Thursday, January 31, 2008

Add Comments on Plagiarism Article (see BB)

How are definitions of plagiarism changing in a digital world--or are they? Comments here.
Posted by at

2 comments:

keineahnung said...

The definition of plagiarism has always, to me, been a very broad one. Has it changed in lieu of digital media? I think, yes, but how?
I think the idea of plagiarism itself has been broadened by the use of the internet for ideas and references. An idea for a new web-page could come from looking at another page, but would that be plagiarism? Using the same pictures as another site could have legal affects much like copying a paper for a class.
Musical artists might come up with a new song that they will never record and still post it on their site, but if a fan listens to that piece of music and decides to use some it in their own song, they have plagiarized. Before the display of ideas and art through digital media, the fan may have come up with the same tune on their own, and legal action may not have been taken. How could they have stolen it when it couldn't be heard? Now it can, so they must have taken the idea from the original artist.
Even though the idea of plagiarism has been broadened by the use of digital media, it has also taken a new route. With the use of modern technology, one could take a picture and instead of copy it exactly, use technology to make it one's own. How is this defined under plagiarism? Is it?
The article "The Ecstasy of Influence" shows how pretty much every great work there is has been tweaked to suit the artist's style Every idea came from somewhere else. Many great works may have been plagiarized or even created through the practice itself. Digital media is no different. There are multiple sites that build off of the same idea, but how many use the same pictures, colors, or words to associate themselves with another site?

February 6, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Lilly Bridwell-Bowles said...

The next chapter in Jenkins on Ptotoshop describes the place where I can literally see much plagiarisim-taking pictures and illustrations and using them without credit is rampant. Taking them and changing them into a "new" work is also rampant. The laws are unclear on this. Textual plagiarism is also rampant. My solution to this is "when in doubt, cite!" I live in a collaborative intellectual world, but I try to give credit to the people I know have consciously influenced my thinking. Often, my thinking has been influenced by so many others that I don't. That's the gray zone I worry about for myself, but so far, peer reviewers for publications have been helpful in pointing out oversights. I don't think there's much "unconscious" plagiarism of this sort, but quite a bit of the deliberate, which is still an offense in American higher education. My advice: Err on the side of caution and give credit. Follow fair use practices. Read the info on "Creative Commons." I like their approach. Dr. L

February 7, 2008 at 7:31 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)