videos and other external media items is not encouraged, and any such blind postings that aren't contextualized so as to make sense in a given thread's flow or theme are subject to deletion.

YouiTube videos are something of a special (and pesky) case, insofar as they get self-embedded here just by posting a link to the associated YouTube webpage.

The current incarnation of this forum is operationally based in the United States, and it's therefore subject to US 'fair use' provisions.

Thanks EnolaGaia....

A difficult area I find but thanks for putting light on it.

In plain understanding...we are responsible for ourselves and the staff are responsible for the forum. I assume copyright material must say so on the page/site and that pictures that are copyright have distinguished markings indicating such?

Regards

George

 

[Yithian]

Thanks EnolaGaia....

A difficult area I find but thanks for putting light on it.

In plain understanding...we are responsible for ourselves and the staff are responsible for the forum. I assume copyright material must say so on the page/site and that pictures that are copyright have distinguished markings indicating such?

Regards

George

That sounds correct.

You retain copyright over any words and images you publish--if you indicate that fact with such words and images.

The registration agreement grants the forum a right to publish whatever content you submit without infringing on any such claims.

We may remove clear and egregious cases of copyright infringement, but ultimately the responsibility for ensuring that content is fairly posted remains with the posters themselves.

 

[Georgek]

Thanks Yithian,

The only thing that I have issues with is how do we get round the prejudice side of things?

For example I recollect when I visited Jenny Randles, the celebrity astronomer Patrick Moore was 'blowing his top' with her on the telephone.

It referred to a TV program when she used his name to hype up the respectability of UFOs.
By rights she went through the process of quoting his words and rightly gave him the credit for having said that.

I think Patrick Moore's unsolicited comments were in the terms that he did not want his name mentioned with this cr*p and talk of legal action was discussed. Had it been with something else, I am sure he would not have minded?

This imposes a question.......

If let us say that Jenny Randles used his exact term and phrase and just said that this was from a famous astronomer, she would have probably got away with it? To have altered his words and used her own interpretation would have been just as bad without any credence towards making the term 'UFO' respectable.

In other words, she used his reputation as a scientist to validate a none scientific acceptance to get more respect from the public. By saying this is a man who studies the stars and knows!

Had it been the other way and she did not mention his name, he may have been just a annoyed for using his work and NOT including his name towards her report.

It makes me wonder how this generally stands if we quoted a passage from the New York Times newspaper using the Internet and provided our link here?
Do we assume that all newspaper content is copyright and that personal information must be given by direct contact with the editor? Or does the wording 'copyright' have to be on the report?


Moving this down a 'peg or two' ...........a person writes report on a aviation web site and someone correctly links it here....... Supposing the author does not like his name mentioned with the paranormal?

I am also a dowser and used to write reports and experiments on a popular web site. I had always used the name 'divining rods' which most users are conversant with.

This created a right rumpus because I was told to use the words 'angle rods' or 'dowsing rods;

Apparently divinity is a pert towards God and dowsing is considered as the devil's work.

My view was:- "So what?'

Was told that every religious (whatever) would be boycotting the site!

The whole issue becomes preposterous and you are always going to get some 'hot head' who is going to be offended......not in general but because we talk paranormal.

Paranormal media is dangerous and the reason why we get away with using it, is because it is unrecognisable by both law and science (my opinion)

A person with psychic ability can literally damage another person reading a post. Even a picture of a red orb is said to cause sickness.

I have had a situation whereby a person at the other end was hypnotised 4000 miles away. I know that I am drifting a bit away from plagiarism but paranormal forums are different to other forums. They only become similar if you do not believe. Okay...I am talking daft and wondering still further. My friend Dr Armen Victorian performs exorcisms over the Internet and has to have a psychiatrist with the patient at the other end by law.

Reason for it, is because the paranormal is dangerous but we have no warning here or anywhere else. It becomes very similar to entertainment...but it is not.
The real impact on paranormal studies becomes apparent when 'dust flies' Same with Patrick Moore
My house in the country which we are trying to sell is haunted. This has got to be made clear to the purchaser by law.
Oh yer who believes in ghosts, but what if you get someone who had been driven out of the property that you sold them, and then the next one and so on and your lack of conservancy by wording is similar in all respects.

