Defining Copyright Infringement
Copyright infringement is simply any infringement up on
the rights of a copyright holder.Copyright law gives a copyright holder
(usually the creator of the work )a set of work that they, and they alone can
exploit it(save for exceptions such as fair use). Those rights include:
·
The right to
reproduce (copy) a work.
·
The right to create
derivative works based upon it.
·
The right to
distribute copies of the work to the public.
·
The right to
publicly display or perform the work.
This means a wide variety of activities can be copyright
infringing including performing a copyrighted play without permission, writing
an unauthorized sequel to a work or simply making copies of the work.
In
short, copyright infringement is a very broad term, rooted in the law, that
covers a wide range of unlawful activities that violate the rights (granted by
the law) to copyright holders.
Defining Plagiarism
But where copyright infringement is a construct of the law, plagiarism is a construct of ethics. Most broadly. Plagiarism is defined as the taking of the original works of the author and presenting as it is of your own. It is similar to the concept of passing of in trademarks.
The definition of “work” can include a variety of things
including ideas, words, images, etc. Anything that is seen as an unethical and
unattributed use of another’s original creation can be defined as plagiarism.
However, the definition of plagiarism is not always
consistent. Different industries, for example, have different standards. A
lawyer, for example, is held to different standards than a poet, which is
different than a speechwriter and different from a musician.
Because of this, as with copyright infringement, many
cases of plagiarism are divisive as to whether or not a violation was
committed.
The
Similarities
On the surface, plagiarism and copyright both have a great deal in
common. Most things that can be plagiarized could be copyrighted. After all,
most plagiarism deals with either creative or academic work and those types of
works, typically, qualify for copyright protection when they are new.
More importantly though, many plagiarisms are copyright
infringements. Plagiarizing a blog post on a new site, copying an encyclopedia
article without attribution for a book report or submitting a photograph
someone else took under your name to a magazine are all examples of both
plagiarism and copyright infringement.
As such, many plagiarisms are actually addressed through
the legal framework provided by copyright law. Plagiarized content posted
online is often removed with takedown notices, commercial plagiarisms, for
example in advertisements, are often dealt with through lawsuits and so forth.
However,
not all plagiarisms are copyright infringements and not all copyright infringements
are plagiarisms. Though there’s a lot of overlap between them, there’s a lot of
areas where they diverge.
The Differences
Plagiarism
shares some elements with copyright infringement. Both situations can involve
the unauthorized use of intellectual property. However, it is possible to
plagiarize without infringing on a copyright. For example, if a student
preparing a report chooses to use a quote from a source and does not properly
cite the original source, he or she is essentially claiming the quote to be his
or her own words. This amounts to stealing the words of another person. While
the quote may be from a work in the public domain and is not subject
to any claims of compensation, plagiarism has still taken place.
There is also a
legal difference between copyright infringement and plagiarism. Federal laws in
many countries protect the interests of citizens who hold copyrights. When
those copyrighted works are used without permission, the owner has legal
recourse to collect damages as well as receive a share of any revenue generated
from the unauthorized use. In some countries, it is possible for the punishment
to include a prison sentence if copyright infringement is proven in a court of
law.
By contrast,
plagiarism is usually more a matter of ethics than of law. The failure to
provide a proper citation for a direct quote will not necessarily carry any
type of legal punishment. However, engaging in plagiarism often leads to censure by
academic institutions and employers. For example, a writer who presents the
work of another writer as his or her own and is caught in the act of plagiarism
is likely to be dismissed from the workplace. Freelance writers who plagiarize
often find that word gets around and it becomes extremely difficult to secure
assignments. While the chances of going to jail for plagiarism are somewhat
limited, the negative impact can have repercussions that will last for years.
Because of fair
use practices in many countries, copyright law can sometimes blur the lines
between copyright infringement and plagiarism. This means that it is possible
to plagiarize and infringe on copyright at the same time. However, plagiarism
that is also copyright infringement is usually not pursued in a court of law
unless some type of economic harm to the owner can be demonstrated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plagiarism_vs_Copyright_Infringement.png
Bottom Line
Though plagiarism and copyright infringement are often spoken of in the same breath, especially by victims of plagiarism who are seeking justice, it’s important to remember that the two are not the same thing.
Another way to think of it is this. While copyright
infringement has one victim, the copyright holder(s), plagiarism has two sets
of victims, the copyright holder(s) and the people who were lied to about the
origin of the work.
The other important way to look at is that plagiarism is
an ethical construct and copyright infringement is a legal one. Though they
have a lot of overlap, they are not the same and can never really be the same.
So while plagiarism may come up in copyright discussions
and vice versa, it’s important to know that the two are different in some very
important ways.
The Law:
The Copyright Act, 1957
which protects originality neither defines plagiarism nor a plagiarist. Knowledge
age is racing ahead with innovations and creation. There is keen competition
all around and
one is aiming at
outwitting the other. In over enthusiasm to excel, people resort to copying
others’ work, publicize the same as their own. To-day literature, art,
dramatics, music, software programmes is plagued with copying. Accordingly,
instances of plagiarism are common. Plagiarism violates copyright law. S 13 of
the Copyright Act,1957 (`Act’)
safeguards:
(a) original literary, dramatic,
musical and artistic works;
(b) cinematographic films; and
(c) sound recording.
The Act plays
a significant role in furthering creation. Under the Act, a plagiarist is charged with
infringement and is punished if found guilty. All works to be registered must
be original.
UNESCO has declared 23rd April declared as the ‘World Book and
Copyright Day’ which coincides with the birthday of William Shakespeare.
Supreme Court in the case, Eastern Book Company
vs. D.B.Modak (2008) 1 SCC 1 decided that there cannot be claim of copyright
once the work is in public domain.
One who copies another author’s
work is commonly called a copycat. Detection of copying is difficult. Whether a
particular work is a copy or not, courts consider the works in question to
conclude on the originality. The ‘De
Minimus Rule’ applies to copyright and it states that a few words even used
in continuity would not be granted copyright.
Concerned
over plagiarism in legal research, Bar Council of India has decided to develop
anti-plagiarism software to detect copycats.The
website www.copyspace.com aids
in detecting plagiarism. Instances of plagiarism in the entertainment industry
is of much concern. One is out to copy from the other and at the end go to
claim it as original to earn credit. Not only in India
George Harrison one of the four Beatles was charged with plagiarism in
respect of release of the album, `My Sweet Lord’ which resembled `He is so
Fine,’ by Cliffon. The US District held Harrison
guilty by stating that he had copied the songs `sub-consciously’. The Court
awarded damages in the case. (Bright Tunes Vs. Harrisongs).In charges of
copyright, it is necessary to demonstrate that the defendant had access to the
plaintiff’s work. Inability to prove such a fact led to the collapse of a case
against the Bee
Gees in the case Selle v.
Gibb.
The legal litmus test has been the centre of many a law
suit. The British case The Balgent &
Leigh vs. Random House on Dan Brown’s book,
Da Vinci Code is an example. authors of ‘Holy Blood Holy Grail’ claimed that
Brown had plagiarized the ‘Central Theme’ of their bookwhether Christ had married Mary
Magdalene. The court ruled that Brown had only borrowed a set of
non-copyrightable ideas to create a new work and Dan Brown was acquitted.
‘Krazy 4’ the bollywood film was charged for including a song which was in
public domain through the television channels. The producer went for an out of
court settlement. Producers are presently the copyright holder of the music of
a film. The Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010 seeks to amend the Act to
give this right to the composers.
No comments:
Post a Comment