A general note to say that these are just my thoughts and realise that there is no real answer as certain things are specific and discretionary

Regards
George
:joyf:

 

[Yithian]

First, Jenny Randles is a (well-respected) member here. If you wished, you could probably solicit her opinions directly.

https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?members/jayceedove.54468/

I wouldn't ordinarily cite a member's real-life identity, but in this case it has been repeatedly and openly mentioned by that member.

If let us say that Jenny Randles used his exact term and phrase and just said that this was from a famous astronomer, she would have probably got away with it? To have altered his words and used her own interpretation would have been just as bad without any credence towards making the term 'UFO' respectable.

In other words, she used his reputation as a scientist to validate a none scientific acceptance to get more respect from the public. By saying this is a man who studies the stars and knows!

Context is king.

If a person's words are quoted accurately and the context of utterance/writing is fairly described, no grievance on behalf of the subject quoted need concern us. In general, we have few difficulties of this sort and the collective membership is rather good at correcting the trifling number of offenders.

It makes me wonder how this generally stands if we quoted a passage from the New York Times newspaper using the Internet and provided our link here? Do we assume that all newspaper content is copyright and that personal information must be given by direct contact with the editor? Or does the wording 'copyright' have to be on the report?

Copyright need not be asserted within the article itself. There will be a copyright claim on the site that hosts it--especially in the case of large media corporations. The forum now operates under the jurisdiction of U.S. Law and, as EnolaGaia has explained, there are robust provisions allowing us to quote in the interest of criticism and satire (among other things). Permission need not be explicitly sought nor granted.

Moving this down a 'peg or two' ...........a person writes report on a aviation web site and someone correctly links it here....... Supposing the author does not like his name mentioned with the paranormal?

If extracts of material are quoted and the source linked, the views of the author quoted are immaterial.

I am also a dowser and used to write reports and experiments on a popular web site. I had always used the name 'divining rods' which most users are conversant with.

This created a right rumpus because I was told to use the words 'angle rods' or 'dowsing rods;

Apparently divinity is a pert towards God and dowsing is considered as the devil's work.

My view was:- "So what?'

Was told that every religious (whatever) would be boycotting the site!

The only prohibitions on usernames here are:

a) that they not contain expletives, (I'd be flexible here)​

b) that they not very closely resemble existing usernames, (this rarely happens)​

c) that they not lead other members to infer that the user is a member of staff, (has never come up)​

d) that they not be parodies of existing members. (this happened with a sock puppet account, which is banned anyway)​

​

If you can remain within this provisions, anything is fair game. We are not interested in who will be offended.

A person with psychic ability can literally damage another person reading a post. Even a picture of a red orb is said to cause sickness.

I have had a situation whereby a person at the other end was hypnotised 4000 miles away. I know that I am drifting a bit away from plagiarism but paranormal forums are different to other forums. They only become similar if you do not believe. Okay...I am talking daft and wondering still further. My friend Dr Armen Victorian performs exorcisms over the Internet and has to have a psychiatrist with the patient at the other end by law.

Reason for it, is because the paranormal is dangerous but we have no warning here or anywhere else. It becomes very similar to entertainment...but it is not.

Its risky, I know, but I'm going to go out on a limb and take a chance that we'll be fine without the warning.

We do not allow members to solicit or offer medical advice or counselling services here.

 

[Georgek]

First, Jenny Randles is a (well-respected) member here. If you wished, you could probably solicit her opinions directly.

https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?members/jayceedove.54468/

I wouldn't ordinarily cite a member's real-life identity, but in this case it has been repeatedly and openly mentioned by that member.



Context is king.

If a person's words are quoted accurately and the context of utterance/writing is fairly described, no grievance on behalf of the subject quoted need concern us. In general, we have few difficulties of this sort and the collective membership is rather good at correcting the trifling number of offenders.



Copyright need not be asserted within the article itself. There will be a copyright claim on the site that hosts it--especially in the case of large media corporations. The forum now operates under the jurisdiction of U.S. Law and, as EnolaGaia has explained, there are robust provisions allowing us to quote in the interest of criticism and satire (among other things). Permission need not be explicitly sought nor granted.



If extracts of material are quoted and the source linked, the views of the author quoted are immaterial.



The only prohibitions on usernames here are:

a) that they not contain expletives, (I'd be flexible here)​

b) that they not very closely resemble existing usernames, (this rarely happens)​

c) that they not lead other members to infer that the user is a member of staff, (has never come up)​

d) that they not be parodies of existing members. (this happened with a sock puppet account, which is banned anyway)​

​

If you can remain within this provisions, anything is fair game. We are not interested in who will be offended.



Its risky, I know, but I'm going to go out on a limb and take a chance that we'll be fine without the warning.

We do not allow members to solicit or offer medical advice or counselling services here.

Hi ...

This is amazing about Jenny Randles.

"Jenny can you remember when I came to your house in Manchester and we had a conversation about the UFO flap in Nottingham around 1966?? We talked about Peter Jackson and NUFOIS and your telephone rang with Patrick Moore at the other end? You were with a colleague at the time and I remember that you offered me tea and biscuits.

If you are listening tell these guys that I am telling the truth. If you remember I showed you pictures and you said that at that stage I did not have proof. I want these guys here to know that I am honest and pretty normal." I recon this was about twenty five years ago?

Well thanks for your response Yithian...I am sure that this has also been informative to others reading this post.

Regards

George

 

[Jayceedove]

Not sure what this is all about. And obviously I cannot recall details of conversations from many decades ago, sorry.

But I am fairly certain Patrick Moore would not have had my home phone number when I was living in Manchester.

Nor that he ever called me at home in the 1990s (as in 25 years or so ago). I had not lived in Manchester for 20 years by then and was either living in Stockport or Derbyshire in that decade.

It is quite unlikely that Patrick Moore would have called me at home that late. As far as I can recall the only conversations I had with him were in the mid 80s when I lived in Warrington and was making a series of radio documentaries for the BBC. I had called him to ask him to appear on one of them.

But I called him from my desk at the BBC studios in Oxford Road, Manchester. And he quickly changed his mind as he was suspicious that I would raise the question of his alleged involvement in the hoaxing of an early 50s alien contact case (Cedric Allingham). That had not been my intent but he got very uppity and defensive so I let him go.

That would be about 1986. I cannot recall any subsequent reason why I would have talked to him as he did not seem keen to talk UFOs with me at all after that conversation from the BBC offices.

I am not saying it is impossible that a decade later he called me at home in Stockport. But I certainly do not remember him doing so and as far as I know he never had that phone number. Though it is just about possible he was given it by Michael Bentine. I met him several times and, indeed, he was the person I interviewed on my BBC radio documentary about UFOs in the end. Michael was a friend of Patrick's and could have given him my number.

So it is not an absolute no. Just as far as I remember. But it is a long time ago and at my age I might have forgotten.

Sorry.

I do think it is extremely unlikely I would have been citing anything about UFOs by Patrick Moore as evidential on UFOs. As the only real thing I know he was involved with was the Allingham affair and that was not a thing I would be quoting him verbatim over. Especially given how he reacted in the 80s to my request to be on my BBC documentary,

So that part is I think extremely improbable that it happened or I would forget it if it had. I take copyright VERY seriously as a writer and never do that kind of thing. As it has happened to me in reverse when a national newspaper published word for a word an article I wrote in a newsstand magazine (not FT) under the by line and attributed to one of their staff members. I complained. They told me to sue them, which I could not afford to do.

I have diaries for most years and when I get some time I will take a look and see if I can find any mention of your visit. I met a lot of people at my home in Stockport and it is likely the other person was Roy Sandbach as he and I often investigated cases together then. Sadly he is no longer with us so I cannot ask him. But it is possible something is written down that I have long since forgotten.

 

[GNC]

Don't worry about George, Jenny, he was a bit "eccentric" (to put it kindly), but thanks for clearing up another of his fantasies. That's really bad about the national newspaper rip-off, though.

 

[Jayceedove]

The paper went bust soon after. I think they knew it was coming so realised there would be nobody to sue. At least I could always say afterwards I was published by that paper. Not that I ever wanted to admit it!

 

[ramonmercado]

Jason Colavito is annoyed at being plagiarised By the Daily Express (this is from his weekly Email Newsletter, 28/2/2021.

This week, Britain’s Daily Express tabloid published an article by Callum Hoare made up almost entirely of quotations from an old blog post of mine from 2016. The Express not only stole my content but failed to link to the original, presenting my five-year-old material as “new” and making it seem as though I had provided them with the news. This shoddy excuse for journalism was then translated into French and republished yet again under another author’s name.

 

[ChasFink]

As someone who once taught media literacy and related topics, I feel I should point out a distinction between two concepts that are often confused.

Plagiarism is using someone else's work and claiming it as your own. Copyright infringement is reproducing or adapting someone else's copyrighted material without permission (beyond the sometimes gray area of "fair use"). While these sins are often committed together, they are different things.

If you write a scholarly paper and express a number of opinions and conclusions that you got from other writers without specifically referencing those other writers, it's plagiarism. If the ideas were expressed broadly, without including direct copies of the original texts, it's probably not copyright infringement (although it is considered a major sin in the academic world). And it certainly wouldn't be copyright infringement if you had permission or if the copyright had expired.

On the other hand, you could publish an anthology of short stories, acknowledging the author of each of them, but not have permission to do so. This would be serious copyright infringement, but not plagiarism.

 

[escargot]

My friend Dr Armen Victorian performs exorcisms over the Internet and has to have a psychiatrist with the patient at the other end by law.

'ow the 'eck did I miss THAT?

It's like that work colleague who used to tell us he was so good at martial arts his very body was legally classed as an offensive weapon.

 

[Mythopoeika]

It's like that work colleague who used to tell us he was so good at martial arts his very body was legally classed as an offensive weapon.

My body is just offensive, particularly the rear end. Weapons not required!

 

[catseye]

My house in the country which we are trying to sell is haunted. This has got to be made clear to the purchaser by law.

I don't think that's true in this country. I remember the expression on the face of the guy selling me my house when I asked if it was haunted. It was the expression of someone slowly backing away..

 

[Timble2]

'ow the 'eck did I miss THAT?

It's like that work colleague who used to tell us he was so good at martial arts his very body was legally classed as an offensive weapon.

There was a bloke like that where I worked years ago...claimed he was was an expert at kung fu (it was that era). Tried to demonstrate one day by saying to one of the lads (another lab technician) "Trick to kick me in the bollocks and I'll show you how so stop it". About 30 seconds later, he was the only one who wasn't wetting themself laughing.

 

[escargot]

There was a bloke like that where I worked years ago...claimed he was was an expert at kung fu (it was that era). Tried to demonstrate one day by saying to one of the lads (another lab technician) "Trick to kick me in the bollocks and I'll show you how so stop it". About 30 seconds later, he was the only one who wasn't wetting themself laughing.

Techy reckons that was a Houdini job, as in 'Punch me in the gut/kick me in the bollocks - ooof, I didn't mean NOW!'

 

[Nosmo King]

There was a bloke like that where I worked years ago...claimed he was was an expert at kung fu (it was that era). Tried to demonstrate one day by saying to one of the lads (another lab technician) "Trick to kick me in the bollocks and I'll show you how so stop it". About 30 seconds later, he was the only one who wasn't wetting themself laughing.

Reminds me of the scene from 'Love, Honour and Obey' (one of the greatest films ever in my opinion) with 'Fat Alan' here at 0.35 mins

 

[Victory]

@Souleater

It is a film very much forgotten about/looked over.
But its a riot!

Filmed on a budget and with tight deadline, they had fun.